Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Inherent Flaw of Capitalism and what is to be done for the future.

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 3, 2011, 5:48 p.m. EST by Student (94)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Please read this whole thing and don't skip over it and dismiss it because you don't agree with it. We all need to open our minds if we are to plan the future of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

This may make many mad, as you and I have all been raised to think that Capitalism is the only way and that the future belongs to capitalism. However Capitalism, as most of you have figured out (though most of the public hasn't really figured out) is not working, at least our capitalist system. We need to decide soon what we have to do to go forward, however I can tell you what we can't do.

Many people suggest we need to heavily reform capitalism. That seems like it would work, but it will not. If you think about it here is why: Right now we are in ruin, wealth has concentrated itself to the top 1% leaving us 99% to suffer. This is mostly due to the slow stripping of regulations over the past few decades. FDR heavily reformed capitalism and made it a lot better for the common person after the great depression, however almost everything that he has done has been reversed. If we reform Capitalism we will be facing this same problem within the next 50-60 years. As the rich develop in reformed Capitalism, they slowly get more political power. Even if they get rid of a few regulations every year, it still all piles up. The more regulations they lobby and get rid of, the more wealth they accumulate and the more political power they get. That allows them to slowly lobby and strip more regulations away. This will happen no matter what, it is like a small hole in a damn, slowly the water will keep eroding it until the dam breaks.

Many people get mad and say "We need to stay with Capitalism" and "We can't become Socialist". However, you have been conditioned to associate Socialism with USSR/China/Eastern Europe. This is not the case. Socialism does not mean you are taxed all your money or you pay for everyone else. That is what is propagated in our society to make socialism sound less appealing. It would be a society that is working together to benefit each other. Socialism and Democracy are twin systems, as now, the workplace and economy is Democratic, and follows the peoples want. We can develop our own system here easily. It is NOT against human nature, that is a lie propagated as a nail in the coffin of Socialist Ideals. We now, with our technology, have the capability to eliminate and mechanize almost all work in our society. In a capitalist system, this is bad as workers get laid off. However, in a socialist system, this would be great, as everyone would get to work less. This is not outside of our realm, we as a society could make great advances. We can do this all under a Democratic Socialist system, where the PEOPLE make up the government and all tools/industry is owned together by the people.

Thats the end of my rant. Lol please don't dismiss it or not read it because you don't agree, we all need to listen and hear each other out.

144 Comments

144 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23760) 8 years ago

"We can do this all under a Democratic Socialist system, where the PEOPLE make up the government and all tools/industry is owned together by the people."

Good rant, from the early days of Occupy Wall Street.

[-] 3 points by enemyofgod72 (9) 12 years ago

I agree but what people have the hardest time wrapping their heads around is the fact that we don't need money at all. Our money is worthless, it is backed by nothing. We need to move to a resource based economy and that can only be achieved through real Socialistic Democracy. The two can not exist without each other. We are all human beings created equal by nature and made un-equal by money. There is a better way but we won't get there without fighting for it. OWS!

[-] 1 points by in2it (3) from Orleans, MA 12 years ago

Che Guevara would have liked to create a moneyless society as Finance Minister of Cuba's revolutionary government. And he did begin a process toward that goal by replacing worker's material incentives with moral ones. Removing money as an economic stimulus, however, did not succeed. For one thing, a farmer saw no reason to grow any more crops than were necessary for him to feed his family and
to barter with neighbors. So, money provides incentive to work and that's the key. That should be, if not the sole purpose of money, its number one priority. Money energizes the work that needs to be done in order to create and maintain a healthy vigorous social body. And that means an on going and plentiful supply of jobs.

[-] 3 points by picaman (14) 12 years ago

As a Socialist, I agree. We need a system that elevates the rights and needs of the individual above those of the corporations and state. We need a system the recognizes that the welfare of the individual and the success of business are not mutually exclusive.

[-] 4 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

Yeah. It just frustrates me that people automatically dismiss these ideas because they are "Socialist". Socialist ideas are actually very smart and good ideas. Just because we are socialists doesn't mean we want/love "Mao and Stalin" or dumb crap like that. We want a society where the people can thrive and we all work together for the common good, ALL of us not just the top 1% . It makes sense, without getting into conspiracy territory, of course the system and people who would lose the most in socialism (The capitalists and big business men) would tell us that we need Capitalism and Socialism would be a failure. They tell us this through news, textbooks, etc.

[-] 1 points by RobWalton1 (1) from Blanco, TX 12 years ago

Which is fine, except that they didn't force anyone to live the same way. Capitalists would be fine with socialism as long as socialists don't seek to codify their beliefs into law. You want to live in a kibbutz or a commune, or give 85% of your money to the State, knock yourself out. Just don't make anyone else do the same.

[-] 1 points by tompainejr (0) 12 years ago

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's just the opposite.

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. - Robert A. Heinlein

You cannot have socialism without your jackboots. - Me

The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action. - Frank Herbert

I agree with Herbert; take a hike with your "ism."

[-] 1 points by butterflyprincess37 (45) from Fort Collins, CO 12 years ago

agreed

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

there has never existed either socialism nor capitalism- our system and the other governments of the world are all oligarchies.

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

as a democrat, i agree with the above, but, i don't agree with socialism.

[-] 0 points by tompainejr (0) 12 years ago

The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too. - Oscar Levant

Why does the AFL-CIO have thousands of pension plans? To steal from the workers is the politically incorrect answer. Or do you want spin? The annual cost of administering a Social Security account is $12. An AFL-CIO account? Several hundred dollars.

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

fine points..

[-] -1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

elevating the needs and the rights of the individual is not socialism, its simply balancing a free market system with social services. I am against socialism and any sane person would be.

[-] 3 points by picaman (14) 12 years ago

Jesus' followers lived communally.

[-] -3 points by exUSSR (2) 12 years ago

Jesus could feed 100 people with 7 loafs of bread. So his brand of socialism was sustainable

The real life socialists produce nothing and only want to receive and redistribute. Unsustainable and unfair, no matter how good it makes them feel

[-] -3 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

yes, and jesus was the first socialist. That does not make it a meaningful solution as such. I am all for communal living. Calling it socialism is making three fatal errors- one, its not socialism. two most people are polarized against socialism and 3 socialism not an evolutionary process its an ideology.

