Forum Post: Why be silent about the marxism tenets of the movement?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 10, 2011, 1:53 p.m. EST by Danimal98367
(188)
from Port Orchard, WA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It is pretty clear that the intentions of this movement, when you get down to the "how-to" ideas, is Marxism. So why is it that in general the movement hides it?
The "down with corporate influence in politics" and the "no more bailouts" is accepted by everyone in the nation. No problem. Yet as soon as 98% of people learn that this movement intends Communistic solutions for those problems, they laugh the movement off or begin outright deriding it.
OWS isn't doing itself favors by misleading people by not generating official solution proposals. And definately not by proposing bigger government oversight or outright Marxist solutions.
So why the hiding?
What marxism? Are you all talking about the obviusly communist states like Norway where they choose from like 10 different partys on election day, and Japan where the prime ministers steps down every 6 months becouse they feel they let the people down. These are actually a few of the most socialist countrys in the world. China on the other hand is arguably the most capitalist of all. What most people on OWS wants is a socialist democratic system much like the nordic countrys. Maybe end the fed, change to gold standard. Nobody is talking about becoming like USSR, DPRK. No one would like Kim Jong-il as president. Marxism these days is a word used by people who belive the current system cannot change or are to selfish to. Anything with a goal including the well being of ALL citizens is immidiatly classified as marxism and socialist (which means communism only in USA). I apologize for my bad English and leave you with this quote. "Idealists are foolish enough to throw caution to the winds. They have advanced mankind and have enriched the world." - Emma Goldman
Here here.
Not everyone in OWS is marxist, but I've seen numerous posts supporting Krugman and one that glorified a speech by the notorious marxist Slavoj Zizek!! When I pointed out an article on him on Wiki, where even they called him marxist, somebody told me I needed to open my heart and my mind!!
Also, the following footage is of Occupy Atlanta where the croud is using the 'people's mic' to talk, but there is some marxist guy controlling the discussion the whole time! He keeps saying everyone has to come to an absolute consensus, and keeps voting about 'our agenda'. It's very disturbing. Plus he has a megaphone, so why the people's mic??? http://www.naturalnews.com/033830_Occupy_Wall_Street_zombies.html The article rightfully describes this as collectivist brainwashing.
I don't believe in "hypnosis" as your article states, having said that, I find this Atlanta group continually reassuring the crowd that "John Lewis isn't a better human being than you are" a little weird.
I'd like to see a more compassionate, less material culture but when it comes down to it, I value individuality & freedom. I don't want Christian theocrats forcing conformity on me, neither do I want "old Marxists" or lame socialist groupthinkers doing it.
I know, right?
The other thing I found disturbing about the video is the people weren't even allowed to clap, and they went on incessantly about whether or not the guy should speak. The leader kept saying that 'we must have a consensus', and in the end, apparently they decided not to let the guy speak! Yet there was a group in the back that kept saying, let him speak! I think it was groupthink in action.
If we can just take all their wealth everything will be fine. Then we need their property to plant gardens and shelter ourselves. Then after that we will need their labor to work on the farms (because toil is a responsibility of all citizens).
We can then determine who will be allowed to progress to other fields (not plant fields) because the majority must determine what those with ability will do for everyone else, regardless of their individual desires!
The individual is irrelevant, if one must be brutally sacrificed so that ten may have an easier life it is their duty to lay down and give that sacrifice for them. Or we will make them.
Just like the thousand flowers revolution we should find these people and make them comply, luckily many of them HIDE on wall street...right?!
Your reasoning defies logic. Expressing a desire to return control of the country to the people is Marxist? Questioning practices that favor 1% at the expense of 99% is Marxist? For the people, by the people is Marxist? Prohibiting foreign entities from lobbying your legislature is Marxist? Ensuring business does no harm is Marxist?
That part isn't Marxism - it is what nearly every person here advocates we do about the problems that equals marxism. And I do not support Marxism in any of its forms. The millions who died and are dying in North Korea, China, Cuba and the former Soviet Union don't seem to like it.
I have seen no statement about what to do, just people floating a variety of ideas. If some of those ideas lean toward marxist ideology, so what? Everyone is allowed to voice their opinion. Perhaps you see Marxism because it is your perceptional filter at work...
I don't deny anyone the right to speak their mind.
I see marxism all throughout this site because that's what I keep getting offered as solutions. I am waiting for other ideas to emerge that would convince me the marxists are a minority or even that there are non-marxists here.
