Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: If Socialism Would Work

Posted 2 years ago on July 17, 2012, 7:40 a.m. EST by Barack (-379)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why does Socialism have to be forced upon those who must live under it?

445 Comments

445 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by beautifulworld (21421) 2 years ago

I don't recall ever deciding to live under capitalism. It was forced on me due to my birthplace, to be honest. You assume that everyone who lives within a capitalist system is happy about it. Ask the one-half of Americans who earn less than $26,000 per year if they're real excited about our economic system. Ask the 1 in 7 on food stamps, the 49 million who have no healthcare, the 22% of our children who live in poverty. The college students going into debt to get a basic education. Hey, you guys happy to live in this capitalist economic system?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

and that's how you win a debate. Great comment!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21421) 2 years ago

Thanks!

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

You know, someone here has got to say it 'bw' ... but your clearly 'Heart<3Centred' comments are continuously 'a breath of fresh air', 'a shot in the arm' & a meditation on 'Love' actually, imo !

"Love ; Love is a verb ; Love is a 'doing word' ... Fearless on your .. breath . "

Thanx for all that you do and all that you bring to this forum ..~*~.. (& sorry 'TM' for butting in ;-)

amor vincit omnia ...

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21421) 2 years ago

Thanks, Shadz. This thread ended up backfiring on barack. It shows how united we all are and how many excellent people are here on this forum, including you, fighting to make this country and world a better place.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Thanx again for your gracious reply and your all round humanity, grace and compassionate spirit ~*~

The sooner we, 'The 99%' realise that 'United' we are not only stronger but probably 'unstoppable' - whereas 'Divided', we're .... well, I'll spare you my indelicate Anglo-Saxon agricultural references - no matter how appropriate I may consider them to be, lol !

For some further insight as to what we are capable of ; the reasons we have to mobilise and why we "have to wake up and fight for it. Take off the blinders, see reality for what it is, and fight back" - please consider :

amor et lux ; nunc et semper ...

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

the problem with socialism is that everyone would be making $26,000...instead of just half.

College debt isn't from capitalism...government has actively caused overinvestment in education (through government backed student loans and other incentives) which causes college tuition prices to skyrocket. Very similar to the housing bubble...or medical costs.

[-] 1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

How about wikilism? We manage our government as Wikipedia does, there is no rank in our society.

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

The trouble is, the people who are not happy with capitalism .. seem to have no power to change anything ie= Equal pay, profit caps etc.

so they remain in their daily perpetual struggles. waiting for those up above to show a little mercy .. it may happen ..one day ..

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21421) 2 years ago

They have to wake up and fight for it. Take of the blinders, see reality for what it is, and fight back.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

"Occupy Movement Exposes Uncomfortable Facts", by Ross T. Runfola ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30354.htm .

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21421) 2 years ago

Very nice little article. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

On it's own?

No.

After the 2nd coming - but that won't be a choice either.

We either make it happen or we wait for the 2nd coming.

If you are a believer of course.

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

I wasn't thinking ..that high up above !!?

I was thinking the 'gods' down here .. the ones with all the wealth and power .. will they one day show mercy on us ..'poor and powerless'..

"Will they wield the sword to our salvation" - I forget who wrote this ..Sinclair?

Of course the answer is - no .. ..in fact the hope that someday they will, is a four letter word; H-O-P-E

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

It's pretty obvious the Gods down here only worship money. It's up to us to knock off their pedestals these false prophets of profits.

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

prophets of profits .. comes down to which prophet makes the most profits.. because when you add up all the prophets profits no one else has any profits except the prophets ..it's been prophecied in the prophecy.. there will be false prophets with false profits ..seems it has come to pass ..the prophecy of false prophets with profits ..heed, when false prophets seek profits of man

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

LOL

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 2 years ago

Hoping for others to show mercy does not cut it. Life-changing events tend to be initiated on one's own cognizance. Figuratively speaking, after one has come to the edge of the precipice and decided to jump, most often one discovers the ability to soar. Even if one flops, there is always the last thought that one has done one's best and no one else could have really bettered that. Nobody gets out of their life alive - what more can one ask for than having done one's best?

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

Read a little further down , as we discuss the fate of slaves .. their freedom was not due to their own cognizance. .. Their freedom came from the hand from above.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 2 years ago

Slaves are actually more bothersome than the more respectable wage "earners" and salaried "supervisors" because one has to house the slaves, feed and mate them, provide old-age and medical care for them, etc.

Furthermore, the "self-employed" and the "being-in-business-for-themselves" folks are even better than the wage "earners" and salaried "supervisors" because a corporation does not need to pay its share of the payroll taxes (half of FICA and Medicare), no need to provide medical care, disability insurance, time and a half OT pay and pensions for them, etc. It sounds awfully good that corporations will "free" even more people in the future and encourage "new business formations" by employing "independent contractors and consultants." Fight for freedom and independence for all! New small businesses are the future of America!

Large prison populations also provide below-labor-law-rates workers and the government even pays the operators for detaining these populations. The U.S. learns well from some other countries (Nazi Germany being one of them).

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I think another compound word would fit the scenario better.

NOCHANCEINHELL or DELUSIONALDREAM

{:-])

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

Has there ever been a time in history .. where this may have occured..? where the greedy at the top .. one day stood up and said ..," wait a minute everyone, this aint fair!"

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Not that I am aware of - but there are some places in existence today that are pretty admirable. Look to the Norse country's for some examples. Also the current Germany is doing fairly well for it's people. Japan is pretty good to it's people as well.

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

Hey ! wait a minute ... what about slavery ! they did not free them selves .. someone up above had to set them free .. right? .. so maybe there is ..HOPE :-{ .. a small glimmer .. after three hundred years .. some one finally said .. okay that's enough .. slavery is abolished .. surely the slaves never dreamed it would happen .. or did they cling to HOPE ? sooooooo if they could abolish slavery .. maybe ..just maybe .. poverty too will be abolished .. one day .. huh ?

or did mankind slip up when they abolished ..slavery .. a moment of kind heartedness .. a lesson that shall never be repeated ..??

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well that thing about slavery? It really has not been done away with yet. Lincoln and many northern people at the time thought it a great idea - and it was what finally got the northern population to support a war against secession of the south - but the practice of slavery was never stopped. It continued under another name and program ( see slavery by another name a PBS special documentary ) and now today this program is expanding through the prison system. But it is not referred to as slavery. There is also a more limited type of slavery which has more freedoms = wage slavery.

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

ah c,mon .. slavery was abolished after the civil war .. face it .. there is a soft spot in mans heart ..

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Slavery was an economic system with which the northern industrialized states could not compete. It was convenient that there were people who felt slavery was a good enough reason to have a Civil War, but if it had not been for economics, it would not have happened. Slaves were provided a place to live and food in exchange for their work, much the way lower income people are today, but it's now called freedom because it involves a salary and taxes and expenses to be met.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Slaves were provided a place to live and food in exchange for their work, much the way lower income people are today, but it's now called freedom because it involves a salary and taxes and expenses to be met.

Good thing the beatings stopped... but if things keep on going where they are headed I'm sure that the beatings will start again. Slavery was outlawed in England in 1833. It's an embarrassment that slavery took so long to be outlawed here in the US. The Jim Crow south extended slavery for another 100 years.

I don't think anyone here today would have been happy living the life of a slave in during the 19th century...our poor today are much better off.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

How's that for damning with faint praise? The working poor are much better off than black slaves were before the Civil War.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The working poor can vote, and move where they wish- without being hunted down and returned, beaten, strung up and left hanging in the sun until nothing but bones are left.... as an example to any others who might want to try and escape in the future.

They can keep their families intact and name their children anyway they desire- not after the names of their masters, their children won't be sold off to the highest bidder, families can remain together. They don't have to worry about the masters coming round and raping their children in the night or wives.... but then again slaves weren't permitted to get married.

Any time you want to trade places with slaves because you think its a better life go right ahead.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Exactly; damning with faint praise. Our lowest class citizens are treated better than plantation owners treated slaves; what more could anyone want in a mere 100 years or so of growth.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Perhaps you don't understand the phrase "damning with faint praise." It means that if that's the best we can do, it's not very good for 100 plus years of growth.

Maybe that's it, that phrase is meaningless to me, because it applies to everything.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Unless you're the person at the bottom of the heap.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

First you state:

The working poor are much better off than black slaves were before the Civil War.

Then you state:

Our lowest class citizens are treated better than plantation owners treated slaves;

Either way you come to the same conclusion:

Exactly; damning with faint praise.

Can't have it both ways, and frankly you've convinced me you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Perhaps you don't understand the phrase "damning with faint praise." It means that if that's the best we can do, it's not very good for 100 plus years of growth.

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

That is untrue.. when comparing the North to the South .. the North was much further advanced .. and spiritually happier.. as for the South there was nigh to be a smile found.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Did you ever watch that documentary? Here it is. I have studied the Civil War and there were more reasons then slavery as to why it was fought and slavery was used to unite the public to fight the war.

Slavery by another name:

http://video.pbs.org/video/2176766758


[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1671) 1 hour ago

You need to look over your notes .. friend.

If Slavery was such a great business strategy .. why didn't the North adopt Slavery into their fold? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

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

Yep, the video is unavailable.. but I watched a joining video.. the bricks we stand on .. I found the discussion very nice ..

For what it's worth, " I am gald slavery was abolished, And I am thankful/ grateful to all the people whom brought about the end of slavery .. even if it was just a murmer of good consciousness .. or a word spoken against slavery .. it was a brave step that led to the end of slavery .. I think this is something the American people can be proud of .. it is in the American 'cloth' to stand up for what is right.' a very honorable people , the American peiople. .. and may I also say .. the problems we face in the future , I know the American people will again stand up for what is right.. I rest my faith in this .. as does many of the world.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is what I work for - to wake up - that same spirit of humanity that fought for the end of slavery - that same spirit of humanity which can end the ill's of this country and work towards ending the same ill's in the rest of the world.

Seriously though - that link I attached didn't take you directly to the documentary? I access the link and it does. Weird.

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

The PBS video was unavailable..

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Slavery by another name:

http://video.pbs.org/video/2176766758

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

find me something that says MLK had publicly thanked all the people who brought about the abolishment of slavery .. and if not MLK than someone .. anyone..with ancestry rooted in slavery..that expressed thanks .. Christ there should be a monument for this .. a HUGE huge monument .. after 300 years in chains .. to be set free .. I would be kissing the ground ..

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

..So .. no one acknowledged what so many people did to sacrifice freedom for the slaves .. there has never been a thank you .. by MLK or anyone .. has there .. ?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

There are many area memorials but I would have to do some research to find them.

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

Is there anywhere a constructed monument.. thanking all those who helped in the abolishment of slavery..?

Did MLK ever say thanks .. ?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

There is a MLK memorial in Washington.

So did you or did you not watch the video/documentary?

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

Was there anyone down South against slavery .. they were huge bible thumpers ..down South.. were they against slavery?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

There were some good people down south - there are still some good people down south. Back in the day some of those good people helped with the underground railroad.

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

how was slavery used to unite the public?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

BTW - ever hear of the underground railroad?

The Underground Railroad - National Geographic Education education.nationalgeographic.com/.../the-underground-railroad/?ar_a... You are a slave in Maryland in the 1800s. Can you escape? Learn what challenges slaves faced in National Geographic's Underground Railroad adventure.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Through the public's outrage that people were being used as slaves - Some bible thumping some speeches - people were more devout back then.

The North invoked Gods name to say that the practice of slavery was wrong and must be stopped. Another crusade.

Did you watch the documentary?

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

Why was slavery abolished .. oh wait .it never was... watch the video .. watch the video.. lol .. :-))

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Did you like the documentary?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

It wasn't a business strategy -- it was a way of life on which the southern economy was based. In the industrialized north, it was cheaper to pay low wages and let the worker fend for him/herself. Plus, the slaves were pretty limited in what they did, and not at all educated.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Southern business strategy that was the basis of the southern economy. Look for yourself.

Slavery by another name:

http://video.pbs.org/video/2176766758

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Further advanced? Spiritually happier? In the 1860's? From where did you get this idea? If that were the case, they would have welcomed the freed slaves with open arms and it would not have taken 100 years to treat them as human beings.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep - I can most certainly agree wit that assessment - it was economics that was the real issue - just dressed up to be a humanitarian thing to do to get public support - business fucking with the world - yet again.


[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (448) from Tucson, AZ 1 minute ago

Exactly my point. Industrialized manufacturing required wages. Products required buyers. They could not compete with slave labor of the South in much of the agriculture and textiles. The original hope was that all slaves would simply be sent back home or off to some island. Devastating the southern economy was the motivator; ending slavery was the purifier. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

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

You need to look over your notes .. friend.

If Slavery was such a great business strategy .. why didn't the North adopt Slavery into their fold?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sorry to drop in - but the north was much more industrialized than the south was.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Exactly my point. Industrialized manufacturing required wages. Products required buyers. They could not compete with slave labor of the South in much of the agriculture and textiles. The original hope was that all slaves would simply be sent back home or off to some island. Devastating the southern economy was the motivator; ending slavery was the purifier.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No seriously it never was stopped - go to PBS on line and see if you can access that documentary. It is an eye opener.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 2 years ago

No, you see, you are free to collectively own anything you want with anyone else under capitalism. They're called communes.

Under socialism, I can't work for myself.

Who is restricting whom?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

To look at what you posted from another angle-

One half of the workers in America earn MORE than $26,000 a year and the median income per household in the US is between $40k and $45K. (What percentage of the "one-half" of American workers are the sole income supplier in their households?)

6 out of every 7 live without food stamps, and 87% of our children do not live in poverty. And only 16% of Americans have no healthcare.

Do you believe that everyone who lives within a socialist system is happy about it? Do you believe that it is possible to create and maintain ANY economic/social system that everyone withing that society WOULD be happy about?

[-] -3 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

The problem with socialism is that all would make 26k; all would be on food stamps, all would be without healthcare because this country has already spent itself into poverty. There are many, many, energetic assertive people who would not be happy being so limited.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

What a load of frightened, ill thought out and pre-propagandised 'Utter Bollocks' !!!

multum in parvo ...

[-] -3 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I'd venture to bet that you're more frightened than I. The problem with your version of socialism, which exists in all societies everywhere, is that it's not socialism but communism.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

You can bet me more than a '$' if you wish but you'll lose it !!

We can see who the 'fear mongers' here are & it ain't me !!!

facta non verba ...

[-] -3 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Your socialism isn't socialism; it's communism. And if America was afraid there'd be a Red Special ticket with your name on it.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Comment # 321 on this thread = Yawn, zzzzzzzzz ...

temet nosce ...

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Did he just call you a republican?

Why the dirty bastard.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

I've little or no idea 'wtf' he's on about to be honest but there seems to be a sad lack of imagination ; a surfeit of 'fear and loathing' and a visceral disinclination to evolve & improve - personally & societally !!!

I wasn't kidding about the '"yawn, zzzzzzzzz" either - so late here that it's early !!

Gorra go ... I'm actually beginning to hallucinate 'pillows' now !