[-] 5 points by picaman (14) 12 years ago

So, in your mind, Jesus was insane.

[-] -2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

no, jesus was 2000 years ago, and we have made 2000 years of progress since then. Doing something that would have been brilliant 2000 years ago is still doing something that would be insane now. We need REAL DIRECT DEMOCRACY. not socialism.

[-] 2 points by butterflyprincess37 (45) from Fort Collins, CO 12 years ago

direct democracy, where every person has a single vote, and it seems, decisions are arrived at by consensus, is inefficient and cumbersome. I think delegative representation is a for better system. the delegates have specific positions they may act on; these positions are decided by the people they represent; they are limited to a certain time frame as delegates; reimbursement is decided by their constituents; they are subject to immediate recall, if recalled, they may not be a delegate for a period of time, based on percentage of people wanting the recall. there are probably other details that would need to be worked out.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

"better" is a relative question. i don't think so. Better how? In terms of opportunity for things to decay back into oligarchy, lots.

Direct democracy is only cumbersome before the participants understand and employ meaningful organizational rules,.. which .. of course,, is the real core problem we have now..

[-] 1 points by butterflyprincess37 (45) from Fort Collins, CO 12 years ago

the issue I see is that most people are lazy.

look at how long it took OWS to decide on principles of solidarity, and that's what, 500-1000 people? now, imagine trying to run a country where every decision must be voted on by 150 MILLION people (or even 50 or 25 million) in a delegate system, the positions of delegates could be voted upon directly by those represented. those delegates may only vote how they have been approved to vote and negotiate within limits decided by those they represent. if a delegate steps outside his authorization, they can be immediately recalled. rather then requiring a consensus, decisions could require a simple majority for matters of purely internal affairs, while more major issues require 2/3 - 3/4 majority. in certain matters, a consensus would be needed. delegates are limited to a term of say 1 year then they MUST step aside and someone else acts as delegate, preferable someone that see's it as a duty to be a delegate. delegational representation also allows more segments of the population to be given a voice.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

again, while that is a daunting logistics problem, as soon as we are using formal logic and science centered problem solving process, it can all go very smoothly.

[-] 1 points by ImhotepIsInvisible (52) 12 years ago

At the risk of sounding elitist, this is why as a Canadian I'm in love with our political system :D

[-] 3 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

It IS socialism. Your definition of Socialism is the USSR. Im telling you your definitions are confused, and its not your fault, those were the definitions you were given and told.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

bullshit. my defnition of socialism is from textbooks. yours is the one corporate oligarchy fed you to get you to jump in on team socialism.

[-] 1 points by Uguysarenuts (270) 12 years ago

If you say it is student, it must be, look a bit harder though. If it was, jesus would have forcibly taken the 7 loaves from the kid and 19 days later would have passed out 2 loaves to the almost dead people. The other 5 loaves would have gone to the "loaf distribution committees and sub committees" who decided after 19 days that the people were hungry.

[-] 1 points by Swiftraven (2) from Kalispell, Mt 12 years ago

Thats why I am a Wiccan!

[-] 1 points by Uguysarenuts (270) 12 years ago

Wiccans don't get any loaves

[-] -2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

no. My definition of socialism is from political science. the ussr was not socialist it was oligarchy. You trying to tell me etc proves your lost in the tit for tat con scam as a pwn of socialism. thats what the oligarchs want. Your definitions are confused, what you really want is DEMOCRACY. Calling it socialism is just a means to the end of involving you in an ideology war as a pwn of an ideology in order to ensure that nothing ever changes because there are as many other fools tricked into fighting for some other insane ideology or three against you.

[-] 1 points by Uguysarenuts (270) 12 years ago

Jesus a socialist? I think you're reading your Quran upside down......

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

nope. While socialism is modernly a non starter and a primitive and useless ideology, Yeshua Ben Yeoseph was the first person to propose what we call socialism. This is a pretty solid fact. I'm not in favor of socialism and I am trying to get all these socialists clued, but theres the interesting factoid.

[-] 1 points by Uguysarenuts (270) 12 years ago

Nope he wasn't. The mandate to look after the poor is not socialism.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

thats not by a long shot the only socialist idea he proposed. in fact he proposed very specific forms of religious or theocratic socialism, in which the religious state would take care of everyone. it was a brilliant and great idea for 2000 years ago.

[-] 1 points by Uguysarenuts (270) 12 years ago

Sorry but uncle dave chandler is incorrect, need to read the whole rest of the book and clarify what socialism is, and, again, looking after the poor is not socialism, it's decent human compassion. No other system has done more to lift people out of poverty than capitalism.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

gawdoftruth (Santa Barbara, CA) 1 points 0 seconds ago

I am all for a DEMOCRATIC FREE MARKET SYSTEM. Capitalism has never existed and is merely a con scam in the corporate oligarchy rigged casino. if it did exist, it could not exist in the same system with democracy the two are mutually exclusive; capitalism is another form of plutocracy and oligarchy.

[-] 1 points by Uguysarenuts (270) 12 years ago

Hey hey no cut n pasting. That's cheating and doesn't happen in a democratic free market system

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

lol.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 8 years ago

This is all very great thinking, but at the essence of the problem is how to institute real change. Basically, those who control the economic system that we all must live in have no interest in changing it. Considering this fact of the political situation the best we may do is to innoculate ourselves as much as possible from the current system by working amongst our likeminded friends by creating little "socialist bubbles" around ourselves (i.e. co-ops, sharing systems, etc.)

We most likely would not be able to stop any wars and other atrocities, but at least we might protect ourselves from some of the fallouts.

[-] 2 points by Toddtjs (187) 12 years ago

This sight is the purest form of socialism. We are all socializing. We are all demonstration our opinions without the use of money or violence. Social media is the future. We are changing the fabric of our country without even realizing it. Now all we need to do is socialize the banks.

[-] 2 points by Chimptastic (67) 12 years ago

The campaign to make "socialism" a dirty word has been enormously effective, particularly on Americans. Throughout history human struggle has been that of society, not the individual. Each of our ancestors gave up a small portion of his or her individuality for the survival of the group; it's what enabled us to survive long enough to escape the encroaching savannas of Africa and propagate beyond. All of the benefits and rights we enjoy are derived from our social cohesion, which makes our personal liberties at once a product of and reaction against society. Here's where the argument starts, not ends. Let us not, in pursuit of individual desires, throw aside or trample upon our brothers, sisters, friends, and yes, comrades.