Every one of you that has claimed non-marxism has collapsed into supporting marxism when I ask probing questions. If this movement is the consensus-driven or democracy-votin' group they claim then I gotta say, the comments here demonstrate the movement will announce marxist solutions because that is the majority (or lone voice) view of the members.
You ignore the input of many people to come up with a sweeping generalization, then use that to condemn the protest as a whole. Propagandist type argument.
Faithin truth - take faith in the truth that I spoke. I have interviewed this collective deeply and broadly before (and since) I made that "sweeping generalization". It is my researched opinion that if you put everyone to a vote on the solutions to recommend for our greivences, you would find out I am correct. The majority would have selected socialistic, marxist influenced solutions over free market ones in a landslide.
Do understand the concept of a perceptual filter? You see what you expect to see, and fail to see contradictory information...
Maybe Marxism aint so bad then, huh? Lol.
Wow! Who knew!
So far it looks like the answer to my question truly is "because if we tell Main Street America that we're Marxists, we'll lose."
Yup.
No, the answer is, what only a small amount of us want socialism or communism. Most of us love capitalism, we just want a regulated capitalism.
As for ideas: Wanting public health care doesn't make you a socialist. It means you have done some research and feel that aspect of socialism MAY be beneficial.
I love capitalism, doesn't mean I will ignore someone's ideas becuase a News Corporation labeled them Socialist.
But you believe public health care should come through government force and theft from the individual. You may be surprised that you can have public health care without the government. You can have it today. It only takes people like you with this goal to do it. Group your money and resources and do it.
No. I think the government should either offer a cheaper alternative, or regulate the health and life insurance industry. Health and life insurance should NOT be for profit! That is just disgusting that it is.
Beyond the term "love," this is where I'm at as well.
I don't know what News Corp says (or didn't until you told me, so that must be true). I know this movement is Socialism because I have read the statement from the NYCGA and interviewed dozens of members extensively.
We already have a regulated capitalist system. It was those regulation rules that created the safety-net conditions for banks to make the loans that ruined the housing industry and set fire to the economy. You propose trying harder? Relly?
When the corporations write the rules for the politicians to impose, the last thing we want is more regulations.
And the only way to get corporations out of the regulation process is to undo the regulation process.
How does that make sense? The only way to get corporation out of politics is to give them more power over our well being???
The way to get them out of politics is to see how they are getting in, and make laws to prevent it. Hey, if corporations want to make a political part, that is fine. But they bribe our politicians, not cool.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean that regulations caused the downfall of the economy, but I believe it. Because these regulations were written with hundreds of loop holes that corporations and banks used to fuck all of us. We need better written regulations, not more. We need laws against corporate campaign donations and lobbyists. If corporations can't go to prison, they can't be considered people.
As for the NYCGA mentioning socialist things let me explain factually why that is:
1) Our definition of Socialism has been corrupted into a terrible thing. Every 1st world country has SOME socialist programs, they make the quality of life better for everyone. Otherwise we would be like India with half their country living in ditches.
2) The NYCGA stands for: New York City General Assembly. At these GAs the people have a group discussion about what they want. They sound somewhat socialist because a lot of socialist people are there right now, and the whole 99% hasn't joined the movement.
3) The reason the whole 99% hasn't joined the movement is because people like you instantly label something, then decide if that label is good or bad, then hate it or love it for life. If you went down there and peacefully and logically shared your ideas, more people like you would see or hear you and they would join too. Making a more even representation.
Hope this cleared a few things up.
Getting corporations out of the rule-writing doesn't give them more power over our well-being, crazy-person.
1) Tell me how my quality of life is better by the Federal Government taking more and more income tax from me the better I do at work? 2) The only way this movement doesn't stay "socialist" is if enough socialists take over for the majority of socialists currently ruling by population. Yet how will that happen when all I hear from you all directly (not just the MSM version but right here among you for a week now) is socialism is the answer. I have had deep conversations with dozens of you and there is a perfect consensus about socialism. 3) A week of interviews with protestors and deep conversation is hardly an "instant" label.
You are right. Which is why I didn't say that, misguided person.
1) I said meant it raises the country's quality of life. If we didn't have some social programs, we would have a whole lot of slums. LIKE INDIA. Wah, you lose a few pennies to the dollar. Thousands get to eat AND LIVE. Plus, you know, even without social programs, the money would just go to other shit, and you would still be missing that money. Yet you are okay with most of your money being wasted on a useless war that kills children and civillians?
2) " The only way this movement doesn't stay "socialist" is if enough socialists take over for the majority of socialists currently ruling by population." What? Just...What? Did you mean for that second socialists to be a capitalist? I'm going to assume so, it is better than assuming you are stupid.