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Good night or Good morning or whatever might be applicable. Catch some zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's and dream of a better world.

[-] 2 points by FreedomReigns (72) 2 years ago

God natt min engelska bror ! Sov gott !

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A Swedish good night?

[-] 1 points by FreedomReigns (72) 2 years ago

A Swedish good night...och dig också DKA...sov gott...tills imorgon !

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

till i morgon! Men kanske jag skulle önska er en bra dag? med tanke på den tidsskillnaden.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Good night my Swedish brother FreedomReigns! Sleep well!

Sorry it took so long to return a good night - was not sure of the translation.

[-] 1 points by FreedomReigns (72) 2 years ago

A Swedish good night....to you as well DKA...sleep well...until tomorrow !

[-] -3 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Yearight... and what's worse is that you're probably not even American. You really want to impress me say it in German or something; Latin is only for language professionals, limited-phrase attorneys, and mental midgets.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Fur dich und # 325 = "Du bist ein dummkopf" !!!

Ist alles klaar jetzt ?!! Auf wiedersehen !

tschuss ...

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

See, now that's what I'm talking about. Nice, I like it. Umlauts... Well, you're not German - Canadian maybe?

[-] -3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Live here, move, fight the system, accept it, it's all your choice now, none of us get to pick or birth place. Happy or not we're free to take action and gather up enough followers to change things.

Some comments though on your statements. Your $26000 figure is biased (not you but the number), it includes part timers and teens that lower it. For adults 25 and older it's just over $32k. Toss in the value of any government program, such as food stamps or medicaid and the effective income of individuals would be higher then $26k. Household income would be a better measure. You give me the impression you are looking for the lowest number possible to support a weak idea of economic hardship for the typical person. At just over $50k, household income probably isn't low enough to spark any kind of outrage, $26k sounds so much poorer.

I'm one of the 49 million without health insurance, I'll also be one of those paying the tax for not buying it in 2014. I don't want the government making my decision for me. The day to day care I'll pay for or go without, as I always have. I wouldn't be able to pay for cancer treatments, but then I've seen what the treatments do most of the time. My choice would be to enjoy what time I have left. Insurance isn't health care and it only works when most of us pay for it and don't use it. I choose not to pay for it and not use it.

College students are not all in debt, the average debt is around $25k, high but doable. The extreme debt of individuals gets a lot of press, but the cause for that debt is often poor decision making. I'm not sure it matters what economic or political system we have when the individuals in it are unable to think clearly for themselves and their future.

[-] 6 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

We hope you continue to be healthy forever but we want you to know, we will help you if you are sick or hungry.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I thank you, but the point is we do have choices. We might have been a victim of circumstance when we were born here but there are options. Beautifulworld's response, although well received, doesn't answer the original question.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

In rebutting beautifulworld, you appear to be purposely understating the severity of economic deprivation in this country. Over 46 million Americans live at or below the poverty level; that's about 1/6 of Americans: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14903732

Furthermore, the hardship is far greater than your estimate: "The US definition of poverty is an annual income of $22,314 (£14,129), or less for a family of four, and $11,139 for a single person." Now, that sounds a lot less rosy than your figures, but the picture gets worse.

Minorities suffer the most, which comes as no surprise: "... poverty among black and Hispanic people was much higher than for the overall US population last year - at 27.4% and 26.6% respectively."

Still more bad news for those who assume the U.S, is somehow on the road back to good times: "Outside of the poverty line, the average annual US household income fell 2.3% in 2010 to $49,445 (£31,228).

"Even younger Americans were also strongly affected. Twenty-two percent of those under 18 were living under the poverty line - up from from 20.7% in 2009."

Finally, to really put a clamp on your optimism, as a sidebar the article ran this teaser under a video interview: "Author and columnist Tom Friedman says the US faces either a bad decade or a bad century."

So, you see, beautifulworld may have painted a brighter picture than the figures indicate.

By the way, your remarks about health insurance for yourself, and how you won't use it, remind me of a lawyer who chooses to defend himself/herself.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21421) 2 years ago

: )

[+] -6 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You are not forced to keep your own property. You can choose to redistribute the proceeds of your work should you decide to. it is your choice at this point.

[-] 4 points by flip (5410) 2 years ago

now that is a stupid comment - you are not forced to live either, beautiful - so there

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

But you're forced to live in a capitalist society where wealth is very highly concentrated. The amount of freedom and ability to make agreements and choices etc depends on your access to resourses.

[-] 5 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I don't believe we have anything remotely resembling socialism, but rather a religion based on profit, which is a distortion of capitalism. We also seem to have no ability to evaluate an idea for its worth as an idea, but rather to simply judge it based on who presents it. Until we learn how to think instead of what to think, we will continue this circus.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

We bow down to the almighty dollar in worship and praise. The shopping malls are the temples to our Gods of material wealth. Television commercials are the sermons we are indoctrinated with daily. Definitely a religion.

"Until we learn how to think instead of what to think" Exactly.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Welfare is a socialist program. Food stamps are a socialist program. Social security is a socialist program. Mediaid medicare are socialist programs. Farm subsidies are socialist programs.

To name a few.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

When Monarchies subsidized the Arts and Music in feudal times, they weren't being socialists. Just because a government provides subsidy doesn't make them socialist.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Programs designed to help the less fortunate among us hardly constitute government control of industry to the extent of socialism. The government does not grow food or manufacture homes or cars or anything else; it merely provides assistance, which results in bigger profits for those who need buyers of their goods and services. Families that buy food with the assistance of food stamps, for instance, are buying products from businesses. Plus, they aren't messing up the streets with dead bodies.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Government should not be in the business of choosing who is deserving of relief and who is deserving to be relieved.

[-] 0 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

generally speaking, it is clear to anyone that a starving person needs food, a sick person needs medical attention, and education is sorely needed by all. "Government" is an institution comprised of people; corporations are organizations comprised of people. Why do you think the one organization designed to do what we cannot do by ourselves should not be involved in such programs? How would it work without any government help to anyone at all?

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Government is law, not charity.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Still no thoughts for Democracy then !

Ever heard of - "Government ... of the people ; For The People ; BY THE PEOPLE ?!!"

A better idea than 'Government of THE 99% ; by the 1% ; FOR The 0.01%', surely ?!!!

Consider : 'And lo ... when Pandora opened the box to free all the fears and evils into The World - all that was left for mankind was ... Faith, Hope & Charity' ! ~*~ Are you an Ayn Rand reading ; fellow human hating ; Rightwing Romulan too ?

veritas vos liberabit ...

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Rightwing Romulan too ?

Although that has some poetry to it.... the Ferengi are closer to what they are....LOL.

Observe the Ferengi 'Rules of Acquisition':

http://www.sjtrek.com/trek/rules/

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

With 'Mittens Romulan' in mind, I could've added 'Retarded Randian Reptile' too ... but thought that I 'am always aiming at alliteration and am at' risk of boring y'all !!!!

'Socialism' in The U$A, seems to be reserved for 'The Parasitic Bankster Class' and The 'High Finance Corporations' & "Structural Adjustment", "Crapitalism" and Austerity" inflicted upon The 99% not just in The U$A but throughout The World -- is the order of the day, alas !!!

The 'privatisation' of gains, profit and opportunity and the 'socialisation' of cost, loss and risk whilst giving most to those who need it least and least to those who need it most !!

The utter and outrageous bald faced cheek and hypocrisy is staggering !

From your link : "There's nothing more dangerous than an honest businessman." Hmmmm ....

fiat lux ...

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Democracy is antithetical to individual freedoms and liberty. That is a fairly consistent thought on Democracy. It is supported by the opinions of many, well regarded thinkers.

[-] 2 points by flip (5410) 2 years ago

lots of things are supported by the opinions of well regarded thinkers - the question is well regarded by whom? the kings, mein fuerher etc. you are a twisted little austrian - here read a bit about your beloved adam smith - i would send more but "you can't handle the truth!" -
Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People." He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, will destroy the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It will destroy community, the environment and human values generally -- and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces. The masters of mankind in Smith's day were the "merchants and manufacturers," who were the "principal architects" of state policy, using their power to bring "dreadful misfortunes" to the vast realms they subjugated and to harm the people of England as well, though their own interests were "most peculiarly attended to." In our day the masters are, increasingly, the supranational corporations and financial institutions that dominate the world economy, including international trade -- a dubious term for a system in which some 40 percent of U.S. trade takes place within companies, centrally managed by the same highly visible hands that control planning, production and investment.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Nothing supporting capitalism there, but...

Thomas Jefferson..."A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."... http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rule

[-] 2 points by flip (5410) 2 years ago

so you don't like what smith said - are you pointing out the contradiction between capitalism and democracy - now we are getting somewhere. can't have both so which do you like - your beloved free market - the banking institutions and monied incorporations that jefferson railed against? - "He said any decent socioeconomic system will be based on the assumption that people have the freedom to inquire and create -- since that's the fundamental nature of humans -- in free association with others, but certainly not under the kinds of external constraints that came to be called capitalism.

It's the same when you read Jefferson. He lived a half century later, so he saw state capitalism developing, and he despised it, of course. He said it's going to lead to a form of absolutism worse than the one we defended ourselves against. In fact, if you run through this whole period you see a very clear, sharp critique of what we would later call capitalism and certainly of the twentieth century version of it, which is designed to destroy individual, even entrepreneurial capitalism.

There's a side current here which is rarely looked at but which is also quite fascinating. That's the working class literature of the nineteenth century. They didn't read Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, but they're saying the same things. Read journals put out by the people called the "factory girls of Lowell," young women in the factories, mechanics, and other working people who were running their own newspapers. It's the same kind of critique. There was a real battle fought by working people in England and the U.S. to defend themselves against what they called the degradation and oppression and violence of the industrial capitalist system, which was not only dehumanizing them but was even radically reducing their intellectual level. So, you go back to the mid-nineteenth century and these so-called "factory girls," young girls working in the Lowell [Massachusetts] mills, were reading serious contemporary literature. They recognized that the point of the system was to turn them into tools who would be manipulated, degraded, kicked around, and so on. And they fought against it bitterly for a long period. That's the history of the rise of capitalism.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

OMFG !!! The speed of your reply really reflects on how little you considered what I said !!!

Given what you say & how you seem to 'think', I identify serious 'heart centre' blockages !!

You offer no corroboration for your opinions and your 'ideas' are little more than a rancid, reactionary, right-wing - 'Randian Brain Fart' and I'm urgently recommending some real human contact and gentle meditation on the theme of .. "L<3VE" !

~ommm~*~mmmo~

I know where you're coming from but ...

I'm a 'Left Liberatarian' mYself xx~{:-)

amor vincit omnia ...

[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Why is austerity being forced upon those who didn't create the problem?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Cut back on austerity, that's what I say. A little is too much of a good thing. A little less austerity and a little more action. I couldn't afford austerity or poverty. Have you checked the price of austerity lately?

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Because they have relied on the government for the money they are being given. The government has no more money, no one has any money. Without capitalism to produce money, there is no prosperity.

[-] 7 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Ah yes the BIG lie....but here is the truth: ' A sovereign government is never revenue constrained when it is the Monopoly issuer of its own pure fiat currency. It can never become insolvent'.

There is always enough money for the next war.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Yes, and I'm surprised how so many actually believe the bullshit that is fed to them by the corp-owned media. Austerity "measures" are put in place to get the public used to being bent over and rammed up the khyber pass.

The day I see politicians taking a pay cut, and the banksters handing their "performance" bonuses back to the shareholders, is the day I'll self-impose some austerity on my own lifestyle.

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Not without taking money (work and freedom) from the people under its control. Capitalism is the best economic system to ensure the citizens have the most freedom.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

BS - is that why the capitalist corpoRATions are outsourcing work to foreign sweat shops? Because it is fair and good? Is that why corpoRATions are kicking people out of their homes so that they can frack the place to hell and gone?

Wake up.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

You are missing the concept.

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Perhaps the concept you are trying to relate is not logical.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

It's quite logical and well reasoned with supporting objective facts.... which makes it sometimes at odds with what people consider 'common sense'

If you trust your 'common sense' as your guide to determine what is reasonable or as the psychiatric community calls it 'Naive Realism', you might think this way.

Common sense is defined as "sound judgment derived from experience rather than study," by Merriam Webster. The hype is that people with common sense are seen as reasonable, down to earth, reliable, practical, who are able to draw the proper conclusions and make the correct judgements.....lol. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Common sense relies on experience alone which doesn't usually offer enough information to draw reliable conclusions. It's a fallacy that has been forced on us by our culture of ideology, where any ideology that wants to tell us what we should think and do.... that prefers us to be stupid, ill informed, and poor decision makers.

For example, the Sun has been rising in the east, crosses in an arc overhead and sets in the west for as long as man has been observing it. It would be 'common sense' to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth based on everyday experience. But we know today that this is not true. Our everyday experiences are too limited to come to meaningful conclusions about the world around us. The examples are too numerous to list.... It is the antithesis of Science. Science assumes nothing, questions and tests all. If assumptions are made they are stated and investigated when more information is available.

The idea that if most people think something makes sense, then it must be correct has been disproved over and over again. It is often people who might be accused of not having common sense who prove that what is thought of as common sense, is completely wrong. Instead common sense is often used by people who don't have the real knowledge, expertise, or direct experience to actually make sound judgments. trusting common sense causes us to make poor rather than sound judgments. As stated earlier, the biggest problem with common sense is that it falls victim to the limits of personal experience. Or worse, people that don't even have any actual experience in the matter and rely simply on what we believe to be true or have been told is true, what we might label as "faith-based sense".

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Okay, so that's your belief? You obviously have more ready cash on hand to meet your needs, and the needs of your loved ones, so the question is, do you own a manufacturing industry, or are you a part of the non-contributory cash-creation cabal?

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Money = work, work = money. If not, money has no worth.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

In the Fiat System we find:

Credit = Debt, Debt = Money, Debt is good, Debt creation keeps the money flowing to people so that people can work and buy things.

I'm not an expert, but Geo is talking about Modern Monetary Theory and the economist that follow this are MMT Economist or Austrian Economist.

You live in a country with a Fiat currency and most economist believe that it is the best way to go. We came off the Gold Standard as one of the last countries to do so in the Great Depression in 1933 by allowing our dollar to float in value. Most everyone agrees that this was a key to getting out of the depression.

If we stopped having debt or issuing government debt this country would come to a halt and go into depression. The government has to use debt to function. But also everyone uses money to pay your pay check, to make loans, to buy goods. debt is good. And there is good debt as long as the debt/spending of the government is controlled. There is an optimal level of money in the economy based on the population. This can be controlled by debt.

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

What does gold represent?

What does debt represent?

What does money represent?

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Gold is a commodity. Gold represents value. Gold is technology, it is used in jewlery, it is used as a stable exchange, but does vary in value.

Debt represents credit, money, and loss in account.

Cash Money is a stated value of exchange. Electronic Money is what most of us have. Money loses value. Fiat money loses value. The US gets away with it's huge debt through a lot of economic power, perception of future production, perception of stability, and a good amount of arrogance.