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

socialism is a dirty word for good reasons. Socialism is a bad idea. And your again missing the point- we don't need ideology, we need science.

[-] 1 points by Chimptastic (67) 12 years ago

Give that a rest, the red scare is over. You can stop trembling and look out your window, or step outside. Our species' greatest evolutionary strength is society, with our brains and dexterity at distant 2nd and 3rd. I support social democracy principally because of its scientific nature.

[-] 3 points by Nobody (19) from Edmond, OK 12 years ago

Precisely. The Cold War nonsense and ignorance of Socialism due to the idiocracy generated by such a media venture has stunted our ability to grasp the concepts within socialism that are alive and well in our current economic system and keep it alive. Concepts of socialism are: Positive drive, work focused on the concern for the well being of everyone, community-minded actions, community-focused law enforcement, social integrity and security as a group, general well being as a primary interest of all. These do NOT appear in capitalism, ever.

[-] 2 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

Exactly!

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

again, you calling it socialism proves you are either ignorant or an ideologue, not a social scientist. We need real democracy, not socialism, which is a stupid idea.

[-] 2 points by Nobody (19) from Edmond, OK 12 years ago

People's behavior cannot change until the premise of their lives changes. Capitalism fails a large mass, but thrives in smaller groups. It's economic principle. Of course it's obvious to me, but not so much to you because I keep an open mind. As far as Socialism, do you mean marxism (exploitative communism), russian communism, chinese communism, or christian apostolic socialism?

I must assert that in communism, the people think as a community, no matter what the "ruling class" is doing. In socialism, they behave as a benevolent community, no matter what anyone says or does, and reject negative authority outright.

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

there hasn't ever been a capitalism. Chinese and Russian communism are again oligarchy, not communism, Our system is oligarchy, not capitalism. Keeping an open mind is a good thing assuming you retain rational and logical analysis not just let things blow in and take hold which are nonsensical propaganda.

[-] 2 points by Nobody (19) from Edmond, OK 12 years ago

Oligarchy? That word exists? What an ancient term...

You could call it Feudalism to possibly grab more attention, and wouldn't be too far from the truth. Societal regression is what happens when morality is cast aside, and old things become new again. Old problems once more resurface as old behaviors and old mistakes are repeated by those who hate to learn from history.

Of course, classifying the situation we have today is extremely difficult to put to the perspective of an old and draconian word, dilapidated and disused as some terms are. I would wager we are "Corporatist," as the "people" that currently exploit, extort, pillage, rob, maim, murder, oppress and defile the masses aren't actually people. Oligarchy is simply too broad a term and is often a word lost to the swell and swath of information we are required to digest on a daily basis. It fits, if you consider that the "shadow government" or whatever they are called these days actually does control the people in military positions.

As far as Capitalism is concerned, we have used it for millennia as a species and still haven't learned that it only generates greed, hatred and oppression. Whatever government we possess, the open market lacking regulation and inflexible enforcement causes harm to the people within and affected by it.

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

oligarchy. yes. that word exists.

[-] 2 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

Exactly! The 99% need to be in charge!

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

I'm not talking about the red scare. i'm talking about socialism, which is a stupid idea. We want genuine democracy, not socialism, and your trolling and your idea that this is about socialism will not be accepted or included by the vast majority of participants. We are not interested in socialism.

[-] 1 points by Chimptastic (67) 12 years ago

Trolling? I've made two comments on this site (3 if you include this one), neither of which was inflammatory. And after all of your asinine babble, I'm the troll? You need to get over yourself, and you can start by abandoning the notion that you speak for all of the participants around the globe.

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

i never claimed to speak for any person, just the truth. You need to get over yurself and quit spinning.

[-] 2 points by enemyofgod72 (9) 12 years ago

I agree but what people have the hardest time wrapping their heads around is the fact that we don't need money at all. Our money is worthless, it is backed by nothing. We need to move to a resource based economy and that can only be achieved through real Socialistic Democracy. The two can not exist without each other. We are all human beings created equal by nature and made un-equal by money. There is a better way but we won't get there without fighting for it. OWS!

[-] 2 points by enemyofgod72 (9) 12 years ago

I agree but what people have the hardest time wrapping their heads around is the fact that we don't need money at all. Our money is worthless, it is backed by nothing. We need to move to a resource based economy and that can only be achieved through real Socialistic Democracy. The two can not exist without each other. We are all human beings created equal by nature and made un-equal by money. There is a better way but we won't get there without fighting for it. OWS!

[-] 1 points by Nobody (19) from Edmond, OK 12 years ago

I bounced this idea off a couple hundred folks back in 2004-2005 and they all hated it. I think it's time they understood it. As for a resource based economy, that's what money is supposed to be a medium for. Currently it's an imaginary thing that doesn't work due to overinflation of the imaginary side of it which has completely displaced the value of the things it was designed to be a trade medium for in the first place. A socialistic resource based economy wouldn't foster as many specialists as a socialistic medium-based economic structure, however. I'd like to get together with a team to work out the finer points.

[-] 0 points by revg33k (429) from Woodstock, IL 12 years ago

stop spaming

[-] 2 points by Worker (9) 12 years ago

Excellent Analysis.

[-] 2 points by enemyofgod72 (9) 12 years ago

I agree but what people have the hardest time wrapping their heads around is the fact that we don't need money at all. Our money is worthless, it is backed by nothing. We need to move to a resource based economy and that can only be achieved through real Socialistic Democracy. The two can not exist without each other. We are all human beings created equal by nature and made un-equal by money. There is a better way but we won't get there without fighting for it. OWS!

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

to get serious requires a few things they don't have. like chat admins who aren't ego serving propaganda tools, a wiki, 1001 sub forums, an actual game plan, a straight up political platform... you know.. basic organizational things sane people do BEFORE protesting.. like figure out a diplomacy and logic centered metaprocess to give their chatadmins so that they don't really just drive out even more people than the trolls. Adminatrolla. trollaAdmin. Whats the difference to somebody whos got the truth facing a propaganda tool abusing admin powers to push their agenda? how can you prevent such a thing? Metaprocess. did i mention metaprocess? and science diplomacy science psychology science sociology and all those textbooks to read B4 protesting?

you can't have capitalism without a free(SLAVE) market. but you can have a free market without capitalism. And thats strangely the only way it CAN work.