" The only way this movement doesn't stay "socialist" is if enough CAPITALISTS take over for the majority of socialists currently ruling by population." Yes!!!! EXACTLY! This is a peoples movement! "The 99%" And all that. The fact that is mostly socialist only says that more socialists are willing to put their time in and protest. The "99%" Is MOSTLY CAPITALISTS or at the very least consumerists.
Let me lend a little tid bit of insight that higher education provides. I will offer it in the form of a hypothetical.
If I am in a crowd, and I say: There are mostly fat people here. And there are a large number of fat people around me. Does that mean that statement is true? NO. I could just be in a large patch of fat people. OR Perhaps, since fat people are easier to notice, I just perceive more fat people! Meaning they aren't the only ones there, just the only ones I'm paying attention too. It's the same with you and socialists. It's not that only socialists are here, it is just that you only see socialists because you are afraid of them.
I am a capitalist! I am damn proud of that! Does that mean I don't see the need, in the 21st century, for a government to help it's struggling people? NO. Nor does it mean I am afraid of socialists, because I am rational and know they will never be the majority.
Now, back to your 2nd position. If you have a problem with how things are going with our government (And you'd be insane not to) Then join the occupy movement and voice YOUR ideas. Others like you will hear you and realize there is a place for them too.
3) I misspoke. Not instant, you un-analytically apply labels.
Biggest crash came after deregulation. Derivirate trade, the rating agencies knew it was poison they were selling, no one has been sent to jail for that. It can only be called regulated if the rules are being followed, how come then no one was sent to jail if it is so regulated. You just need labels to dismiss people, because you got to much to loose, but there are people who have lost a lot more.
Deregulation? Seriously? The rules became LARGER! And, our politicians created a system where the government programs of Fannie and Freddie would safe-guard defaults to encourage (and in some cases force) riskier lending.
The issue isn't whether banks broke laws exclusively. It is why did politicans give them the authority and cover their faults. The bank is not beholden to you - the politican is. You can vote against a bank by moving your money. You vote against a politician by actual VOTES. Yet we leave them in power and cheer when they right more rules using their bank friends to write the rules . . .
Do you seriously not see that. The rules are written by wall street and you shout at wall street rather than the politicians. Get it together!
The rules didn't change so much as the consequences. And that isn't degregulation - that's cronyism at it's worst. Brought to you by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and every politician who signed the rules.
You want a welfare state, you want free medical, free college and rent subsidies. You also want the government to pay you so you can practice your art.
Why would you want to dumb it down to only capitalism vs communism. There is a whole world of idea's that do not fit either of those labels.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. July 4, 1776.
OWS is about restoring the intent of the founding documents of the USA. You need to be more engaged.
I think the fellow OWS members would disagree with that. Besides, where in the founding documents does it say "no bailouts"?
This is a large group with diverse political philosophy. Sure you will find Marxists here. You will find labor activists too.
You will also find college kids with overwhelming education loans, and middle aged and even elderly leftists who have been protesting things for decades.
but don't equate a left leaning political philosophy with outright marxism.
WE are Americans, plain and simple. And if the repelicans are so terrified of this movement, then the fasted way to take the steam out of it is to hold banks accountable for their role in the collapse of our economy, find a way to bounce those conservatives on the Supreme court bench who insist corporations
H.A.V.E.
T.O.N.G.U.E.S.
Cease and desist with their efforts to privatize social security, stop talking about ending tax breaks for alternative energy initiatives, accept the President's jobs bill or propose one of their own, end the Bush era tax breaks for the top 1%, close tax loopholes and end corporate welfare for corporations that are well established . . .
Things like that.
Failing that . . . all they can do is whine.
Keep on whinin' . . .
I'm a Free Market Libertarian. I do not support a movement that doesn't want to end bailouts - just shift them to the college kids with loans they shouldn't have taken on . . .
I do support privatizing SS. The current version was not intended to be a retirement fund for the last 15 years of a person's life but as an emergency fund if they out-lived reasonable savings. When created, the life expectancy was in the low-mid sixties - the same time as benefits were to pay out. Now life expectancy is around 77. There used to be something like 159 workers paying into the system for every 1 using the benefits. Now? It's under 3 per beneficiary and projected to flip soon.
End tax breaks for every business. If alternate energy cannot support itself, I shouldn't have to. If Oil can't, I shouldn't have to help it. Same with farms.