But you have to get rid of the US Federal Reserve (FED). We can have state or regional banks to insure against bank runs. The US Treasury can take over lender of last resort function. But we have to take the systemic risk out of TBTF Banks on Wall Street, before we can get rid of the FED. That means we have to break up the TBTF Banks ....

No one like the big deficits we have now.

http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/5939601/us-treasuries-are-risk-free-really
http://binews.org/2012/07/money-trees-digital-deficits-and-ubiquitous-can-kicking (About Warren Mosler, MMT Economist)

http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/06/older-essays-on-nature-of-coin-credit.html

http://www.ces.org.za/docs/what%20is%20money.htm (What is Money discussion)

http://www.ces.org.za/docs/The%20Credit%20Theoriy%20of%20Money.htm (The Theory of Money Discussion)

http://paper.li/condorbox/1340783952?utm_source=subscription&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=paper_sub (This is an MMT Newspaper, but haven't read it)

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/de-Borchgrave/2012/05/29/Commentary-Alarm-bells-in-the-US/UPI-42381338299783/

There are two video productions along these lines from separate groups trying to explain how money is create, but politicians, economist, and most of us don't understand (except for this group).

97% Owned - Positive Money Directors Cut (UK) (You might jump to 30 minutes in where he starts on Inflation) (democratizing the money supply is at 49 minutes) (56 minute he states house prices will be put under control through proposals)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3mfkD6Ky5o
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/97percent
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/our-proposals/

Produced by Queuepolitely and featuring Ben Dyson of Positive Money, Josh Ryan-Collins of The New Economics Foundation, Ann Pettifor, the "HBOS Whistleblower" Paul Moore, Simon Dixon of Bank to the Future and Nick Dearden from the Jubliee Debt Campaign, this is the first documentary to tackle this issue from a UK-perspective, and can be watched online now.

Money as Debt Video (Canadian)
Money as Debt Video II
Money as Debt Video III
http://www.moneyasdebt.net/
http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/index.htm
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Dc3sKwwAaCU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_as_Debt

Money as Debt is a short animated documentary film by Canadian artist[1] and filmmaker Paul Grignon about the monetary systems practiced through modern banking.[2] The film presents Grignon's view of the process of money creation by banks and its historical background, and warns of his belief in its subsequent unsustainability.

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

So, you have no idea yourself. You google, copy and paste as a means to inform me. Perhaps you should inform yourself.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

I wrote all of that. I've been writing for over a year.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I checked. You did not do that work. Those are youtube videos posted by many different people and organizations. You are a plagiarist.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Bend over I got something for ya. I bet everyone tells you you should to to college don't they. Dumb ass.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Gold represents the labor it took to produce, plus an extra perceived value for it's utility, beauty, and use as a means of exchange.

Debt represents a promise to pay. It is the opposite of money, it does not represent labor, but the vacuum of labor.

Money represents labor. A medium of exchange that has no real value except what a government places on it, or what the holder believes it possesses.

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I would tend to agree with you.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17791) 2 years ago

Gold represents bling.

Nothing more.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well it is useful - valued for use in electronics.

Hey - shooz, slapping down an idiot I see.

Don't bother - he is not your average wanna-be revisionist history dude - he is a total fiction writer of his own reality.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17791) 2 years ago

It would seem his karma is slapping him harder than I am.....:)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah - it sounds like he beats himself up pretty thoroughly.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Capitalists are the people who have stolen the money. That's why their net worth has increased, while almost everyone else's has decreased.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I don't believe your statement can be logically defended.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I believe the logic and proof are in the statement.

[-] 2 points by flip (5410) 2 years ago

who relied on the government for the money they were given? you're really dumb. and what was life like before capitalism - no money? can you tell me when capitalism began - looking for a date here!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Capitalism was created with the creation of money. Every society that uses money is part of a capitalistic society to more or less of a degree. The only differences are in how societies regulate or do not regulate their capitalist elements.

[-] 2 points by flip (5410) 2 years ago

so rome and egypt were capitalist economies - do you have you're own version of everything - like maybe the moon is made of green cheese?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What is capitalism?

The striving for money/profits/possesions/property/resources through the use of money ( accepted markers of value ) or valuable materials.

You don't see the connection?

Is there a society which does not use money?

Why the animosity? Did I insult you?

OH & BTW - I do have my own opinion on everything that has come to my attention - don't you?

[-] 1 points by flip (5410) 2 years ago

there is a standard commonly accepted definition of capitalism - it is very different from yours - no animosity, just a question - opinions are one thing - your own private definition is quite another. it makes it hard to have a rational discussion. and why so touchy?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago
  • Life before Capitalism: Feudalism

Feudalism was a set of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries, which, broadly defined, was a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor.

  • Earliest forms of Capitalism: Mercantile Capitalism

Merchant capitalism is a term used by economic historians to refer to the earliest phase in the development of capitalism as an economic and social system. Early forms of merchant capitalism were developed in the medieval Islamic world from the 9th century, and in medieval Europe from the 12th century.[1][2][3] In Europe, merchant capitalism became a significant economic force in the 16th century, depending on point of view. The mercantile era drew to a close around 1800, giving way to industrial capitalism. However, merchant capitalism remained entrenched in some parts of the West well into the 19th century, most notably the Southern United States, where the plantation system constrained the development of industrial capitalism (limiting markets for consumer goods) whose political manifestations prevented Northern legislators from passing broad economic packages (e.g. monetary and banking reform, a transcontinental railroad, and incentives for settlement of the American west) to integrate the states' economies and spur the growth of industrial capitalism.[4]

Merchant capitalism is distinguished from the mature variety by the lack of industrialization and commercial finance. Merchant houses were backed by relatively small private financiers acting as intermediaries between simple commodity producers and by exchanging debt with each other. Thus, merchant capitalism preceded the capitalist mode of production as a form of capital accumulation. The transformation of merchant capitalism into industrial capitalism necessitated, according to Karl Marx, a process of primitive accumulation of capital, upon which commercial finance operations could be based and making application of mass wage labor and industrialization possible.

[-] 2 points by flip (5410) 2 years ago

thank you thank you thank you

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

U R Welcome x 3

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Why so touchy :

[-] 2 points by flip (2627) 23 minutes ago

so rome and egypt were capitalist economies - do you have you're own version of everything - like maybe the moon is made of green cheese? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink


BTW - there are many definitions of many things some share many of the same elements - not all agree.

The most popular accepted definition of capitalism is not all inclusive of the concept of capitalism. The definition commonly accepted is the one where capitalism is the driving force. But reality is that currently every society has a capitalist element.

[-] 1 points by flip (5410) 2 years ago

read the jaded one or go wiht this one - ok end of conversation - my definition of an idiot is someone who makes huge money from microsoft - aka bill gates - it's fun making up ones own definition!

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Those on welfare, unemployment, food stamps, medicaid, HUD housing...

Capitalism began when humanity began. Somewhere there was a man with a rabbit that traded it for a piece of ass.... and both were happy with the trade... and thus capitalism began.

[-] 2 points by flip (5410) 2 years ago

you might want to read a bit of history since your version of capitalism is yours and yours alone - as to welfare etc what about the big corporations feeding at the "public trough" - no mention of them?? how about the corporations that took things invented and developed with tax payer dollars and turn a profit - is that what you are talking about - no i doubt it. quisling!

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

... big corporations feeding at the public trough.. sorry, my bad.

My capitalism example works. Private trading of one thing of value for another.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Your "version" - does not exist - not here in the USA - not at this point in time.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Capitalism is trading one thing of value for another. If you change the parameters, it is now DKAtoday capitalism.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

That is not capitalism that is trading or, if both parties voluntarily trade, free trade, which is not capitalism. Once again, capitalism is defined because a few, the bourgeousie--to use Marx's term--own the capital, the means of production. Since capital is concentrated among the few, the system derives its name from the very expensive, privately held means of producton.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You don't understand what capitalism is... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I certainly do. You don't. Capital is accumulated wealth, which controls the means of production. Various property systems have existed through time from simple tribalism, which holds most important property in common; slavery, which holds humans as property; feudalism, which holds real-estate as property; and capitalism, which holds capital--accumulated wealth as property.

Don't rely on a dictionary to give you a complete definition of a complex subject.

Here, http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_capitalism.php one fairly complete definition of capitalism.

Another definition from an economics professor in case you refuse to acknowledge a socialist definition: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html

You'll notice in the second that socialists coined the term capitalism. Marx refined it further. So, any definition should depend on how socialists and communists have used it. I suggest you read The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by Friedrich Engels for a thorough explanation of different property-holding societies and definitions.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Did you read the quote just below your definition of capitalism?

"Capitalism is at once far too rational, trusting in nothing that it cannot weigh and measure, and far too little as well, accumulating wealth as an end in itself." —Terry Eagleton, Harper's, March 2005

Capitalism is not rational enough. "Accumulating wealth as an end in itself" seems to be the ultimate purpose of capitalism now, especially the banks. Growth no matter the risk, even if it destroys the economy of the entire planet.

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Ah... That is just using the word "capitalism" in a sentence. Maybe the example "I am not the first to point out that capitalism, having defeated Communism, now seems to be about to do the same to democracy. The market is doing splendidly, yet we are not, somehow. —Ian Frazier, On The Rez, 2000", or "Even Cuba's famed health-care system has been unable to resist the siren song of capitalism. The Frank Pais Hospital … now offers “for pay” surgery to foreigners. —Ann Louise Bardach, Vanity Fair, March 1995" would have been a more realistic example of a accurate usage of the word "capitalism."

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Barack (-53) - your version of reality does not exist at this point in time =

[-] -1 points by Barack (-53) 1 hour ago

Not without taking money (work and freedom) from the people under its control. Capitalism is the best economic system to ensure the citizens have the most freedom. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink


The system you are talking about there does not exist in the USA of today - what does exist is a pretty much unfettered corpoRAT system that is fucking over every one in this country and quite a large portion of the world outside of USA borders - while spreading toxic poisons everywhere.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You need to educate yourself, since the system has failed, but that's no surprise, since funding for education has been steadily eroded.

Capitalism did not exist until the Industrial Age. Other forms of property ownership existed, but not capitalism, which is defined by those who hold all the playing cards: the means of production, the capital. Duh! Capitalists.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Capitalism has existed since human society has existed. Capitalism was protected by the founders of our country before the "industrial age" and was largly responsible for the "industrial age."

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Research the links I provided in a previous reply. Capitalism is a socialist term, and the definition is quite precise.

Your mind has confused trade with capitalism; the two are not synonymous. I hate to repeat my admonition, but, please, educate yourself before blasting away with an empty gun.

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Webster says otherwise...

Definition of CAPITALISM : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Webster is wrong. Research the links I provided; they're written in English, so you should be able to get through them with only a modicum of difficulty.

Socialists created the term capitalism and set the definition. You can call nitrogen breathable, but you'll soon die if you breathe it.

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

The breadth of your lack of knowledge is vast. You breath a majority of nitrogen with every breath you take. I would call nitrogen breathable because I, and you, and everyone everyone else breaths it every moment of their lives and suffers no ill effect.... Well, technically, we will all eventually die, but I believe nitrogen has little to do with it.

The definition of capitalism as presented is the accepted definition.

[-] 4 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

If you breathe nitrogen in air, that is not a problem, because there is only a small amount of nitrogen. If you breathe nitrogen alone, you will surely die; it's called nitrogen asphyxiation.

I did not point that out, since I erroneously believed you could construct the syllogism mentally; just as a small of amount of nitrogen is breathable, a large concentration is fatal. Similarly a simplistic definition of capitalism completely misses the mark and omits the true definition. I overestimated your mental capacities.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Trying to educate the comprehension challenged? I mean it's not really a waste of time - it does not even have to be frustrating - as even if you do not succeed with this individual - your information is in print for others to profit from.

Keep-on Keeping-on.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

It seems like an uphill battle with people who use misinformation as fact and twist the available data to their own purposes. The right-wing nuts must have sat at the knees of Joseph Goebbels and trained in his Ministry of Enlightenment and Propaganda.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I have only what you say to judge what you say. If you present facts that are clearly untrue, I must suspect everything you present as a fact. No you say that if you breathe pure nitrogen, it will be fatal. By the same token, if you breathe pure oxygen, it will be fatal. If you breathe pure water, it will be fatal. If you breathe pure hydrogen, it will be fatal. You definition of capitalism is as flawed as your estimation of the content of nitrogen in the atmosphere.

[-] 5 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

To be precise breathing 100% oxygen at normal or reduced pressures is not fatal. In fact the early astronauts breathed 100% oxygen at reduced pressure for as long as two weeks with no adverse effects. The real problem comes as result of pressurizing oxygen and breathing that, for example as scuba divers might do.

You can go back and edit your reply, and I can go back and edit mine to read "limited amount" rather than "small amount." I plead lapsus linguae, though to be precise, since you're into so much precision when it comes to nitrogen, but not capitalism, I should plead, a slip of the pen, oh, pardon me: a slip of the keys.

Water is not considered a breathable medium for humans. I could have cited hydrogen, or helium, or many other gases as an example.

Nitrogen makes a good example because the symptoms resemble those of the willing victims under capitalism: they don't even realize they're being killed.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

The air you breathe is majority nitrogen.

[-] 4 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

For god's sake, look up nitrogen asphyxiation, or maybe you want to purposely appear ignorant. I chose nitrogen for my analogy, because in the air, it is harmless, but in maximum concentrations, it is lethal. It has even been considered as a means of capital punishment. You have a computer, take the time to actually google nitrogen asphyxiation.

The major reason I chose nitrogen is because like capitalism in its diluted forms, it seems unthreatening, but at maximum levels it's lethal.

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Breathe 78% oxygen and see how you fare.... Or perhaps 50% water.. or maybe 93% helium or hydrogen. If the queen had balls, she'd be king. It was you that said nitrogen was a minor constituent in the air. After googleing, you have come up with 78%, witch is nowhere near a minor constituent.

TitusMoans facts... FAIL!

[-] 4 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Good lord, you're fixated. If I had written nitrogen is a major component of air, it would still be fatal in maximum concentration.

Now, this all started because of your simplistic definition of capitalism, which not even a right-wing economist would accept as valid. I even provided the links so that you could research capitalism. You persisted with an elementary-school definition, which has about as much validity as maximum nitrogen concentration has to do with sustaining life.

Focus, man, focus.

[-] 4 points by shooz (17791) 2 years ago

Silly.

There is but one thing that kills us all, and that's lack of oxygen.

It might be induced by organ failure, blood loss, or any number of other things, but in the end it's always lack of oxygen.

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You were the one who said there is only a small amount of nitrogen in the air. Nitrogen is actually the major constituent in the air we breathe. I was just pointing out that your "facts" do not match reality. Making statements that are patently false calls all statements made by you into question.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The amount of nitrogen, 78% as I recall, in the atmosphere is small enough to be non-hazardous. Perhaps you'd like to purchase a tank of nitrogen and breathe it for a while. From what I've read, the symptom can be euphoric and the victim may not even realize the threat of imminent death, sort of like capitalism in which the the society only realizes the pernicious effects after all the damage has been done.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (5410) 2 years ago

ok end of conversation - my definition of an idiot is someone who makes huge money from microsoft - aka bill gates - it's fun making up ones own definition!