Marketing 101 was fascinating. I admit thats a lot less than a bachelors but its sure more than enough to see whats really going on given the other things I know. Capitalism is not the problem since it does not exist. corporate oligarchy is the problem. capitalism has never been tried. I am a democracy guy. in order for real democracy to function a free market system is required. Thats not capitalism. thats a free market system. there is a subtle difference there which most people would miss. I will again repeat. Neither capitalism nor marxism nor communism nor socialism has ever existed. All of those governments were oligarchy pretending to be something as a con scam. Telling that simple truth gets one banned out of the Chat by either a capitalist or a socialist whos pissed you just said their pet ideology isn't real. It isn't. anybody who thinks that it is is accidentally playing for team corporate oligarchy as a tool. the ONLY system worth talking about is DEMOCRACY. how democracy HANDLES a FREE MARKET system is dynamic and interesting and NOT capitalism.

o. yes. no. yes. what? making change is not reliant on changing the money system one tenth as much as it is on changing the informational ecology. Going to a gold standard as an idea is a proof of ignorance, not a solution. Really the end game is we evolve out of money. To do that we evolve first new currencies and new economic strategies. this leads to economic singularity in about 50 years. If everyone is a millionaire how much you get depends on exactly the material valuation of that money. Which is to say that by the time money becomes obsolete everyone will live like the current millionaire. Tangible items to other tangible items? the real economy is about ideas, change the ideas and everything changes. the problem with the tangible economy is it does not change; its a static reality. you can't make a meaningful gold standard with only enough gold to represent on millionth of the economy. You can make a purely imaginal money system work; but it has to be subject to moral and ethical laws. This is about pinning down those moral and ethical laws and implementing them in new currencies; not trying to imagine a control freak impossible non solution because of the simplicity with which you go about thinking over the problem.

once again. there has never been a socialist or capitalist economy. in all instances such nations were oligarchies. using a mask and a con scam and telling their dupes and pwns that they were something other than oligarchy. the big hump to get over is that the USA oligarchy and the Soviet oligarchy are in on this lie against the rest of us TOGETHER. Neither of them was ever anything other than an oligarchy. both claimed some other system in order to have US fight over the ideals of THAT system while they secretly shafted us all playing a completely different game.

[-] 1 points by Swiftraven (2) from Kalispell, Mt 12 years ago

Return to the pre Christian european tribal aspects of living and get on with life!

[-] 1 points by grandcapitalist (6) 12 years ago

This 99% suffering population you speak of they would be located where?

Your ignorance is astonishing. Our system of governance is made up of our citizenry. Don't like who is in office, vote them out and keep voting. Unfortunately for you and your ideology our constitution does not allow for Socialist Utopia's. By grand design we were founded as a nation of expectational individualism perpetuated by individual responsibility and self reliance. I would think with the historical record of failure socialism has and is currently on display in Europe one would realize that by each his own for each his need is a sure fire way to destroy economies and nations. Our current economic troubles are directly due to socialist wealth sharing programs like CRA (google is your friend) perpetuated by regulation designed to punish success as did many other entitlements and failed policies based on ridiculous claims of social justice.

So in effect your ideas are just dumb.

[-] 1 points by grandcapitalist (6) 12 years ago

This 99% suffering population you speak of they would be located where?

Your ignorance is astonishing. Our system of governance is made up of our citizenry. Don't like who is in office, vote them out and keep voting. Unfortunately for you and your ideology our constitution does not allow for Socialist Utopia's. By grand design we were founded as a nation of expectational individualism perpetuated by individual responsibility and self reliance. I would think with the historical record of failure socialism has and is currently on display in Europe one would realize that by each his own for each his need is a sure fire way to destroy economies and nations. Our current economic troubles are directly due to socialist wealth sharing programs like CRA (google is your friend) perpetuated by regulation designed to punish success as did many other entitlements and failed policies based on ridiculous claims of social justice.

So in effect your ideas are just dumb.

[-] 1 points by grandcapitalist (6) 12 years ago

This 99% suffering population you speak of they would be located where?

Your ignorance is astonishing. Our system of governance is made up of our citizenry. Don't like who is in office, vote them out and keep voting. Unfortunately for you and your ideology our constitution does not allow for Socialist Utopia's. By grand design we were founded as a nation of expectational individualism perpetuated by individual responsibility and self reliance. I would think with the historical record of failure socialism has and is currently on display in Europe one would realize that by each his own for each his need is a sure fire way to destroy economies and nations. Our current economic troubles are directly due to socialist wealth sharing programs like CRA (google is your friend) perpetuated by regulation designed to punish success as did many other entitlements and failed policies based on ridiculous claims of social justice.

So in effect your ideas are just dumb.

[-] 1 points by JeffKnox (4) from Alva, FL 12 years ago

What we need is Rational Capitalism, not Greedy Capitalism. Visit www.sophocracy.com to see how this can be accomplished - at the ballot box.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 12 years ago

This is silly. You yourself admit that capitalism can be reformed. FDR did it, and there was nothing inevitable about the undermining of the New Deal. We do not need socialism, we do not need to collectivize the means of production, and we do not need a new constitution.

All we need to do is restore the rules and regulations that allow this country to flourish. That requires nothing more radical than raising taxes on the rich, regulating the markets, and prosecuting white-collar crime.

The problem is great, but the solution is mundane. We do not need more radicalism. We just need common sense.

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

Read my argument about reform.....Reform will just slowly be undone over a period of decades as the rich garner up more political power

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 12 years ago

Yes, I read it. You present no evidence for this claim other than the fact that it happened once before. That is not a reason to abandon realistic thinking in favor of utopianism. That is a reason to demand real solutions to real problems.

We protest the cutting of taxes on the rich, the deregulation of markets, and the impunity of white-collar criminals. Accordingly, we demand higher taxes on the rich, re-regulation of markets, and the prosecution of white-collar criminals.

Leave the utopianism to the faith-based community. All we need for a more just world is a restoration of common sense.