The GOP has proposed jobs bills - liberals don't like them because it includes a lot of reduction in government. (if you lay off government workers that's just more unemployed . . . yes but it is also less drain on the private industry who were paying that person's salary and benefits through taxes. Now that this money can return to the private industry thru lower taxes, they can create a new job!)
The tax cuts were for everyone, not just the 1%. Ending it for the 1% would AT MOST ease our federal deficit problem by about 1.5% as long as there was no additional spending with the extra few bucks . . . and it is impossible to predict how private industry would change with that added tax to the wealthy (loss of jobs? loss of investments in innovations or business growth? etc).
* "I do support privatizing SS." **
That's just insane. It's a money grab by wall street - a clear example of their yearning to expand the means of exploiting the public's earning power. And just because we have a longer life expectancy doesn't necessarily mean that employability has kept pace.
Wait - employability? I forgot - there are no jobs!
Smaller government? You mean deregulation . . . like Glass Steagle -
bad nitwit. bad bad nitwit.
Giving your paycheck to the government to support an elderly person vs. savings, 401k plans, and personal responsibility toward oneself and one's family
ou, ou, personal responsibility!
Forget all about corporate responsibility! that's right. Forget it! Corporations are a legal fiction designed precisely to avoid personal responsibility!
but never mind that.
It isn't giving your paycheck - it's giving a portion of your paycheck - as in a small percentage - where presumably it is safe from theft, graft, and corruption! until such time as you retire.
The best fiction I've read all day (and I read a lot of fiction) was this little gem of yours that somewhere the government is being responsible with your money!
Hilarious!
REally?
That's interesting - I know people who are getting their social security checks - and others who lost everything else with the market implosion 2008-09.
It really isn't funny at all.
And a part of what isn't funny is that you really can't afford to both eat and pay for prescription meds on ssi alone. Yet with the market collapse that is exactly where many retirees find themselves, quite unexpectedly.
It ain't the money you think it is...
You don't even know what a Marxist is.
Horace Greeley hired Marx to write for his NY newspaper, in the 1800s.
I'm actually reading the Communist Manifesto right now. I'm not espousing it, but I do see the parallels. It's interesting reading.
The Cold War is over, lighten up. Words scare people, and every time socialist and communist are mentioned , we all cower in fear. This is a direct result of our conditioned upbringing. I guess it's alright for our large corporations to hire the communist Chinese to make all of our products, when they are making money off it, while laying us off by the millions. But when we want a piece of the action, we are nothing but a bunch of dirty commies. Give me a break. The labels move back and forth, and the people are left wanting. http://sibob.org/wordpress/
I'd love to support this movement in fashion that was even remotely Marxist, but then suddenly we're not Americans...in fact, to Americans, which are the people we're trying to convince...we're not even human. We're just a bunch of evil psychopaths trying to destroy the country...with bombs and hypnosis apparently. I think it was because they all played Red Alert 2.
So, I'd say, Marxism as a point for this movement- pretty much out of the question.
The question is why did Bush hide his fascism long before Occupy Wall Streed was here.
True, many propose failed socialist strategies of the past, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to support a Presidential Candidate at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
There's a famous person who wasn't a marxist. Karl Marx! He widely believed that people had badly misinterpeted his writings to the point that he declared "I am not a Marxist" Every implimentation of communism has been just as corrupt as capitalism.
I think the answer is some sort of hybrid socialised democracy. I've pondered a system where Corporations couldn't earn profit, only individuals. There's alot of holes in that I know, and I'm not really suggesting it, but it's a place to start. Corporations would exist solely to serve the people. if they do a good job, the people running the corporations would benefit.
This antagonist is a troll, ignore him.
I started out very hopeful because I support the end of corporate influence in elections and the regulatory process. I support ending bail-outs - all of them.
You call me a troll but I posted that question off extensive interviews of members.
I joined the forum before you did, did my homework, asked a legit question, and have only been proven to have labeled correctly.
Because then we would no longer by 99%.
OWS simply wants protection from the abuses of power perpetrated by the 1%, the super-rich, the oligarchy, whatever you want to call it. If you took a pole of the supporters of OWS, you may get 1-2% who are Marxist or socialists. The right wing tries to focus on these people in order to discredit the movement to typical Americans. None of the points in the OWS declaration are socialist. But what we have now is capitalism gone wild.
Try 99% marxists. I've been around the forum for a while and it always comes down to solving these very real problems with marxist ideas.
And we don't have capitalism gone wild, we have crony corporatism gone wild. That's corporations and politicians colluding and you don't fix that by giving more power to the politicians or putting private company ownership into "communal" control (ie government control).