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1321) from Fredericksburg, TX 2 years ago

check it out B: http://occupywallst.org/forum/some-comments-on-sweden-from-my-friend-who-lives-t/

Forum Post: Some comments on Sweden from my friend who lives there

Posted 8 hours ago on July 17, 2012, 12:11 p.m. EST by Underdog (1592) from Clermont, FL This content is user submitted and not an official statemen

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

Because you care and so do we. All of us are in this together, whether we like it or not, which some don't apparently.

Come Together NOW

Until this happens, we will continue to suffer horribly. Read any history lately. We're in the middle.

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I do not care if I cannot keep what I have worked to acquire.

[-] 4 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Earlier you said government is law, not charity. Every law must be enforced and somehow lawbreakers punished. A government based on creating crime, judging it and punishing it seems very limited to me. I believe government's role is to do the things individuals cannot do alone, and to provide a culture that allows for everyone to have a certain level of education, starting with teaching children how to think rather than what to think; a living wage for work performed; and, yes, laws to control the behavior of imperfect people. Two institutions have grown out of human endeavor: religion and government -- the former to recognize our spirit and how we should behave as a member of a community -- usually the source of charity; the second to recognize our ego and curb its excesses when we do not behave well. It seems to me that both of these institutions have lost sight of their respective purposes.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

How is providing an item or service that people desire, employs dozens (maybe hundreds or thousands), and makes the business owner fabulously wealthy, not behaving well?

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

That pretty much depends on the item or service being provided and how much harm is done to others by the service, item or person providing it.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

The circumstances of life force us to consider new directions and new choices, individually and collectively. Capitalism causes strife and suffering in people's lives and forces them to reconsider their circumstances living under Capitalism. So, I return the question back to you, we know Capitalism causes suffering and strife, so why must people be forced to live under it?

[+] -6 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Under our laws, you would be free to associate with others who also chose to pool resources and labor to collectively make their way through life.

Why is there no collective society that has succeeded as long as the capitalist republic laid out by the founders?

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You are not a student of History. Most societies last about 200 years on average then fail due to outside attack or from internal rot.

The USA has just passed the 200 year milestone and is apparently - Very apparently dying from internal rot.

[+] -6 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I guess we will see. If the people have the sense to restore the Constitutional government our founders put into place, we may be able to break the Progressive bonds that we have become bound with and step off to a second two hundred year milestone.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Progressive?

What are you a practicing revisionist?

Do you write your own reality?

Or do you let others spoon feed you your reality?

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

If you already knew our laws make us free to associate with other and choose to pool our resources and labor collectively to make their way through life, why do come here and make stupid statements about people forcing you to do anything.

I never said capitalism was without any merits, I said it produces suffering and strife, which is what socialism seeks to address. For my entire life, our economy has been a mixed economy with social programs intended to decrease the shortcomings of capitalism.

[+] -5 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Capitalism in the US has been mixed with socialism as part of a Progressive agenda to move enough people to be dependent on the government so that the freedoms protected by our Constitution could be undermined by those dependent on government. The shortcomings of Capitalism and freedom are the shortcomings of any governmental and economic system, the human condition. The problem is that in any other type of governmental and economic system, the liberty and freedom of the individual must be crushed by the oppressive power of the government.

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The problem is that in any other type of governmental and economic system, the liberty and freedom of the individual must be crushed by the oppressive power of the government.

The militarization of our local police forces came about from Attorney General Ed Meese's "war on drugs" during the Reagan administration. Billions of dollars were spent on the creation of SWAT teams, training, and purchasing of high tech surveillance equipment. Now these same forces are used to terrorize our citizenry.

The "war on terror" and the Patriot Act have done more to stifle our individual freedom than any other single event in US history. Put these two items together and we have the police state we currently live under.

It wasn't socialism that caused this, but reactionary conservatism.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I do not like the Obama Patriot Act for Perpetuity any more than you do. Say what you want, at least bush made sure that it had a sunset clause.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I see no difference between the political parties.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Look at issues and voting records then.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Government does not control production in the marketplace, it is controlled by private ownership. Government would not need to step in and circumvent the oppression of workers with social programs if workers were not exploited by greedy owners. Until you address the root problem, you will always have this problem of a progressive agenda aiming to smooth out the shortcomings of Capitalism.

[+] -5 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

The government needs to protect the workers by having laws that keep a business form endangering the life or limb of the workers. The government has no business taking money from some to redistribute to others. The results of the redistribution can be seen in the generational dependance on government handouts. The people who opt to take the government dole become slaves to the government and have lost their freedom as surely as any slave in history has.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

It seems the upper 1% are redistributing the wealth in their direction. Unless you are making over $350,000 a year, your wealth is being redistributed as well.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5aAsxFJOeMw/SA-R3zX9alI/AAAAAAAAA-Q/e12WSEKR-x8/s1600-h/agi-stability-ss-cap-1986-2005-in-2008-USD.JPG

[+] -5 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Yes, by the government. Government is the enemy, not corporations.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Who controls the government through lobbying? Not me and you. Corporations do. They are both in bed with each other.

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Corporations cannot jail you or fine you. Government is the problem.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

That USED to be true.... but no longer is. Corporations are entwined with government at every level, and yes they are jailing and fining people beyond what the judicial system gave..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us/probation-fees-multiply-as-companies-profit.html?pagewanted=all

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Show me one instance of a corporation in the United States that legally incarcerated someone.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Re. "Corporations" ; 'Incarceration' & "The United States", please consider :

(A) : "For anyone paying attention, there is no shortage of issues that fundamentally challenge the underpinning moral infrastructure of American society and the values it claims to uphold. Under the conceptual illusion of liberty, few things are more sobering than the amount of Americans who will spend the rest of their lives in an isolated correctional facility – ostensibly, being corrected. The United States of America has long held the highest incarceration rate in the world, far surpassing any other nation. For every 100,000 Americans, 743 citizens sit behind bars. Presently, the prison population in America consists of more than six million people, a number exceeding the amount of prisoners held in the gulags of the former Soviet Union at any point in its history." from ...

(B) "The nation’s largest private prison company, the Corrections Corporation of America, is on a buying spree. With a war chest of $250 million, the corporation, which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, earlier this year sent letters to 48 states, offering to buy their prisons outright. To ensure their profitability, the corporation insists that it be guaranteed that the prisons be kept at least 90 percent full. Plus, the corporate jailers demand a 20-year management contract, on top of the profits they expect to extract by spending less money per prisoner.", from ...

(C) "The economics of the private-prison industry are in many respects similar to those of the lodging industry. An inmate at a private prison is like a guest at a hotel—a guest whose bill is being paid and whose check-out date is set by someone else. A hotel has a strong economic incentive to book every available room and encourage every guest to stay as long as possible. A private prison has exactly the same incentive. The labor costs constitute the bulk of operating costs for both kinds of accommodation. The higher the occupancy rate, the higher the profit margin." from ...

fiat lux ...

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Didn't you read the story? There are plenty of examples there.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

So, the government sanctioned those prisons.... Sounds to me like a government problem.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Privatization of the government is a government problem? Sounds like a Libertarian Utopia.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Chase, B of A, Wells Fargo, are just some of the enemy. Corporate predators, your wallet is their only prey, their only goal is to grow larger.

Have you noticed the generous interest rates they pay on your savings account? A whole tenth of a percent after you pay taxes on it.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Thrive in spite of them. Join a credit union. You dwell on inconsequentials.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Chase, B of A, Wells Fargo. About $3 trillion in deposits. Definitely consequential. Especially when they fail and we bail them out.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Socialist Marxist Progressive solution. you have no argument from me that they should have been allowed to fail.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Private ownership controls the means of production and distribution of wealth. The wealth gets distributed by private ownership until all the wealth ends up in the hands of the few. Then capitalism has a meltdown and we start all over again. One of these days, the lesson will not be lost on you.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

The lesson that is the government that has the power to oppress seems to be lost on you.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I agree that government oppresses.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

If you want a decentralized society with individual freedom you should check this one out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Because the notion of Freedom changes once a society reaches a critical threshold, a threshold the Founders of America did not anticipate: the End of Growth.

Before that threshold the focus is on the individual (the basis and strength of [free-market] capitalism). After that threshold, the focus must shift to society as a whole, because everything gets interconnected and inter-dependent.

If you want to call this socialism, whatever. It's called cooperative living and it's the only viable solution at the End of Growth.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

The only reason that growth is a necessity is the result of a debt based, bank dictated, government sanctioned and orchestrated, fiat currency. If there is no growth, there is no money.

[-] 4 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

LoL: "there is no money" -- why do you want money? You can't eat it. It doesn't shelter you. "...can't buy you love", etc. What gives? Are you in some competition where you have to win, and the quantity of money is how you measure your "victory"?

I tell you "bro" without the world-at-large, victory is just a egotistic ejaculation. phyrrric....

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

It seems it is those who want the government to take from some to redistribute to others that are far more concerned with money than those who know work and are happy with what they earn.

[-] 3 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Listen man. You can't have it both ways. If you want to institute exclusion of land property (i.e. "private property"), you're going to have to provide an alternative means to live, because everyone deserves the right to live -- or do you think you're qualified to play God?

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Private property includes cars and stamp collections and dogs and cash. I think all of your private property should be yours and yuo should be able to rely on our government to protect your right to keep you private property that you have earned. I do not think the government has the first shake at the work you produce.

[-] 3 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

I said land property. The land wasn't created by the labor or ingenuity of any man. By what right do you exclude others from land? By what right do you demand rent from me?

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I went to a real estate agent and told them I was interested in purchasing a home. They had people who owned houses that were willing to sell them. I negotiated a deal with the owner we were both comfortable with. the bank accepted the terms and the seller was paid and i accepted an obligation to pay the price for the house as well as interest for borrowing the money to pay the seller. I have worked for years and paid month by month for the home I live in. I exclude others from my house and land because I have paid for the privilege to exclude everyone but who i choose to allow entry into my home.

I do not demand rent from you, you must have me confused with someone else.

By what right do you demand property?

[-] 3 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Your little story omits a critical point: history. How was the land first acquired? And, let's make this question about America in general, since you have been arguing about general, not specific, issues.

Scenario: I stake a piece of land and call it mine and then sell it to you. Have I robbed you? The idea that I should have to work just because you "had" to work, for something that was probably taken by force from somebody else, and, in any case, ultimately belongs to everyone (i.e. wasn't created by anyone) is a very contentious point.

Because of this, I demand a place to sleep, for one night, on any night of my choosing, in a place that no one is using.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

The title was checked and determined to be clear and available for sale. I imagine the land was originally purchased in bulk and subdivided into smaller and smaller lots until someone built a home on one of two lots. I bought both lots and a house.

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Haha, "you imagine" it was originally purchased, but that is your laziness. Your imagination is not what is relevant here, the actual history is. More specifically, that point where the land was NOT purchased. And this is where the callousness of an imagined land entitlement in America resides (and the associated deprivation to everyone else): YOU.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I have the clear title (or will in a few years). That is the evidence and trumps any imaginary evidential argument you think you have to the contrary.

Think not? Then come take my home.

[-] 3 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

LOL, you don't have a clear title, you have it in your imagination as you said yourself "or will in a few years". So....

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, produce it. if you do not, then you have nothing to back up your bloviations.

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

On the contrary: the burden is on you to justify why no one else but you should have access to that piece of Earth (or did you think you were entitled to it -- HAHA!). It undoubtedly was sacred land that the American Indians roamed and lived on prior to you. In any case, there's no way in hell that you can justify owning that which you did neither create nor labor on.

...Now, you may be able to justify using it, but that's another point.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Let me get this straight you want nothing to do with government or community but you would like the protection of both.

Ummm - your philosophy is really screwed up.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Health care is not a government responsibility. Taking personal property (freedom) from one person tp redistribute to another is not a government responsibility.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Didn't you read my first response?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-socialism-would-work/#comment-783711

You're way off; the economy is all-encompassing

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

There are those who opt not to participate.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

What exactly is it you don't understand by "The economy is all-encompassing"? Don't you understand what that means? If you do, why do you keep on talking about this "opting out" thing?

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

There are those who choose not to participate. You can live on a homestead. You can live in a self contained community like the Amish. You can opt out.

[-] 6 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Ok. So in other words, you don't understand what "an all-encompassing economy" means. Let me explain once more

We live in a complex, highly developed, technological society with all kinds of endless networks of economic relations, decisions, transactions etc, that affect the economy we're all a part of in all kinds of different ways.

When it comes to the economy we’re not, as individuals, living in an isolated bubble of some kind, just “minding our own business”. On the contrary; when it comes to the economy we’re all in the same boat. You can't just opt out; the economy is all-encompassing and affects us all.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Perhaps you need to use a visual concept for the idiot to grasp the idea of all encompassing.

Example : The world and an envelope. The world represents - the world. The envelope represents the economy. Place world inside of envelope - close the envelope.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

hehe. Yeah, maybe so.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Would still take an awful long time though to educate the guy to the point of understanding reality. {:-])

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

The Amish pay taxes to support corporate welfare, just like the rest of us.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Not if they have no income or purchase anything outside their community. They may have to pay some property tax to the state and local governments.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

If they do have income, they pay taxes. So your idea of opting out is to have no income - genius !

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

If a small group of people don't want to be part of the modern society and economy, and live isolated from everyone else in a stonage-like community, then that's ok I guess - at least to a large extent. However, you're talking about being able to "opt out" and still take part in the economy and society. That's something completley different.

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You are the ones complaining about the modern economy. You are the ones who want to empower government to violate personal liberty and freedom by granting them the authority to confiscate private property. Either you want to part of the community or not. Why don't you give control of the money you earn to a community that pools its money to work towards a collective goal? If socialism works, why do you have to impose you idea of fairness on people who disagree with your view of community? Why does Obamacare need to compel me and doctors and insurance companies to participate? If the idea and program is so great and so beneficial, why do we need to be forced by law to participate?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

because so many of us are greedy, and selfish 1% wannabes. "i got mine F$#k everyone else"

So we have to force people to help their neighbors just like Social Security, medicare and such.

Are youb with us?

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I would tend to agree that you and many of OWS are greedy, and no, I am not with you. I think if you want something, you should work hard to get it. I do not believe you should take something from someone else because you don't think they deserve it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Then you don't support the redistribution of wealth from the (job creating) working class to the greedy lazy 1% plutocrats who hoard our money after dishonestly claiming they would create jobs.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

The government passed tax laws and incentives for them to move the jobs overseas. EPA and OSHA and labor laws and unions have made the operating cost such that it is more profitable to move the workforce outside the country than it is to keep it here. If you want jobs here, work to have the government be less regulatory and lower the tax burden on successful people and corporations.

Government problem, not a corporation problem.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Let that thought trickle down your leg. Trickle down economics has failed.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think we should just tell every corp (foriegn, domestic) if you want to sell you crap here (in the greatest middle class consumer market) then you must hire Americans.