[-] 1 points by williamforstrength (16) 12 years ago

Term Limits for Congress = Term Limits for Wall Street

[-] 1 points by PUgrad05 (1) from Syracuse, IN 12 years ago

In true capitalism, the business that fail, don't receive bailouts from the government. The reason that capitalism has "failed" is due to the involvement of the government. The problem is the Federal Reserve. They create money out of thin air, not backed by precious medals. They create the inflation that drives prices up. The solutions to our problems is the restoration of sound money, the restoration of our Constitutional principles, and the restoration of freedom. I am all for freedom, but I am not for a movement that denies us of all of our rights, even the right to fail. We can not be guaranteed the American Dream from the Government because it will not create enough incentive for Americans to work for their Dream. It will not create enough incentive for businesses to operate in America. It will not create enough incentive for foreign businesses to invest in America. Freedom can win.....Freedom must win.

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

Socialism can be freedom. NOT USSR SOCIALISM, democratic socialism

[-] 1 points by PUgrad05 (1) from Syracuse, IN 12 years ago

Democratic Socialism has failed. Look at Greece. Look at Spain, Look at Portugal, Look at Italy. The Government can not provide things for us. Where is the Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to provide Health Care, a house, a car, a job. You should be upset at the big banks who artificially inflated wealth, tanked the market, then got a bailout from the Government. The Government gave us the bill for their failures. I am all for success....that is the goal of freedom is to be as successful. You have a right to your life, your liberty and the right to pursue your happiness. Happiness is not guaranteed, and you also have the right to fail.

[-] 1 points by in2it (3) from Orleans, MA 12 years ago

As China so rightly discovered three decades ago socialism alone does not work. The same is true of capitalism and any other ism. The trick is to find the right balance, the right synergy of self-interest and collective interest.

I would like to see a new political party formed from this protest. One that advocates the total revolutionary transformation of social systems worldwide. One that calls for , among other things, societies to be generated from the bottom up socially, politically and economically. That is, localities network together to form whatever larger organs are needed to facilitate local operations. So, networking local governments would form any larger governing bodies needed to incorporate and coordinate an integrated network of localities. The banking system would be generated in like manner with the sole purpose of money seen as energizing the work that needs to be done in order to maintain a society at as optimum a level as possible. And that means creating plentiful living-wage jobs.

Feedback loops would be created throughout the system whereby the localities would oversee the larger organs they create and the larger organs would oversee the localities. All in real time communication with one another and capable of dealing with issues immediately as they occur. Such a configuration is in keeping with electronic/information age communication technologies that favors decentralized information sharing. While the whole system now in place operates in a way that is at odds with such technology.

for more info; http://biocracy.info/blog/blog5.php?blog=5&paged=8

[-] 1 points by Uguysarenuts (270) 12 years ago

Is this one a joke? Unless you are 98 years or older you have never seen capitalism. Don't EVER make the mistake of confusing socialism with social justice.

[-] 1 points by ellie (1) 12 years ago

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. - Adrian Rogers

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 12 years ago

Sounds like something Hannity would say. The belief of republicans and anti-socialists is that people do not want to work. That is absolutely not true. In a community setting, people do want to work. They are also not inherently stupid, lazy, or willfully ignorant. If anyone in our country has those characteristics, it's because our brand of mindless consumerism has MADE them that way.

[-] 1 points by AriaLittlhous (18) 12 years ago

Is any one there talking about supporting a Path to proportional representation? Which would allow socialist parties in?

http://www.fairvote.org/choice-voting-proportional-representation In service training day on issues? Happening?

[-] 1 points by msteff8533 (4) 12 years ago

You people are a joke, nothing but a bunch of entitled hipster idiots, parroting typical "academic" nonsense, you were "taught" in a typical political science 101 class. None of you have any real sense of the underlying issues, as is shown by your superficial discussions when confronted about the notion that your supposed movement may need some cohesion and a central theme or point. Worse yet, the very people you claim to rail against are in support of you, and your agenda of prepacked consumer friendly "cool" civil discourse. Don't you think it creates a clever distraction for them? I truly hope that you don't represent the 99% and that the 99% aren't as stupid as the majority of you appear to be

[-] 1 points by Lifestream (85) from Milan, IL 12 years ago

This is very similar to the goals of the Zeitgeist Movement in that we recognize technologies place in our lives and how it can greatly help us progress and alleviate much of the labor needed in the workforce today and that we need to eliminate capitalism. Though when I bring up Zeitgeist I seem to get alot of haters, though the points are about the same here. So I must ask what you think about TZM and it's goal of a resource based economy?

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

tzm is a cult.

[-] 1 points by Lifestream (85) from Milan, IL 12 years ago

You are a slanderer

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

no, i'm not, but neil kiernian sure is, as is tank top, and as is pretty much all of tzms all start troll cult leadership. I am simply telling the simple truth about an evil fascist cult of personality which holds together on the glue of neil kiernians ad hom double standard and pack psychology.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

they love to lie lie lie lie lie about other people ,including me, and to this end they had to delete all 700 posts i made on their forum in support of them. Otherwise the lies wouldn't hold. never mind that they needed that information to stop being a cult, trying to help them only gets you crucified. they are an evil cult and this is most true by how they treat people who know more than they do.

[-] 1 points by Lifestream (85) from Milan, IL 12 years ago

There is no leadership in TZM, they encourage supporters to act on their own accord if they want to advocate the movement. You won't see Peter Joseph telling someone how to think, or what to do for instance. On a forum, there is need for moderation however, and us still being the conditioned humans in this current socio-economic state are still restricted by the values bred by that system.(Societal influences effect us, hence creating human behavior, often confused with human nature) So you might have been singled out, yes, I don't know the whole story. But we are all products of the system at the moment, looking for a way out, and in that fact we can find peace and brotherhood, and hopefully develop mutual understandings. But to keep slandering TZM because someone who is a human let their ego get in the way is just immature. We haven't transitioned yet, I'm sorry that you may have been a victim as a result of someone elses' bad day, but don't slander TZM on a whole because a member or 2 didn't mesh well with you. Our arguments are still sound, despite anything you say.

You calling us fascists is just wrong, by the way, we don't value strong leadership as I said, we would elect ideas, not people. And we are not violent. Why would you call us fascist? I'd like to know. And using internet memes really fuels my doubt for your basis of knowledge, sir.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

no leadership aside from the pack psychology and rogue admins with troll powers or i'm sorry rogue trolls with admin powers.. its a cult of personality in three tiers, Jaques, PJ, Neil. They do indeed tell people how to think. Attacking all religions, and attacking all governments and attacking everyone. There is a need for moderation. they have NEVER met that need. I am not slandering tzm. I am telling the factual truth about it. Its not a matter of one member or two not meshing with me. it is a simple matter that they are a cult, that i have spent thousands of hours trying to help them to no avail, and this plays out a million ways- not just with me but with anybody with knowledge who tries to help them. TZM is in FACT a fascist cult, both in its rhetoric and in the actual form of government used on the forums. And you are violent, the third movie is nothing more than an hour long incitement to riot and every time i interact with tzmers they are ad hom bound and socially violent. Fascism is a specific type of control and government, which is specifically actually the form of government proposed by tzm and its ideology- a robotic gawd fascism, and fascism is the actual form of government used in their forums and in all of their interactive media including team speak.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

no, your arguments are not sound, they are full of holes. even pjs religious extremism argument regarding christianity being influenced by sun worshippers fails because hes got the gist of the thing right but not the first clue that its dionYSIUS not Horus who "Jesus" came from. Sadly this is a perfect example. bachelors degrees and BS. Your evil leaders who claim not to be leaders and who tell everyone what to think are make believing that they themselves know what they are talking about. And they don't listen to the people who DO know what they are talking about.

[-] 1 points by Lifestream (85) from Milan, IL 12 years ago

Well I'm done because you obviously are just trying to detract people on no logical basis, all I read is bullshit from you, lies. you base the merits of a movement on a few members on an online forum who may have been too harsh in their debates with you, if that even happened. You may be one of the people beyond help that can't accept the type of change that is needed. As they say where you're from. Nothing to see here folks. Troll

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

everything is completely logical. it is quite logical to call them a cult, they are a cult. it is quite logical to call them fascist, they are fascist. it is entirely logical to point out that they are abusive ad hom trolls, because thats what they are, or to point out that their forum operates as a brainwashing system using mainly pack psychology and ad homs as the glue of their actual manifest society. I'm not beyond help. they are. They are a troll cult, I'm not a troll.

[-] 1 points by Lifestream (85) from Milan, IL 12 years ago

You further prove my point because you're now contradicting yourself lol. You're right you aren't lol, you're a disgrace to them. Peace and love!

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

blih blih bluahbluabblah blah blah back...

[-] 1 points by revg33k (429) from Woodstock, IL 12 years ago

There are a lot of differences between OWS and TZM, the largest of those being Skynet... or whatever you call your new robotic overlords

[-] 2 points by Lifestream (85) from Milan, IL 12 years ago

Wow man, ignorance has no place in a time of great change. You sound just like the white man in the times of Martin Luther King Jr. Grow up.

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

That resourse based economy thing is basically socialism, just called differently, I think its a brilliant idea

[-] 0 points by tompainejr (0) 12 years ago

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken

[-] -1 points by tompainejr (0) 12 years ago

Socialism is the phantastic younger brother of despotism, which it wants to inherit. Socialism wants to have the fullness of state force which before only existed in despotism. ... However, it goes further than anything in the past because it aims at the formal destruction of the individual ... who ... can be used to improve communities by an expedient organ of government.

  • Friedrich Nietzsche
[-] -2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

there are no inherent flaws with a system thats never existed. there has never been a capitalism. there has only been corporate oligarchy. Capitalism is a fine idea; when do we start? Socialism is a 200 year old dead ideology and is again a specific set of things which you apparently don't understand- none of which have anything to do with solving problems. While at least socialism and democracy can exist in theory in the same system capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive. We need Social Services- NOT socialism.

[-] 3 points by Worker (9) 12 years ago

You say that there are no inherent flaws with a system thats never existed....You are aware true socialism has never existed right? LAWLZ

[-] 2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

thats MY point. I am all for REAL democracy. That means we the people are in charge, we the people own pretty much everything, we the people are doing what congress now does and write our own laws, own the land, etc. You are talking about socialism. A theoretical system which has never existed and which systems and game theory says probably can't exist due to assorted fatal systemic errors. Socialism means the oligarchy owns the corporations. Thats all. You don't want the state to own the corporations, you want the people to own the corporations. IE; reverse the current situation which is in essence that the corporations own the people. What you REALLY WANT is REAL DEMOCRACY. Naming it "socialism" is just a thing that was done to dupe you into always rackling the irons and calling out the conservative doom and gloom squad.

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

Ok this is getting annoying. What you are describing that you like is SOCIALISM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Your own source, Wikipedia, says it means it is state owned OR COMMONLY OWNED and USED. And your definition of socialism is not what socialism is. If thats what it is how would that ever rise as a popular movement? Who would advocate that? lmfao

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

No. What you are doing is conflating assorted systems, failing to grasp what real democracy is and then trying to add in an ideology flavor. I'm 20 phds of knowledge and bored stiff and this is all probably a waste of my time, but what you REALLY WANT is democracy. Calling it socialism proves your a matrix pwn. How would it ever rise as a popular movement? easy? its marketed to rebels without a clue who want to rebel against the corporate oligarchy, so that they accidentally fight for corporate oligarchy, and for an insane ideology which everyone else rightly rejects. Its just like being corralled in on the brooklyn bridge. Instead of just getting arrested tho you are being zombified. We don't need more socialism Zombies.

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

LOL you seem like the same kind of guy who would accuse Obama of being a "Socialist".

I am not arguing anymore. Read the definition and wikipage of Socialism and quit knocking it down.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

again, obama is not a socialist. hes a corporate oligarch. gawdoftruth (Santa Barbara, CA) 1 points 0 seconds ago

"the end goal product should be that every small community takes care of its own. Any federal system is a problem definition of something requiring more serious attention to solve. long term social programs managed by nation sized meta entities is a disaster not only socially and civilly but to the people who get third rate borg social services. A well functioning system does not need a welfare system, it only has a highly evolved net which catches people and only involves less than one percent of the population at any given time, not punishing but rehabing and educating folks. Until such time as that end goal is achieved, no hand outs is a paradox... you have to spend time and thus money in order to fix the problems till their fixed past needing time or money."

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

But don't trust me, I am "Accidentally fighting for corporate oligarchy"

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

yeah. strange place to be to realize that you rebelled and yet still accidentally work for who and what you rebelled against because they tricked you.