Tax 'em up the a$# if they don't hire Americans. Bam them if they don't submit. They don't like it? Let 'em sell to Albania, or Uriguay. See how quick the jobs come back home.

Simple. It's our world! corps are just a squirrel tryin to get a nut. They serve us. Or they go outta business. When you deal with these greedy fucks you gotta grow a bigger pair.

y'know what I mean.?

You wit' dat?

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

If the hoard, they hoard their money, not yours.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We gave them everything they asked for (trickle down lies) in the last 30 years. In return theywere to be "the job creators". Instead they took the money, sent the jobs overseas, busted unions, kept workers salaries low, stole pensions, and raised worker health care costs. So they breached the agreement we want our money back. With interest. 29.99% thank you very much.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Wow you kinda brushed the edge of reality for a nanosecond there.

I am almost able to be proud at you.

Keep working at it reality is real you can find it.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I've got to be honest: It almost seems as if you are in a Libertarian hypnosis of some kind. You're not presenting relevant counter-arguments, just spewing out the same dogmas and strawmen. I'm out

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The Amish haven't opted out. They have opted in using a style that they can be comfortable with. They even put the "Caution-vehicle in transit" triangles on their buggies. They pay their taxes. Like the rest of us, some vote.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Like I said, you can homestead. People do live in very remote locations.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Let us know when you come back.

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Please inform me how I can live on a homestead.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Work hard. Save your money. Buy a parcel of land (preferably 10 acres+). Plant and grow a garden. Raise goats and chickens and rabbits and a couple cows. Learn how to permaculture. Work hard. Work to make yourself valuable to a community that believes in a similar mindset. Help each other. Work hard.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

The economy is all-encompassing.

Here's an excerpt from my 3 part series "Debunking Libertarian Myths":

Myth #3:

“In an unregulated capitalist society you don’t get to intervene in my affairs and vice versa”

This has no root in reality. The economy is all-encompassing. We live in a complex, highly developed, technological society with all kinds of endless networks of economic relations, decisions, transactions etc, that affect the economy we're all a part of in all kinds of different ways.

There are different kinds of “affairs”; some that only affect you, and the ones that affect others. What you do in your personal life; which color you decide to use when you paint the walls in your living room, or what you do in the bedroom etc, things that don’t affect other people, that’s totally up to you, and is your decision alone. On the other hand, if you choose to make decisions that affect other people in your community or the national economy, for example by being in control of a huge corporation that’s a big part of the economy, and is the workplace of lots of people, well then that’s something completely different. If you make decisions that affect other people, well then you have to expect that the ones affected will intervene in these affairs.

The same of course applies to the common "If you like anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism so much, why don’t you and your friends start your own commune somewhere and leave me out”

Well, creating solidaric communes and co-ops etc, is an important task that should be prioritized, but the argument above does not hold up. Again, the economy is all-encompassing; a couple of anarchist communes or co-ops here and there doesn’t change the fact that the super-wealthy financial elite have the overwhelming power in society.

When it comes to the economy we’re not, as individuals, living in an isolated bubble of some kind, just “minding our own business”. On the contrary; when it comes to the economy we’re all in the same boat. The economy is all-encompassing and affects us all.


What we should do is work for a libertarian socialist society; a society where people get to have a say in the things they're a part of. A more democratic society is what we must and should strive for

[+] -5 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Name a socialistic society where the members freely choose to be part of the socialistic sharing and are allowed to opt out instead of being compelled to participate by governmental force.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

NAME ANY Society/Government that does not use force to back-up its policies/charter/modus operandi.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

The United States as constructed by the founding fathers.

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

That's false. The US criminalizes poverty. If you're homeless you can be subject to harassment, extreme pain, and jail for harmless acts like sleeping.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

The founding fathers did not criminalize homelessness. That was the Progressives.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Really? Our Country was founded with no laws? Our Country was founded with no rules? Our country was founded with out an Army?

Seriously?

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

There were laws that said you had to respect property and not murder people, but there wasn't laws that said you had to mow your grass or make sure your building had 24" x 36" windows on the wall facing the street. You didn't have to file a permit to cut down a tree you planted 20 years in the past. Property was not taken from you to redistribute to you neighbor to provide them with money to live on. You were not FORCED to take care of others, you were encouraged to take care of others by the community.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Now you open a whole different can of worms. You will not find a society anywhere that does not have rules of conduct.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Huh? That one you're going to have to explain more thoroughly

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Im pretty sure the civil war did the opposite

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

What is your hang up with force? No one is forcing you to do anything. We agree to be civilized law abiding citizens. If the government changes the speed limit because our representatives pass a bill --- are you going to cry like a little baby - you can't force me to do that - or will you abide by the laws of the land. You can protest the law if you don't like it, but nobody is forcing you to follow the law, that is your choice -- but, hey, don't complain if you get caught breaking the law.

If you don't want any government rules and laws at all, then you must be an anarchist. Are you an anarchist? Are you saying we should not be a nation of laws decided upon by the people and enforced by our public institutions.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I find your use of anarchist to be in error. I believe what you were looking to use - is chaos/chaotic chaos-ist.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I understand Anarchy to have the exact opposite meaning of hierarchy. Words have multiple meanings. Anarchism as a philosophy probably has several interpretations, just as most -isms do.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Here is a definition that I have found to be very good - especially if you have had any brush with anarchy.

Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.

Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.

Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.

In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.

Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.

Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.

Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

So, basically no coercive authority. My response to Barack was correct, as he was whining about coercive authority 'forcing' him to do things. He struggles for freedom like we all do, but he sees only the injustice of government and not the injustices committed by hierarchies dominated by private ownership. Despite this flaw in his vision, he is really an anarchist at heart, wanting freedom - I think we all are.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

If you can love then you have an anarchistic trait.

Oppressive coercive suppressive dominating abusing etc etc etc are not anarchistic tendencies or traits. They are traits of manipulators power seekers greedy etc etc etc anti-social.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

If I were raised as such, I might have turned out to be one of those anti-social types - a lifetime of indoctrination into a belief system is a powerful thing.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Perhaps - I think we can all count our blessings - those of us who have escaped an anti-social life.

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Could you imagine being raised by Glenn Beck? <<< yiiiiiikes ! >>>

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

ick - or RushLimpballs?

Talk about raising a kid to have suicidal tendencies.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Every kid needs a good rebellious spirit.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And an education to allow them to understand what they are rebelling against and to make smart decisions in their rebellion.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Truth.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Obamacare is instituted by force. There is no avoiding it for anyone. You are inflicted with Obamacare whether you wish to participate or not. The government has to FORCE people into socialized programs. At least have the stones to admit what you are in favor of inflicting on people. I am in favor of being able to choose what my health care will be and how I will pay for it. Perhaps I will choose not to comply, and then I will have food and shelter and healthcare paid for by everyone with no effort at all.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I am in favor of inflicting care and compassion on people, especially the self righteous wealth hoarders.

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You cannot force compassion and care. That is called tyranny.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

And you cannot force Ayn Rand bullshit on me, although I give you credit for trying really, really hard.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I understand. You can lead the horse to water, but...

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

" ... but we can't make you think" !!!

gnothi seauton ...

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You are right, I cannot make him think.

Thanks for the input.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

so cliche.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Actually nature "forces" compassion and care on us. Solidarity and care for others is a natural human feeling :)

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

So, you understand. YOU cannot force compassion and care, if YOU do, if someone else does, that is called tyranny.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

You can't force people to have certain feelings, but you can force rich guys to pay more taxes. I like the idea of democracy, and if it's decided democratically that the financial elite are to be stripped from their wealth and power (as they should be) than that's not tyranny in any way.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Taking money from rich people accomplishes nothing but stripping freedom and liberty from all individuals in the society... and you can only take the money once. You will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Here's the thing, Cupcake. The very liberties and freedoms you talk about, are simply not always compatible with our economic system. The freedoms that allow our economic system to work are the same freedoms that can allow Capitalism to destroy itself.

The freedoms afforded to Capitalism begin to have diminishing returns. When capital does what capital does - it becomes concentrated in the hands of a few. When greed is seen as a right and a virtue, and liberty and freedom is used an excuse for greed.

Capitalism left to its own liberties will exhaust and murder itself. Because capital accumulates more capital. Allowing Capitalism to distort itself and turn inside out upon itself. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's not sustainable. Like a parasite - feeding on it's host. And the parasite dies when it kills its host.

So we can hate on government. And allow Capitalism full freedom and liberty. Capitalism will then rule us. And become not only our economic system but our political system as well.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1916- 1939

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

That is why the founders did not found the country as a democracy, and it is why, as Progressives have demanded more and more democracy, the rights of the individual has been eroding.

Keep in mind that if "the wealthy" hoard all the gold or beans or little green pieces of paper, they cease to have any value at all. Something else will replace the item that no one can get hold of.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

He was speaking of democracy in the general sense, not the literal sense. He was speaking of it as opposed to government becoming a plutocracy. Like in the Gilded Age. When there was extreme levels of wealth inequality. Like today.

He understood the dangers of Capitalism. He worked 'to equip government so as to deal with the excesses and inequities fostered by the industrial development of the 19th century.' And I believe the quote in my previous post was related to progressive taxation. When after the Gilded Age top marginal tax rates were raised to 90%. To reduce the effects of capitalisms tendency to accumulate wealth to wealth. And additionally, to pay for the war debt. Of course, nobody really paid 90%. There were loopholes. The effective top rate for about 40 years was really only about 60-70%. Top tax rates were increased, wealth inequality was reduced and this was our period of greatest sustained prosperity. When capitalism was working for the most people. Rather than just the wealthy few. Top tax rates were kept high until Kennedy reduced rates slightly in the mid 60's since the war debt had been paid down to a manageable 30% of GDP.

Funny thing happened during Reagan's term. The debt went from 30% of GDP to 60% of GDP. Seems all those Reagan tax cuts didn't quite pay for themselves. He also increased government spending. Mostly defense spending I think. Some would argue that he 'spent' his way out of stagnation.

Any-hoo. My point is, there is justification for progressive taxation. And justification for regulation of capitalism. And government spending for the social good. It's not socialism. It's not some government boogey man trying to take away your individual liberties and freedoms. It's classic capitalism. It's Adam Smith. You like Adam Smith don't ya?

Adam Smith believed that government has a role in providing certain public goods for the benefit of society. Like schools, infrastructure, and social welfare. He supported government provided education, government regulation and progressive taxation.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

He believed in regulation - ''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''

Don't confuse and conflate your individual liberty with capitalisms rights to run amok and cause damage to society on it's way to destroying itself. You think your individual liberty is any match for the unrestrained, often destructive, forces of capitalism? Keep kidding yourself with that little fantasy and you will prove Karl Marx right.

'Progressives have demanded more and more democracy' - you'll have to explain that one.

I would say it is Capitalists who are demanding more and more rights, more democracy. You know, corporations are people my friend and money is speech. Maybe that's why you see your individual rights eroding. They're being usurped by Capitalism.

Don't look now. But the Plutocrats want you to hate on government. And they're using your fear to do it. Because when government is weakened, in the name of liberties of the individual, the Plutocrats increase their power. So go ahead and 'fight' for your 'individual liberties'. Weaken the government. The Plutocrats running the joint love you for it.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Reagan cuts brought in more money, the Democrat congress spent multiples of the more money Reagan's cuts brought in. Tip O'neil lied when he told Reagan that he would reduce the spending.

[-] 6 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I call bullshit. He tripled the debt from $.7T to $2.1T. He planned to cut social programs to pay for his military spending. He couldn't bring himself to cut the social programs. Because he wasn't a sociopathic psychopath like today's Republicans. So don't blame Congress that Reagan wasn't a total sociopath.

He increased military spending $1T. That's $1 Trillion plus interest. He increased military spending, with no way to pay for it. Gee that sounds familiar.

The Fed (Volcker, appointed by Carter) gets the credit for reducing inflation. Reagan was just the end recipient of the monetary policies that Volcker had already started. And oil prices dropped in 1981 and continued declining throughout Reagan's terms. This is what brought about economic growth and increased government revenues. Not tax cuts.

The Plutocrats will try to fool you every time and say it was tax cuts that created the growth. Nonsense. Don't be duped by the Supply Side Pushers. It's economic sociopathic suicidal psychopathy. Even Bush Sr. called it voodoo economics.

Don't be a Plutocrat Supply Sider's Wet Dream. Think with a clear head. It was lower inflation and lower oil prices. Don't let the Supply Side Tax Cut Nonsense eat your brain.

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Even the hardcore Austrians know that Reaganomics was a farce, and that his cuts didn't bring in more money... thats a myth.... so is blaming Congress because Reagans submitted budgets weren't that far off from what Congress approved:

The Myths of Reaganomics

http://mises.org/daily/1544

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Democrat congress tripled the debt. It's not a tax problem, it's a spending problem that causes the debt.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Bush and conservative policies (tax cuts, war spending, economic crash) took the Clinton annual budget surplus & turned it into a $1trillion annual deficit we are still dealing with.

The debt exploded under Bush and continues to add almost $1trillion to the debt every year.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

HOLY SH!T ! It is NOT a question of "taking money from rich people !! It's a question of struggling to bring about an end to this unconscionable, destructive and plain evil 'Extractive Parasitism" !!!

Why be such a sad "Pre-Propagandised 'Wealth Worshipping', 0.01%er's Lickspittle" ?!!

Give it up and join your brothers and sisters - because, by being here - you already have !

amor vincit omnia ...

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I am not one of those who is so greedy i covet the property of others. I am not focused on what someone else has. Be grateful for what you have earned and stop trying to take the property of someone you envy.

non esse a irrumabo...

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

That's just 'Bat Shit Crazy' maan ! Seriously ?!! Your interpretation of our motives here are that we are 'greedy, envious and covetous' is it ?!!!

Where does your fear, loathing and loveless dark energy come from ?

"Keep away from The Dark Side, Luke" and again "It is NOT a question of taking money from rich people !! It's a question of struggling to bring about an end to this unconscionable, destructive and plain evil 'Extractive Parasitism" !!! Do try to reflect - for the sake of your own soul & karma if nothing else !!

Finally I signed off just above with "love conquers all" and you managed nothing but ungracious obscenity ! Sheeesh !! What does that say about you, do you think ?

temet nosce ...

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

When I googled the latin translation for lickspittle, it did not translate to "love conquers all." Sheehs!

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Fair enough. You have a point. I apologise and withdraw "Lickspittle" above and replace it with"Lackey", such that it now reads :

  • "Why be such a sad 'Pre-Propagandised, 'Wealth Worshipping', 0.01%er's Lackey" ?!!

Hope that satisfies and addresses your ego &/or linguistic reservations and I was wondering IF you had anything substantive to add on the matter of "Extractive Parasitism" ?!!!

pax et lux ...

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

150 million workers in the U.S. each produce on average $100,000 in goods and services. 90% (135 million) of workers receive less in wages than they produce in goods and services.