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

Yeah very strange. Long Live Capitalism and all the successes it has brought the 99%!

[-] 1 points by msteff8533 (4) 12 years ago

Student, Have you ever worked a day in your life? Or is this all ideological and theoretical nonsense that you spout but have not fully grasped due to your infantile development? Understand, you need a diverse set of employers to have employees. Understand that when you have singular control of growth and economic prosperity in the hands of one body, whatever that body may be it hurts everyone. Further challenge your teacher, whoever they are that taught you this bs. Do what you proclaim to, and have an open mind. Investigate all possibilities, just b/c you learned it at school doesn't make it right or true.

[-] 1 points by Joe (11) 12 years ago

The 99% is doing extremely well. They live in the richest, freest society this world has ever known. Most own a car, a house and a big screen TV. Capitalism has lifted the American middle class out of poverty and into prosperity (compare the U.S. middle class today vs. the U.S. middle class in 1800 -- a poor American today has a far better quality of life than a rich person in 1800 had.) As a lower-middle-class American, I can recognize this. Why can't you? Your problem seems to be that you're an ignorant, close-minded ideologue.

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

LOL then why are we protesting? We are getting kicked out of our houses and abused, we are being debt-ed to death with student loans, etc etc.. What do you think OWS is about?

[-] 1 points by Joe (11) 12 years ago

Really? Is 99% of the U.S. population at those protests? Seems like closer to 0.0001%. The average person sympathizes much more with the wealthy than they do with you guys --- a.k.a. spoiled hipsters and aging hippies. No one made you take out a student loan. You took one out yourself. Now you have to pay it back. Stop complaining, silly hipster.

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

So why are you here? We are not all hippies. I am 18 years old and in my life I have had to been foreclosed with my family out of 3 houses while my mom and dad struggle to work and we deal with medical bills. I am slowly getting swallowed by the debt of student loans so I can follow my dream to become a doctor who travels the country and gives free medical care to people. Am I really a silly hipster?

[-] 2 points by msteff8533 (4) 12 years ago

Yup, Grow up, you have no idea what you are talking about. However, I don't blame you, utopian ideology seems very attractive when you are 18 and haven't put anything into the system, yet. You'll age become an adult and look back on these rants and laugh at how truly naive you once were. I hope so anyway.

[-] 1 points by Joe (11) 12 years ago

Yes, you are a silly hipster --- actually, you're a silly, immature hipster. You're silly because you don't see all of the horrible flaws of socialism (the reasons it has never worked in the past). You're immature because you haven't learned to accept responsibility for your actions. You blame banks for giving you and your family loans that you and your family couldn't repay. Stop whining and get a second job to pay off your debts.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

capitalism is ALSO a system which has NEVER existed.

the core issues; 1. Corporate Personhood. 2. Caste Warfare; they started it. 3. Its legal to lie to the USA public. 4. They are OUR airwaves. They should be used for WETHEPEOPLE not leased by the government to corporations. Put Local colleges in charge of all the media. Arrest and seize all mass media devices and then give those devices straight out to the local colleges, including the land they sit on. We need education public media; not legalized lying and propaganda wars against the people. 5. Education reform. Everyones being kept stupid and ignorant on purpose in school and repugnicons want to argue about how to pay or punish teachers. We need child centered education reform, not a con scam to privatize education and thus score all our children for corporate zombotification. 6. Free market system. Not slave market system. Not caste market system. Not Caste warfare market system. Not rigged Casino. Not making something off of nothing and making bubbles to grease a gravy train either. Free market system. We must have one of those. Its time to have one of those. We have NEVER YET had one of those. 7. Realistic regulation of the government to regulate and control corporations so that what they do is fair and just and ethical and under control instead of a parade of unleashed godzillas turning the masses into to toe jam. 8. Real and direct representation, including no more lobbying, and including an evolutionary use of the internet with organized forums and wikis replacing the old style of congressional/ mayoral office.

"Right, but that still doesn't preclude taxation, which is in fact necessary to regulate the value of money"

nope. taxation period of any kind is merely and only a means to the end of creating a caste system. And even deeper, taxation dynamically entropizes a system, so its not only not necessary to regulate money, its the single largest entropic contributor to the system. The ONLY reason why we pay taxes is thats the feudal system; the idea that we pay anything remotely approaching the same thing or fair to what the rich pay is preposterous. The whole point of taxes is to distribute wealth from the poor to the rich. period.

gawdoftruth (Santa Barbara, CA) 1 points 0 seconds ago

"the end goal product should be that every small community takes care of its own. Any federal system is a problem definition of something requiring more serious attention to solve. long term social programs managed by nation sized meta entities is a disaster not only socially and civilly but to the people who get third rate borg social services. A well functioning system does not need a welfare system, it only has a highly evolved net which catches people and only involves less than one percent of the population at any given time, not punishing but rehabing and educating folks. Until such time as that end goal is achieved, no hand outs is a paradox... you have to spend time and thus money in order to fix the problems till their fixed past needing time or money."

[-] 2 points by ShlamaDAlma (2) 12 years ago

haha pawneddddd

[-] 3 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

Not socialism how you think..... Socialism where we have social services but the economy is also democratically decided on, like the workplace would be a cooperative, etc. Capitalism will always turn to Corporate Oligarchy, in the end there will be a person on top, abusing the others, even if it takes 100 years. Think about it

[-] -1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

excuse me. its not about how i think. its about science, which i studied, namely political science, which is the facts about what socialism is instead of ignorance and pwn con games. your ideas are not all that bad. calling them socialism is a way to make sure nobody ever takes you or them seriously. I have thought about it. Quit promoting a stupid evil dead ideology and get with modern science. I'm against socialism- and you should be 2.

[-] 2 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

You are confusing socialism with USSR Flavor fascism. Imagine democracy in the workplace. What company would lay off 500 workers yet give one person a huge bonus if it was a decision by all the workers? We want a Democratic Economy, aka Socialism. Maybe you like my ideas because you are a socialist yourself, as what you are promoting sounds socialist to me. btw I don't want to sound like I'm coming off as mean, I'm not insulting you or anything, but please Tell me what your definition of Socialism is?

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

no. i am not confusing anything. I have expert knowledge. you are confusing things. calling it socialism is wrong, first of all- just plain a mistake, and second of all, is a marketing nightmare, and third of all proves you are ignorant, and fourth of all makes you a pawn in the matrix ideology mind games. Democracy has nothing to do with socialism. at all. i am NOT a socialist. My definition of socialism is very simple and its the one political science uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism we do not need state owned services. we need a free market system and egalitarian social services to balance that. None of which is socialism. Community living is a different thing, i am all for that- but again- thats not socialism its communitarianism.

[-] 3 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

If the people are the state then the services are owned and controlled by the people they are serving, the people.

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

circular reasoning. democracy is very different from socialism. if the people own the state, thats just a bit different than the state owning everything- including the people.

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

No we advocate that the people own the state and own EVERYTHING in the state collectively: OUR machines and OUR tools make OUR supplies and OUR tractors on OUR land make OUR food. OUR machines make work easier and lessen the workload on US.

[-] -1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

sounds good. problem. thats not socialism. thats democracy. Again. If you want these ideas to go forward start calling them what they are instead of accidentally slipping into the divide and conquer con scam of socialists against capitalists and etc. Your feeding the monster- step out of the matrix. We need REAL democracy, not socialism.

[-] 2 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

lmfaoo thats the exact definition/ base belief of community socialism and marxism...You don't understand, your confused with USSR and other dictatorships that claimed to be socialist

[-] -1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

No. I do understand. the USSR was always a patent oligarchy. It was never socialist. You are the on e whos an accidental dupe and pwn of the corporate oligarchy, fighting for an ideology- not a science centered solution. I'm not confused. I'm lucid. Your confused. PUT DOWN THE SOCIALISM AND BACK AWAY SLOWLY.

[-] 2 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

ok......?

[-] 1 points by emanonman (36) from Lahaina, HI 12 years ago

Some other terms:

Economic Democracy - the logical progression of the American Revolution and the evolution of human beings living together in peace and harmony on this planet,

Economic Justice - the ethical yardstick of a great country.

A couple hundred years ago, the burning question was the political organization of people in a state, because for hundreds of years before that it was da king is da King. Then Britain and France did the unthinkable - they hauled out their kings and cut their heads off, resulting in a leadership vacuum.

So then the conversation became "how do we organize society along political lines", and that was implemented in various ways in Western Europe, the US, the USSR, China, etc.

But today the social conversation recognizes that political organization and economic organization are intertwined. This is revolutionary, evolutionary.

I think its absurd that we go to university and study economics in one department and poly sci in another. They are intertwined. And that's the message that is so hard for so many to get their heads around.

That, to me, is what this protest/teach-in is all about.

Please don't lose heart.

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

Me have heart or GawdofTruth? lol I was the one being nice

[-] 2 points by emanonman (36) from Lahaina, HI 12 years ago

...all of us, brah....

[-] -3 points by Kooch (77) 12 years ago

If this is the way this movement goes, it will die. We must reform capitalism. Your idea is to place control of industry in the hands of government. That is what socialism is. All that does is swap one set of oligarchs for another. De-centralizing power is where it's at.

Plus, FDR did not take care of the real problem. The problem is that nearly all money (aside from coins) is created by private banks as debt. This is the biggest problem.

But seriously, if you want to do more than reform capitalism, if you want to replace it with socialism, you will lose. It ain't gonna happen.

PLEASE STOP UNDERMINING THE REVOLUTION WITH YOUR SOCIALIST TALK.

[-] 3 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

No No No No No lol your confusing the word Socialist we are more broad of that. We don't want the government to take control, what I and others are advocating is that the workplace and economy becomes democratic, that the people decide everything. It was like how you described in Socialist Dictatorships, where a set of oligarchs were in charge of everything, but in a true Socialist Democracy, the people would be in charge of everything and thus in charge of the economy.

[-] -1 points by Kooch (77) 12 years ago

"that the workplace and economy becomes democratic"

How is making the workplace democratic not government control of industry?

[-] -3 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

you are confused. socialist ideas are insane. What you really mean to say is that we need egalitarian social services. Socialism is a stupid evil system, which probably BTW can't work or even exist because there are too many inherent paradoxes. Socialist ideas are BAD ideas. Quit getting lost in language.

[-] 3 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

Huh? Who would openly advocate an "evil system"? I have read theory after theory and philosophical works, I know my political views. Obviously were not advocating Stalinism or Marxism, read about Democratic Socialism, its pretty much what you keep describing

[-] -2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

i have read about democratic socialism. Again, thats a specific system with exact rules. and its a stupid system and its not what you really want. If you want to kill any chance you have of being taken seriously keep calling it socialism. If you want egalitarian social services, then drop the "ist" and "ism" and get thee to some textbooks.

[-] 3 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

Its not a specific system, maybe somewhere where it was practiced it was like that but we could make it as flexible as we want

[-] -1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

it is a specific system, advocating socialism only proves you don't really understand that or what it is. Socialism has NEVER been practiced. Systems theory predicts its impossible, that any attempt to create a socialism wil lend in oligarchy or anarchy.

[-] 4 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

No its not, it was practiced 50 years ago as a specific system. Please do research, I am obviously not advocating dictatorship (lol)

[-] -3 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

no, socialism has not ever actually been tried. its been faked, just like they call the usa a democracy or capitalism- its neither its corporate oligarchy. just like they called the soviet union- neither- patent oligarchy. Again your prove ignorance. No state has EVER been socialist- all states claiming that were some kind of patent oligarchy wearing socialism as a con scam mask.

[-] -3 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

YOU do research.

[-] 4 points by Student (94) 12 years ago

I obviously have...

[-] 2 points by amiemyers (2) 12 years ago

As in most arguments which become oversimplified and polarized, you are both right, and wrong, at the same time. Semantics are tricky. I hope this can shed some light on your dialogue: "Other definitions of democratic socialism sharply distinguish it from social democracy. For example, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, as a form of anti-authoritarian "socialism from below" (using the term popularised by Hal Draper), in contrast to Stalinism and social democracy, variants of authoritarian state socialism. For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide. In this definition, it is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism, while nationalisation and economic planning (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism." -from Wikipedia. This is just one school of thought on social democracy vs. democratic socialism, but I thought it rang true to your debate (which I read most of with much interest).