It's not a matter of the poor coveting other's property. It's a matter of the rich coveting and taking other's property. The wealth you say we are trying to unfairly distribute belongs to us in the first place.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

$100,000/ 150,000,000 people= 0.0006?.... Each person only produces 6 ten thousandths of one dollar? I find that hard to believe. I think you have not engaged your brain if you believe the source that gave you that information.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

You might put your reading glasses on. EACH worker in the U.S. produces $100,000 in goods and services. $15 trillion GDP divided by 150 million workers.

Half of those workers, 75 million people, earn less than $26,000 a year. 90% of the workers, 135 million people, earn less than $100,000 a year.

The vast majority of U.S. workers are not benefiting from the labor they provide. A relative few at the top take the majority of the benefit. Wealth is not trickling down, it's rushing up.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

In this case you have it backwards we are talking about taxing the geese that are hoovering up the golden eggs.

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I am not one of those who is so greedy i covet the property of others. I am not focused on what someone else has. Be grateful for what you have earned and stop trying to take the property of someone you envy.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I do not want another's property - stop puttin your words in others mouths - what I want is for all to participate fairly. In this case it means upping the tax on the incredibly wealthy ( among other things ) that are not currently supporting their fair share. Artificial as well as real people.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Sure sounds like you do. You are not offering to contribute your property, you want the government to take someone else's. That is called greed. The coveting and desire to take and keep that which belongs to others.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I pay taxes. More in relation to my income than the wealthy pay in relation to their income.

Wake up.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

There's force in any type of society. You're forced to follow the laws. Give it up, dude.

You should be able to get the health care you need/want, but it should be availble for everyone. As a society we're richer than ever, we can afford it. But first we must create a more egalitarian society. Now lots of the wealth is concentrated on the few super-wealthy

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

If government run medical is not repealed, we will get the medical care some bureaucrat allows us to get.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

If you weaken government and it's services etc in a capitalist/state-capitalist society, then that means more power to the private tyrannies(corporations). I'm not a big fan of centralized government either (actually I want to dismantle government and state in the long run), but only when we begin to dismantle capitalism can we think in those termes.

Capitalism must be abolished and replaced by a free, solidaric and sustainable society with democracy built from below, thru democratically run workplaces, communities etc. That way medical care is available to all who need it.

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

No capitalism, no prosperity.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

If we don't dismantle the tyrannical capitalist systme, we won't have a just and sustainable future.

It is not x's exploitation of y that leads to prosperity; what causes prosperity is human hands and minds.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Government = Tyranny

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Government can equal tyranny (cf Soviet Union, Syria etc), but governments can also be run democratically (cf Sweden, Norway, Germany etc etc)

Just stating "Government = Tyranny" is not good enough. You have to back up these claims and come up with some counter arguments - or don't you have any?

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Government = tyranny is true, there are different levels of tyranny. The more government takes and controls, the less individual liberty and freedom, the more tyranny.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

First you have to explain what you mean by "socialism"? Do you mean democratic socialism / social democracy; or do you mean totalitarian leninism / stalinism?; or do you mean Libertarian socialism?

There's force in any society; you're forced to live in the type of system your country has chosen, whether you want to or not.

The question we have to ask ourselves is: How should we organize our society; should we organize it in an undemocratic way with totalitarian states/corporations, or should we organize it in a democratic way so that people have a say in the things they're a part of and affect them?

I prefer the latter.

It also looks like you didn't read my answer above well enuogh

[-] 1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Where the government takes money from one group of people and redistributes it in one form or another to another group of people.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Basically all governments take money from one group of people and redistributes it in one form or another to another group of people, US included, so your definition of “socialism” is pretty wide to say the least.

But back to your question: ”Name a socialistic society where the members freely choose to be part of the socialistic sharing and are allowed to opt out instead of being compelled to participate by governmental force.”

There aren’t any socialist societies with a system like that, but any type of capitalist/state-capitalist society wouldn’t be like that either. You're forced to follow the laws decided by the society you live in, you can't just "opt out". So the question is in wht way do we want to implement rules and laws. I think it's pretty obvious that we must do this thru democratic prosess, preferably based on a libertarian socialism/ anarchism with democracy built from below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp

Let me ask you something. Do you want a society in which people get to have a say in the things they’re a part of and affect them?

[-] 1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Yes, I should have my person and my property protected by my government from people who would seek to do me harm or to take my property.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

There are different kinds of property.

Ok, so you think people should have a say in the things they’re a part of and affect them. But that would also include the right to have a say in how your workplace is being run, yes?

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Yes, you have a right to choose how your workplace is being run by choosing whether or not you return the next day.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by harry2 (113) 2 years ago

How is forced to live under socialism?

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

People rebel at having the property they have worked hard for taken and redistributed to others. This removal of earned property has to be done by force. The United States has thrived because it is the first time that a government was created to protect individual right to private property. Without property rights, there is no prosperity for anyone other than the people who have the right to take it from others (the government employees... or autocrats under that system)

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

There can be different kind of proprety rights:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/property-rights/

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I understand. You don't like the ownership of property in private hands. You prefer the government owns and controls everything and metes out bits and pieces to those it feels deserving. I disagree. I think you and I should be able to work hard and acquire the things we want and need.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"You don't like the ownership of property in private hands"

Correct

"You prefer the government owns and controls everything and metes out bits and pieces to those it feels deserving."

Dude!!

I'm an anarchist. You must be the only guy on here who haven't figured that one out.. :)

"I think you and I should be able to work hard and acquire the things we want and need."

I think we should, to a large extent at least, work towards a society based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" We must build a society that is good for everyone living in it.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

If you don't like ownership of private property, you are no anarchist. You said, "I think we should, to a large extent at least, work towards a society based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" " is communist, an all powerful government, not anarchist. Who redistributes the goodies in a world with no authority? I mean it. Think about it. You want no authority, but you want a government to have the authority to take your property and give it to others?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Google "Anarcho-communist", you troll. Like I said. I'm out.

[-] 1 points by harry2 (113) 2 years ago

Isn't redistribution a principle of capitalism?

To pay others for service and products? What about rising and falling interest rates, Energy cost, monopolized service prices? Gas price manipulation. Taxes on homes, Insurance prices.

Don't you think they just take wealth away from you? Or is the problem really to feed some handicapped or ill people to get back on there feed?

Capitalism or socialism - if the center of life is the money then it may not such a good thing to live for? Since nothing is for ever anyway?

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Capitalism does not redistribute. Everyone trades items of equal worth, so really, everyone has only their abilities to trade with.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You back up your opinion with a post of your opinion? What I said is intrinsically true and can be backed up at any time, at any store, at any diner, at any business.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

The link provides arguments. Did you read it? Do you have any counter-argumnets?

[-] 0 points by harry2 (113) 2 years ago

When I read about the political fiction, before the cold war ended, that the west will tend more to a Communist like political philosophy oposite to the former east, I did not believe it but it turns out that way.

And just because the capital does not see the treat, made out of imbalance of power and eliminated fear?

To abstract?

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Treats that move oposite to abstract?

Is that some kind of haiku?

[-] 0 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Why does capitalism/militarism/consumerism ???

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

None of those are forced on you. Capitalism and consumerism is natural law. you cannot disavow capitalism any more than you can reverse gravity. Even if outlawed, capitalism will find a way to thrive until more enlightened people protect property rights again.

Militarism? I'm not sure how that is being forced on you. Please explain.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Capitalism and consumerism is natural law"

Are you really serious now, or are you just trying to provoke?

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

It is natural that I make something or produce something that is of value to others and trade that item for things that are worth something to me. Natural law. You cannot change it even if you wanted to. You can empower the government to kill anyone who does engage in that type of activity, but it will occur regardless.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

“We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe"~Jonathan Wallace

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Then float. You cannot offend gravity.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Stop it. You are killing me with the bad jokes.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, it's you who don't live in the real world. Capitalism is extremely anti-human:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/dehumanization/

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Someone who says that natural law can be defied because they deny it can offend the universe is the one who is out of touch with the real world.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

This is no natural law. This is not graven in stone anywhere and is no part of nature.

What you say here has also nothing to do with capitalism (cf exploitation):

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-exploitation-and-involuntary-agreements/

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Capitalism has been co-opted, subverted and usurped and Modern High-Finance Crapitalism (ie 'Corporate Banksterism' / 'Hoover-Up Kaputalism') is a Busted Flush - as any honest person who is in possession of the most rudimentary ethical compass can clearly see.

Please do NOT confuse and conflate Socialism with 'State Capitalism' or 'Totalitarian Stalinism' - as is the wont of avowed and abject 'anti-socialists' <ahem> and please do try to understand why there are many 'Economists' and 'Social and Political Commentators' with many pertinent things to say about our Global 'Debtocracy' ( http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/debtocracy/ re. Greece) who are again increasingly referring to Karl Marx ( http://www.marxists.org/ ) for analysis if not solutions.

Socialism is a Philosophy, World View, School of Thought, Morality & Ethics and it is really a very 'Broad Church' : from Social Democrats ; Fabians ; Christian Socialist (inspired by that Proto-Socialist, 'Jesus Christ'!) ; Dialectical Materialists ; Internationalists ; Libertarian Socialists ; Anarcho-Syndicalists and right up to Revolutionary Maoists advocating armed resistance and violent proletarian revolution.

Ignorant and prejudiced opinions are no place for anyone to objectively assess Socialism, so step back from The Corporate MSM (ABCNNBCBS / FUX SNEWzzz etc.) induced apoplexy and prejudices and look to make your own mind up. Thus, further to the two links above, I also append the following :

In conclusion, either we meekly accept The Usurpation & 'Mutation Under Duress' of our Democracies into 'demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy' & de facto Fascism ... or we seek to reclaim our Dignity, Liberty, Prosperity and indeed Sanity, as The Only 'Class War' is the one that has been waged by a Parasitic 0.01% (The 1% of the 1%), using the 1% against The 99% Working Class because if we need to work to pay our bills, that IS quite self-evidently what we are, 'working class' - ipso facto !!!

Furthermore, please also see :

Finally, some words from Albert Einstein from over 60 years ago :

per ardua ad astra ...

[-] 1 points by hesa91 (8) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I like all your points and I agree with your first paragraph. Yes, the "Modern High-Finance Crapitalism" is the main and horrible problem.

Unfortunately, you compare two different worlds further: the real and the virtual ones. All Socialisms, you mentioned, but two existed in theories only. I respect Socialist theories. Some of them are decent, and they are tried in real life, but PARTIALLY.

The only really existed full Socialisms were:

  • National Socialism (Nazism) and

  • International Socialism (Stalinism).

Select any.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nope wrong - both of those examples were dictatorships - the ultimate hierarchy of tyranny.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Exactly !

Very Well Said !!

This inability to associate "Social" with "Democratic" and all the 'Anti-Socialism' in The U$A - is really rather revealing, if not more than a little tiresome and ultimately ... utterly self-defeating !!!

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hey shadz thanks for the shoutout - it is truly sad to see the victims of propaganda perpetuate the propaganda and they do not even realize that they are doing it.

Psychological warfare has taken many prisoners.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

There's a name for it mate : "Stockholm Syndrome" !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah - I think it is similar to that - being held hostage to the propaganda machine - some will start to identify with it.

All the more reason to keep reaching out with the education.

And you do a fine job of that.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Thanx & all this 'trying to move forward whilst always looking backwards' - is ending up with a populace continuously falling on its 'Collective (x)' as the fear of the future seems to paralyse 'The Collective Unconscious' in the present, into just repeating the same BS but still expecting things to change !

There is a massive failure of The Collective Imagination !!

It has got to Stop - 'ASAP' !!!

dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I know I can't really think of a more desperate time for humanity then right now. Yes there have been horrors in the past awful wars and tensions over a nuclear conflict - but at the same time we had more people who I would term as sane and in touch with reality. Not so in this day and age.

Damn there is a frightful number of people that need to come to their senses and worse millions that need to wake the fuck up.

[-] -1 points by hesa91 (8) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Guys

Don't you think, that it is you who are victims of propaganda?

I point to the reality and say "Think for yourself".

You insist on ideas and point to books. Books are the way to promote author's views, so they are propagandistic ingeniously.

BTW. Only totalitarian regimes are able to success in psychological warfare. (And they do. This thread is an evidence.) Democracies are too pluralistic, too individualistic and too weak for successful psychological war.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

That is one of THE most deluded comments that I've read here for quite some time ! You don't really sound like a reader or overly blessed with 'objectivity', however on the outside chance that I'm wrong :

  • "Manufacturing Consent ; Noam Chomsky and the Media ( Required Viewing for every citizen in the Free World.) How government and big media businesses cooperate to produce an effective propaganda machine in order to manipulate the opinions of the United States populace". : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44 ,

  • 'PROPAGANDA' : “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” — by Edward Bernays (First published 1928) : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26193.htm ,

  • "The Myth of the Liberal Media" (Video) : "If you want to understand the way a system works, you look at its institutional structure. How it is organized, how it is controlled, how it is funded." -Noam Chomsky & "The Mainstream media really represent elite interests, and what the propaganda model tries to do is stipulate a set of institutional variables, reflecting this elite power, that very powerfully influence the media." -Edward Herman : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6435.htm &

  • "OUTFOXED" : (Video) "A film which examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know." : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428 .

  • "PSYWAR ; The Real Battlefield Is Your Mind" : (Video) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26430.htm .

veritas vos liberabit ...

[-] 2 points by hesa91 (8) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It is waisting time to discuss with indoctrinated people.

Not like you I did not just read books about Socialism, but lived there and fought with KGB for many years for my right to leave this "paradise". I know a lot internals about Socialism and its propaganda. Not you do.

And all my knowledge shows that you are the victims. May be not direct but indirect. You are poisoned by other victims, who are poisoned by other, etc. There was the USSR powerful and sophisticated machine of propaganda at the beginning of the chain. The USSR is dead but the poison which it injected still works via generations of victims. It is not a horror film. It is the fact.

Lenin named such indoctrinated people "useful idiots", and the USSR bred them with care.

Now about the USA propaganda: Obviously it exists. But as many here agree, the USA is ruled by corporate interests. Interest of nowadays corporations are money in pockets of their executives.

Now tell me, how much money will get a XYZ CEO from capitalist propaganda. - Nothing. - Zero. - Nihil. So who will pay for that?

So do not worry too much. The paid capitalist propaganda is very weak. Only volunteers and some economy professors do it. And I am too sophisticated and experienced to be brainwashed by any propaganda: Socialist, Capitalist, or Microsoft.

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Winston Churchill

It is great that you, guys, have hearts. In my twenties I was a Socialist too. When you get matured you will understand what I am saying.

But for now I am leaving this post discussion.

Bye

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Discussion with broad minded people is seldom wasted I'd suggest and with reference to 'indoctrination' please see any of the 5 links above. I do appreciate your comment, which is informed it would seem by your experiences under Utterly Undemocratic 'Totalitarian State Capitalism / Stalinism' - which is Very Far from anything I may be advocating or suggesting !

None of us are completely objective and as JP Satre said "'Subjectivity' is the only truth".

The very word "Socialism" is harsh to your ears because of your experiences & I do not question that matter any further and we are in agreement when you said in your first comment to me "Yes, the "Modern High-Finance Crapitalism" is the main and horrible problem." and maybe I ought to have concentrated more on this rather than taking exception with your equating 'Nazism' with any kind of 'socialism' at all and your equation of "International Socialism (with) Stalinism". Language divides &/or unites us and so agreed definitions are quite important !

Consider also that language itself is merely an approximation of our thoughts which are in turn, only an analogue of our feelings.

When you say "I am too sophisticated and experienced to be brainwashed by any propaganda: Socialist, Capitalist, or Microsoft." - I intuit & realise that you are a 'heart centred & feeling person' and I regret the initial tone of my comments - tho' of course I still hold to my arguments. Finally, tho' old enough to be a grand-dad, I don't have children but I'd like to think that I was still young at heart {;-p)

'Spasibo tovarich & dosvedanya' and possibly 'nostrovya' too !

vale ...

[-] 1 points by hesa91 (8) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Ave Shadz66, morituri te salutant!

Thank you for your friendly clarification :-)

Regarding our discussion:

My credo is:

  1. The country is ill, and the emergency treatment is necessary.

  2. The Socialism is not a treatment, as it have demonstrated lethal results, when applied. I am going to explain it later, but answers to your comments first.

You wrote: "Stalinism ... is Very Far from what I'm advocating".

I have no doubt, otherwise I would not be here. But the Devil's trick is that once the Socialist Revolution occurs, it leads to the Slavery. I will prove it later.

You wrote: "The very word "Socialism" is harsh to your ears because of your experiences."

Sure it is so, but besides that, I observed, thought and study a lot, why and how it happens, that such a good thing becomes so horrible. A Russian immigrant writer wrote about the like issue 30 years ago: "We know that [the Socialism is evil] not because we are smarter than Americans are. We just have been already on the last stop of that bus, which some Americans tries to get now."

You wrote: "your equating 'Nazism' with any kind of 'socialism' at all"

That was not me. The official name of Nazis was "The National-SOCIALIST Worker's Party." And it did was a real Socialist party. Definitely it was not Socialists of yours, but the Socialists. I connected Nazism and Socialism not to humiliate the Socialists, but to say that there was just two types of Socialist states in the history. One of them was a Nazi state.

You wrote: "your equation of "International Socialism (with) Stalinism". Language divides &/or unites us & clear definitions are important."

You are right that is the language (or more preciously - different life experiences). My expression would be clear for a Russian person and as I've realized - not so clear for an American. I do not EQUATE "International Socialism" with "Stalinism". I do NAME "Stalinism" "the International Socialism" And that is why.

Nazis said that

  1. They are Socialists

  2. They are Nationalists. And the World should belong to the German Nation

Stalinists (and Leninists/Trockists) said that

  1. They are Socialists

  2. They are Internationalists. And the World should belong to the workers over the World.

So I named Stalinism "an International Socialism" as opposed to "a National Socialism" by Nazis. The word "International" with the same pronunciation exists in Russian and it is tightly connected with Stalinist slogans, while the other word is used for the neutral word "International" as a "Global". You got my words as I were insult Socialists over the world. While I recalled, how Lenin'/Trocky's followers named themselves "Socialists-Internationalists"

You wrote: "I still hold to my arguments. "

Sure, that is why we are here. I understand and respect your opinion. More, as I said, I shared it somedays. And again, I just have been at the last stop of that bus. So I am going to try to share my observations, thoughts and readings with the people. Who knows, may be somebody will find the working solution for our problems. I eager to hope.

Now I have to interrupt myself for some other activity.

"Nostrovya!" Which means "For Health": usually either the answer for "Thank you", or a very short toast when drinking

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Ave 'hesa' and thanx for your reply. I think that your comment is very thought provoking indeed and as a quick aside - with 'noststrovya', I was really only clinking an imaginary small glass of 'Stolichnaya' with you - because despite our differences - I do detect a humane, human heart and perhaps both of us detect similarities in our hopes and desires for society at large.

I will desist in engaging in pedantic quibbles over language and limit that to merely pointing out that Nazism ('National Socialism') has nothing to do with 'Socialism' and everything to do with 'Nationalism' and 'Fascism' and that Hitler detested and persecuted 'Socialists'. This point is NOT moot. Finally, "Stalinism" = 'Nationalism + State-Capitalism + Totalitarianism' and is very far removed indeed from "Internationalism" which is much more about Proletarian Socialism across borders and can which not be implemented without Democratic Mass Movements in my opinion. Trotsky's ideas were at variance with Stalin's and he was exiled and ultimately paid the highest price for resisting The Demagoguery, Paranoia and Authoritarianism of Josef Stalin, who purged the then Russian Communist Party of most democratic, inclusive and humane elements.

I really don't think too much more light can be shed from continued quibbling over language as we do not seem to share any definitions but I do not question your personal experiences and the views and trenchant opinions that you have derived from it. However, I do think that the matter needs broadening.

'Socialism' is just a word which thanx to The (mis)Education System and The Toxic-MSM, seems to provoke all sorts of emotional, knee-jerk, negative responses in Americans in particular - whose internalised 'Cold War Propaganda', still chimes in their Collective Psyche. I am not as particularly attached to The Word as I am to 'The Humane Idealism about Social Justice'.

For example and re. Germany ; The Marshal Plan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan ) was hugely important to post-war Germany - between 1948 & 1952/53 and indeed it could be easily argued that the U$A needs a Rooseveltian New Deal and 'Marshal Plan' right now, particularly for its crumbling infrastructure. However, the primary financial beneficiaries of The Cold War was ... The US Military Industrial Complex & The 'Multi-National Corporations' !

The really interesting conclusion to draw is the way post-war West Germany rebuilt and moved its Society forward as a result of being freed from the expense and 'societal energy sapping' of The Military WAR Machine. The same is of course true for Japan. Finally it should also be noted that a Re-Unified Germany has rebuilt and integrated (& still continues to do so), the erstwhile East-Germany - with all the huge concomitant financial costs involved but still Germany continues to invest in its people and strengthen its Civil Society. Now many and indeed most Germans won't necessarily consider that their strong and compassionate society is 'Socialist' but try to dispassionately consider the nature and the progression of their Society and I care not for what words are used to describe their system - all I'd like is for other countries to have the opportunity for some of that !!

My final point is to draw attention to the fact that 'The Cold War' has been over for 20 years - an entire generation, no less ! But how come The American Citizenry has seen NOUGHT ; NOTHING ; NADA ... of Any Peace Dividend ?!! Or have massive efforts been made to replace 'The Cold War' with an endless, convenient and Ongoing New 'Hot' Global War ... ON TERROR ?!!!

First and foremost I am a 'Militant for Democracy'. I want a Fair Society with good shared Healthcare For All and good Educational Opportunities For All. I want voting to mean something. I want an end to Corporation Controlled Political Parties & The Corporations OUT Of Our Democracies - wherever we are. I do NOT regard all of this as 'utopian' or 'idealistic'. I regard this as eminently doable and desirable and well within our human capabilities - provided we mobilise together locally, nationally and across borders.

I think that we have to 'Globalise Resistance' against The 0.01% Parasitic Class'.

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 1 points by hesa91 (8) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Please name any EXISTING or EXISTED (for reasonable period of time) TRUE Socialist country that was NOT transferred into dictatorship - the ultimate hierarchy of tyranny.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I am not aware of any true socialist country. The two you used as examples were not true socialist either.

[-] 2 points by hesa91 (8) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Good point.

And both regimes STARTED as the Socialist ones. There were very very grounded complaints that people had to the existing situation. So they tried Socialism.

And that was what people got when their Socialism has been stabilized.

My point is "If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it seems to be a duck"

If every attempt to introduce Socialism (there are two types of real Socialism, but many countries. E.g. Cuba started as an independent Socialist country, just then they became a Stalinist type one) brought tragedies, it seems that the REAL Socialism is what it is.

Isn't it?

[-] 1 points by hesa91 (8) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Interesting and educational article. However for mysterious reasons author did not mention that the key factor for Norwegian prosperity is oil.

But back to our discussion

CIA The World Factbook. Norway. Economy ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html# )

"The Norwegian economy is a prosperous MIXED economy, with a vibrant PRIVATE sector, a large state sector and an extensive social safety net. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, THROUGH EXTENSIVE REGULATION and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises."

So Norway is NOT the true Socialist country.

(BTW. Banks, communications, and some other industries are regulated extensively in the USA. Does it mean that the USA is a Socialist country?)

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Present day "Norwegian Prosperity" is very much connected to 'oil' but they had laid the foundations for their society well before oil was discovered & fully exploited in the 1970's. Instead of allowing just Private Corporate profits at any cost, The Norwegians have a Massive State Owned Sovereign Wealth Fund.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by a "true Socialist country" and maybe that word has become too loaded to even use in The USA. The salient point is the application of ideas, principles and policies that work FOR The 99% ... NOT JUST The 1% !!!

per aspera ad astra ...

[-] 1 points by hesa91 (8) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You wrote: "What you mean by a 'true Socialist country'"

I believe that we have to go for definition to the highest authorities. The most prominent Socialist was Karl Marx. So let's go to him.

"MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY KARL MARX AND FREDERICK ENGELS

(From Part II: Proletarians and Communists)

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, TO CENTRALIZE ALL INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of DESPOTIC INROADS ON THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

  1. ABOLITION OF PROPERTY IN LAND AND APPLICATION OF ALL RENTS OF LAND TO PUBLIC PURPOSES.

  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

  3. ABOLITION OF ALL RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE.

  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and REBELS.

  5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

  6. CENTRALIZATION OF THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORT IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE.

  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

  8. EQUAL OBLIGATION OF ALL TO WORK. ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ARMIES, especially for agriculture.

  9. COMBINATION OF AGRICULTURE WITH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES; GRADUAL ABOLITION OF ALL THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TOWN AND COUNTRY BY A MORE EQUABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULACE OVER THE COUNTRY.

  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. COMBINATION OF EDUCATION WITH INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

I capitalized conditions, which are possible to implement only by enslaving people.

Did somebody see that in Norway or any other civilized country?

Some points of the Manifesto are reasonable and they are implemented in some "pink" countries.

  • I would not rise a call to arms, because of heavy progressive tax (I just know how government wastes tax money now and so I doubt, if it helps, though I wish);

  • I would not rise a call to arms, because of centralization of credit (I just know how stupid are high paid private financial managers, and doubt that governmental ones will be wiser, though I wish);

  • I would not rise a call to arms, because of extension of state owned factories (I just know how stupid are high paid private corporate managers, and doubt that governmental ones will be wiser, though I wish);

All listed measures may help, may not (I think - not, though I wish they help, but that is my particular opinion, other people may have other one, and I would be ready accept it, if I will lose the democratic procedure).

But I will not tolerate if somebody would try to implement measures, which I capitalized. Finally, I swore to defend my Constitution. It is mine because I paid 12 years of my the only life fighting with KGB for the right to enjoy it. Many may not understand me, because they get it for granted. Some even declare that it was not their choice to be born here. You are lucky to be born here. In some other places you would be executed just for such words, said even not publicly, but to your own spouse's ears in your own bed at night.

Speak up. Protest. Reveal rats. Blame on politicians. Try to find new solutions.

But NOT SOCIALISM. It will kill you eventually. Remember that virtually all Russian revolutionaries were executed by the final winer - Stalin. It was not accidental. It was an ingenious law of a Socialist revolution.

God, bless America!

God, exterminate her rats!

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (18130) 2 years ago

Quoting 'The Manifesto', which was an educational and propaganda pamphlet in its time and taking extreme umbrage at suggestions made with regard to socio-political and industrial realities in the late nineteenth century will of course generate much heat but alas, little light.

Marx's real ideas are contained in 'Das Kapital and that is why he is still highly relevant as most of the economics departments in most colleges and universities in the world are aware. I am personally much more interests in the analysis of 'Capital' than I am in the suggested solutions for worker liberation in the nineteenth century contained in 'The Manifesto'.

The words of 'Communist Manifesto' can not really be taken as unyielding, unchanging, immutable laws of class struggle written in tablets of stone for all time and universally applicable in all circumstances as "tempus mutantur et nos mutamur in ellis" (times change and we all change with them). 'Socialism' is NOT a religion and should not be treated or seen as such.

Love and Logic are the parents of 'Socialism' ~*~

I do NOT wish for, desire or advocate State Ownership Of Everything ... FAR from it. I wish there to be a myriad competing options and entrepreneurs ; I want free and fair competition between the best ideas and many 'modus operandi' in many matters ; I want Equality Of Opportunity For All, especially for the younger generation - Irrespective of 'Class', Financial Standing or Familial Favours and Advantages and I want a Strong, Responsive, Efficient and Effective Democracy.

In short I am not interested in 'dumbing down' and 'factoring people down' with any 'Lowest Common Denominators' - I want individuals, families and communities to rise up to their Highest Potential. I want an equal playing field and fair advancement to be available for all, no matter what 'class', colour or creed. I have a lot of time for Adam Smith, who often warns against monopoly and cartels and who I regard as a Moral Philosopher more than a 'Free Market Fundamentalist'.

I desire all this for Everyone Everywhere and I yearn for All of Us to be free of The Despotism Of The Banksters and emancipated from The Stifling Clutches Of The 'Permanent-War' Machine.

Like many millions of people throughout The World - I subscribe to Socialist Precepts and Principles because I realise and accept that Socialism has an Ethical Basis and Dimension, above and beyond "The Dog Eat Dog" and "The Devil Take the Hindmost" attitudes of crude laissez-fair capitalism.

Furthermore re. 'OWS' and why we are here, please see The Oscar Winning Documentary Film "INSIDE JOB", about the 2008 'Wall $t. - GRAND HEI$T' :

fiat lux ...

[+] -4 points by henyslick (-18) 2 years ago

Socialism is a disaster in other Countries and would not work here either

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Capitalism is a disaster in other Countries and does not work here either.

[+] -4 points by henyslick (-18) 2 years ago

If Obama and folks like you like socialism then please move to another Country that is currently failing badly because of it

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I would rather stay here and fix America.

[+] -5 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

If you believed what you preached, you would associate with others who believed as you do and live the lifestyle you wish to compel others to live under. Socialism is about power and control and the oppression of individual liberty and freedom... although it is presented as generosity and compassion.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What(?) you mean like a twin brother to unfettered capitalism?

Hhmmm funny where one can find similarities - Hey?

Though you really need to look at some successful healthy peaceful socialistic societies prior to pooping on them - look to the Norse.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

The Norse have not been a socialist economic governmental system for longer than the United States has used the Constitution and capitalism... and they along with the rest of Europe are on the brink of economic destruction.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Get a grip on reality. Some countries in the north ( Norse countries ) are weathering the current economic storm quite well. Hell even Germany would be sitting pretty if they were not tied to the European union.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Control and oppression comes at the hands of a group or an individual. We have built in dictatorship controls in the free market, well hidden as individual liberty and freedom, but it really is nothing more than private ownership to control production and oppress the working class - why don't you give up control of production and share wealth with the workers. If you truly believed in freedom, you would work to set people free from all tyranny in whatever form it takes. If you truly believed in freedom you would believe in both limited government and limited private ownership.

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You cannot free people by enslaving them to the government. Governments have the power to oppress people, corporations do not. Governments have killed more people than corporations by a factor of hundreds of millions. I choose to take my chances with the corporations.

[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I would rather not take my chances with either institution having unchecked powers to control and oppress. Be smart for once in your life, limit power across the board and set all people free. Stop siding with private ownership to exploit people. Stand with people for once in your life instead of corporate monoliths.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Corporations cannot oppress. Governments are the ones with the power of oppression.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Search corporate tyranny - get 6,520,000 results (0.27 seconds) - You are delusional.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Corporations are tyrannies. Huge undemocratic hierarchies run and controlled by the non-elected financial elite.

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You are wrong. Tyrannies are by nature operated by government. Corporations cannot force you to do something.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Nope. Corporations are undemocratic, from the top down hierarchies - tyrannies. The financial elite and the huge corporations have a huge control over the economy and society, and you're forced to live by the laws of the state-capitalist system. Again, there's force in any society; give it up dude.

[+] -4 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Name a corporation in the United States that has legally incarcerated or fined someone.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Just so you know, this is my last comment to you. No corporations have done that. It is government that does that, including governments who operate with a capitalist/state-capitalist system You're forced to follow the rules in any type of society.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Corporations cannot force me to do anything. Good to know, from now on, I am bringing my comic book collection with me to work and reading them at my desk.

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Your choice. They cannot force you to work. By the same token, you cannot force them to employ you.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

That is 100% true, yet 100% misleading. No one can force me to do anything against my will. That applies to a thief, to a government, or a corporation, but all three use consequences of non-compliance to act in a tyrannical manner.

It is true that I do not have to hand over my wallet to a thief pointing a gun at me, but I have to accept the consequences of non-compliance - the thief will shoot me.

It is true that I do not have to hand over my money when the government collects taxes, but I have to accept the consequences of non-compliance - the government will put me into jail.

It is true that I do not have to work for a corporation, but I have to accept the consequences of non-compliance - live without an income, which makes a beggar out of me, and beggars can not be choosers.

Of the three, the corporation is the worst tyranny because it pretends it is not tyrannical in nature and that I have a real choice.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Govs partnering with corporations is the worst case scenario.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Yes, because the government has the power to do the corporations bidding. Limit government power, limit the ability for the corporations to affect policy in government. If the government is not allowed to make a law telling you you have to buy health care insurance, the insurance industry cannot get politicians to make a law requiring you to buy health insurance. Government is the problem, not corporations.

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

If they really believed what they say, they would be able to associate with others here and live in a socialistic society here in the United States without trampling on the freedom of others. Socialism is about the government controlling people and not about generosity and compassion.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

"Socialism is about the government controlling people and not about generosity and compassion."

I can see how people might form that opinion who live in this country, because Socialism doesn't work very well here. But it isn't that way in other parts of the world, as my friend in Sweden has indicated here -->>

http://occupywallst.org/forum/some-comments-on-sweden-from-my-friend-who-lives-t/

[-] -3 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Socialism does not, and will not work anywhere because we are human beings. Without incentive to produce, we will not produce, as can be seen by the result of the food stamp and unemployment. Our government is creating a nation of leeches... With the complicity of their educational system.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I think you and I may be having miscommunication regarding the word Socialism. Please define your personal understanding of the word, and by this I don't necessarily mean a standard dictionary definition.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Where people work and the government dictates what we are allowed to keep and what part of our work is redistributed to others.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

When you use the word "work" you mean "money", right? So work = money? How can you redistribute work? Are you talking about outsourcing? Getting to a precise understanding of what Socialism means to you allows for precise communication.

It is important to understand that Sweden is considered a social democracy. They do practice regulated capitalism, but the "social" aspect is that they have many tax-supported programs that benefit all their citizens like healthcare, daycare, lower and upper education, unemployment, long leaves (vacation, maternity, sick, etc.). This requires high taxes, but this all results in a high standard of living for all their people. There is no poverty -- none. There is very, very low crime, itself an indicator of a society that works correctly, unlike our screwed-up mess that has the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized country.

So, to sum it up, Sweden has capitalism that generates their economy, high taxes that pay for all of their safety net social programs, and a parlimentarian coalition-based democratic government. A winning triumvirate resulting in one the highest standards of living in the world that could serve as a great model for the USA.

Oh, almost forgot. They have VERY strong unions there, unlike our meaningless eviserated unions here. This is also, undoubtedly, part of the reason why their people eventually obtained all of those social programs that benefit them by having a large labor party in their coalition legislature.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Yes, work = money and money = work. If it didn't, money would have no value at all.

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Sorry to correct your thinking on this, but money doesn't equal work or vice versa. People can work without getting money. People voluteer their labor for worthy causes without getting paid. Slaves are forced to work without getting paid. Some people have inherited money without having worked a day in their lives for it.

Money is nothing more and nothing less than a medium of exchange that simplifies the exchange of goods and services. Without it, you would be back on the barter system. Money is artificial, and in today's world it is nothing more than an abstract number. The value of money can be (and is), therefore, artificially assigned based on consensus of value. Value means different things in different situations. A canteen of water to a thirsty man in a desert has infinite value in keeping him alive and money has none.

Money will one day become obsolete. In the future, when humanoid androids have replaced all workers in the production of goods and services, there will be 100% unemployment (or close to it). Exchanging pieces of paper for necessities will become meaningless, because our mechanical slave-class will provide all of the necessities to us without any labor required on our part at all. A new paradigm for providing people with goods and services will have to be thought up. "You give me something and I will give you something", as old a concept as mankind, will be replaced with "You give me something, and thank you very much Mr. Robot".

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

What makes a bunch of green pieces of paper capable of being traded for a tire? A steak? Someone to mow your lawn? A piece of gold? What makes the money worth anything? The money represents work. Money = distilled work.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

What makes a bunch of green pieces of paper capable of being traded for those things you mentioned?

An agreement.

We could also agree, for example, that I will give you something that I have that you want in exchange for something that you have that I want. There is no money present in that exchange. That is an example of the barter system. But the barter system is inconvenient. So people invented the concept of money as a medium of exchange because it is easier to carry money around than to lug around a whole bunch of stuff to exchange for something else (and this includes labor btw like if I agree to mow your lawn in exchange (there's that word again) for something I want like a radio or something --- again no money exchanged).

When money was invented mankind simultaneously invented a great evil because money represents future exchange transactions. Barter represents agreements using non-standard items or labor in exchange for other non-standard items or labor. So the more money that can be accumulated the more future exchange capability one has. And this is where the concept of wealth came from and where the division of people into classes came from.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Okay, then, what is money = ?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Money = Money

Money = Convenience

Money = Not having to barter

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You are talking about charity. Charity has worth and is in itself a type of currency.

You say money is a medium of exchange. What gives the money any value? If money is artificial and arbitrary, why do we have inflation? Work will always have worth and the easiest way to represent that work is to convert it to currency. Actually think it through. Money = work.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Are you saying that money is NOT artificial? Where does it occur in nature? And we have inflation because we have money. People thought up money. Money only came about when people formed societies. You are so accustom to thinking of it as work that you cannot imagine a society without it. And this "value" that you keep talking about is assigned to money by people on a daily basis in the financial markets, hence its rising or lowering in "value" all the time. Our fiat world currency isn't backed up by anything traditionally agreed upon as valuable (like gold or silver because of relative scarcity), so now money is just an abstract number that can be manipulated through various complex things like derivatives, and other Wall Street shenanigans.

If we were living in simpler times using simpler concepts, you might be able to get away with reasoning that money = work. Things are not that simple now, and money is created out of thin air without any "work" on the part of anyone (Fractional Reserve Banking). It is an abstract tool that governs the exchange of goods and services between parties. That is all it is.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

When money is created out of thin air, it robs all currency of a portion of the work represented by that bill. Whether it's tucked in your wallet or in the safety of a bank.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Yes, under our current FRB system inflation is a real problem. That is why I advocate abolishing FRB. But money isn't work. Money is a medium of exchange. People can work without receiving money. Some do it involuntarily without receiving anything in return and this is called slavery.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Exactly. Money represents labor. And when a person possesses a billion dollars, that money represents the labor of one hundred thousand people working for a thousand hours at ten dollars an hour.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Today money is random and created out of nothing through fractional reserve lending, government spending, and maybe one other way. Most of us think there is financial growth that is some kind of bate and switch or creating out of nothing...

Some people would like to see Money related to Labor.

Many of the original Land owners in the USA were give land by a charter or marque from a monarchy. The land was value, but is also gave the monarch some patrimony and control. That land turned into wealth.

The Land Grabs or Homesteading by staking out a claim was a kind of wealth, but hard to always say that land owners worked for the land.

Slavery built wealth and a lifestyle for the land owners it seems. But the wealth seems misplaced. How about the labor in a sweat shop. The labor creates value, but not for the worker.

What about American Exceptionalism. The idea that America deserves to become a world leader and a wealthy nation (I might be twisting that a little). Why should South America, Central America, and the Caribean have been so poor when people worked pretty hard.

Wealth apears to be about Control, Controling Resources, technology, innovation, and distribution of your product to the market as much as anything else.

During the banana wars years 1898 -1950? The US corporations made money controlling land, production, and cheap labor in foreign countries through the US Military intervention. It was fruit or sugar or something else. But it could have been oil...

Rockafeller controled most of the oil companies in the USA around 1920? There is one theory that WWI was started because Germany was finishing up a rail road from Berlin to Bagdad because it would secure oil for Germany.

Money starts to look like it is create by dominating people and environment. Need a dam, displace a population and get it done.

I don't have any principals when it comes to creating money. I'd like to be a bank and make money through loans. But I don't have money or contacts. I would never kill indians or enslave people to make money. I wouldn't send an army to Iraq or have the CIA assasinate a democratically elected leader so that I can get control of the resources or control the government.

But maybe money should be based on work... would that be communism if all people worked and got paid the same for the same kind of work?

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

... who have chosen to work at that job and have been paid a wage they had agreed to.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

But without the full knowledge that they are not receiving fair compensation for the labor they provide. In order to receive fair compensation, they need the services of professional negotiators to collectively bargain for a fair wage.

If they knew that during the last 40 years our nations productivity increased 80%, but their wages only increased 10%, they would not settle for their current wage.

http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2012/05/04/the-u-s-productivity-farce/

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You to say the least - have a very poor understanding of cause and effect.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

You guys have had this same argument at least 100 times. You've had an argument on every conceivable topic in economics and politics, over and over. You still feed him and still you argue. At what point do you say to yourself, this guy has ulterior motives, and move on. There is a reason most forums have a DNFTT notice in their rules; because it's effective. At some point when the media picks this movement back up, I would like to see people stay and a trashed forum won't do that. You feeding him just gives him a reason to keep doing it and makes two instead of one.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Um.....sorry - "NOT" - I have a strong tendency to refute misinformation/propaganda/lies when I come across it.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

LOL. not trying to step on your toes. There are many ways to use this forum that would be far more productive, and you have yet to use them. Find interesting topics and hit the tweet button, facebook it. Start a blog and post your articles. Post a regular news thread (not that you don't post news but as a focus). If you are concerned enough to continue this type of discourse, you should be interested enough to help drive traffic. Just say'n.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I do use twitter and I post many things there as well as informative posts that I come across here. Guess you have missed my remarks on those occasions.

[-] -2 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

your posts are dull. go away.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well - aren't you just a glutton for punishment then.

I mean you follow my posts and comments and even make comments on them - you go so far as to traipse through 6 months of Forum history to dig up an old and dead post of mine.

Tell me.

Is your self abuse physical as well?

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

huh? I am sitting here trying to enjoy some good writing from Barack.. when ..Oh no it's DKA again !!!...babbling brook of idiocy. please help us out & stfu.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So "you do" abuse yourself - Barak good writing? - Ha!

So do you beat yourself with a flail ? or do you pay someone to do it to you?

[-] -3 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

you have a tenuous grip on the general function of thinking.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Giving yourself a pep talk?

[-] -2 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

] 1 points by DKAtoday (10262) from Coon Rapids, MN 0 minutes ago

So "you do" abuse yourself - Barak good writing? - Ha! (at least he's got a brain...unlike moi. ...I just write the first thing that pops into my pea size lefty mind)

So do you beat yourself with a flail ? or do you pay someone to do it to you? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Are you pretending to be Mittens etch-A-sketch Romulan now?

I mean he likes to put words in peoples mouths too.

Are you a fan of his?


[-] -1200 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (70) from Yonkers, NY 14 minutes ago

] 1 points by DKAtoday (10262) from Coon Rapids, MN 0 minutes ago

So "you do" abuse yourself - Barak good writing? - Ha! (at least he's got a brain...unlike moi. ...I just write the first thing that pops into my pea size lefty mind)

So do you beat yourself with a flail ? or do you pay someone to do it to you? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] -2 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

Get the help you need ..it's ok. I heard this place is good and it is near you >>http://flmhc.org/ All the best!

[-] -3 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

why aren't u out advocating for humanity with your petitions? don't post anymore..I can't take it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Stop reading the posts and comments then you masochist.

[-] -2 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

I am amused by the silly, grandiose crap you right.

you think a lot of yourself...that comes through..the most :)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I thought you were bored? I thought you couldn't stand my posts or comments.

Are you a student of the Mittens? Compulsive lying 101. Deny reality 101? Revisionist history writing 101?

Like I said before - I can not help the way you perceive me - but it sounds like a personal problem to me. There are people who can help you with your issues.

[-] -2 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

what the hey are you gettin' rabid about now? coon rapids needs u..go do a petition.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34974) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

TryingForAnOpenMind & entering the twilight zone instead - you make me laugh.

[-] -3 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

go here they will do tests on you. I'll even help you out w/ the fees, if u need assistance. http://flmhc.org/

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

You're wrong. A free libertarian socialist society is very much in accordance with human nature:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

What exactly do you mean by "socialism"? Libertarian socialism, democratic socialism / social democracy or leninism?

[-] 0 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Sorry to point this out to you, but this is already a socialist country, as comedically indicated here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/bill-maher-comically-speaks-the-truth-about-americ/

And studies like the below link show that people overwhelmingly support it in countries where it is working correctly for the benefit of citizens (as in Sweden for example) instead of where tax dollars are used here for the MIC and oil subsidies and other shit like that that supports big business agendas and the wealthy class.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/perspectives-on-psychological-science-building-a-b/

[+] -4 points by henyslick (-18) 2 years ago

US is a capitalist Country and always will be. Obama's socialist regime plan is fading as well has his chance for a second term

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Not exactly very capitalist in 08 when the financial elite ran to the "nanny state" receiving billions of tax payer money...

The US is a state-capitalist society, and Obama is not in any way a socialist, but a right-winged democrat.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

This is a raw fascist state and capitalism is all but dead.

[+] -7 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I would tend to agree.