You should do your own poll of OWS people and see how many identify as Marxists. I seriously doubt you would get more than a few percent. Just because many prefer collective action doesn't mean they are Marxist or even Socialist. Or that they would want to force it on others. Personal freedom and suspicion of government power is too ingrained in the American character. This is healthy only to a point. You are right on about the collusion of corporations and politicians of course. But it is the purpose of government, by establishing rights, to protect people from others, including incorporated others. We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. If we have strayed from that, we must fix it, not give up on it. A government without teeth cannot protect it's people. The alternative is too trust corporations to take care of us (or go live in the woods). Democracy is messy, but the oligarchy we have is worse.
I have informally polled and that is why I have come to this conclusion. Many Marxists and Socialists don't realize they are, they proclaim Democracy . . . yet the nuts and bolts of what "demoncracy" means to them is lockstep marxism with a smiley face sticker on a hemp sweater. I willingly admit to using marxism or socialism to represent a looser set of ideals than those titles strictly espouse. But for me, one step closer to socialism is too many. We need free market capitalism, not more socialism or crony corporatism. Free market systems do not have "bought" politicians writing rules that favor one company/industry over another. It is only the demands and satisfaction of the customer that keep a company alive.
Communism and Marxism have become dirty words through decades of propaganda.
I've heard free market capitalists put forward Socialist ideals and concepts, they are probably just too embarrassed to call themselves socialists.
Only if they didn't really know free market capitalism or truly believe in all its tennets.
No TRUE free market capitalist will promote taking from one group to give to another - not through taxes, not through crony rule-writing regulations, and not "for the greater good" . . . because free market theory teaches that the pursuit of one's true self-interest is mutually beneficial for all. It does not serve to rape the environment, you destroy a renewable resource (renewable meaning profitable again). It does not serve to pay too low of wages or you will get low quality product that you cannot sell for as much margin. Etc...
If the pursuit of ones self interest is mutually beneficial for all, than I have no qualm. That is an experiment which deserves to be undertaken.
If one person ends up with a thousand acres, and a million people have nothing, then the civil unrest will continue.
Envy, thy name is luparb. And OWS. I can be "filthy rich" on a thousand acres I bought without having taken a thing from you (actually providing you many, many things to our mutual benefit) and you have only a small apartment in Soho.
You are assuming that we cannot mutually benefit unless we all benefit equally. That ain't true.
If you give me $1 and I give you a delicious hamburger, we both benefitted. So why begrudge me selling 1 million people one $1 hamburger each? I benefitted each time and so did each person equally by each transaction. It matters not that I get to pocket 50 cents, the burger was worth $1 to you or you wouldn't have paid it.
Mutually beneficial transactions are merely that, you benefit from a transaction with me in which I too benefit.
What you seem to be implying is that only equal distribution of end results is beneficial.
A more relevant scenario would be something like this: You would use your connections and position of access to capital to sell hamburgers for $.50 each, using your assets to sustain yourself while driving you competition out of business. When you had a monopoly, you would gradually raise you prices to $1.50 per burger. You would further your profits dictating to you suppliers what you pay for raw materials. They would have no choice but to accept this, which would result in lower profit for them. They would likely cut wages or look for cheaper foreign sources and workers. Eventually you would have a few start up companies try to compete with you as new entrepreneurs found cleaver solutions and applied inventive new technology. This new challenge is soon turned into a benefit as you can just buy them up at the early stages and use their technology to increase your profit further. And by now you have plenty of money to give to both political parties to buy their influence regardless of who wins the next election. Then you have access to sculpting laws and regulations to favor your business over others. You can even have your congresspeople push for subsidies for your industry in the name of helping to create jobs. This you will benefit from disproportionately since you have the major market share. You will also be in a position to make deals with local officials to bring jobs into their communities. Of course, these jobs will probably result in the loss of other, quite likely higher paying and less mind-numbing and repetitive jobs, but never mind this. If you expand you business too fast and get into too much debt in a time when the economy is going down, no matter. The government will bail you out because now you are too big to fail. And now you can justify cutting health benefits (if you ever provided them) for your employees as a cost-cutting necessity. They have little choice but to accept and stay in their jobs because the unemployment rate to way to high to find another job. By now you are a titan of industry, a pillar of the community, a role model of success in the world of commerce. You become a philanthropist to make you feel good about yourself. This cost is a pittance for being able to sleep well at night. How much does this hamburger cost now? I've lost track. Eventually, the whole business may collapse because no one can afford your hamburgers. Externalities are a bitch. Kind of like karma.
Are you a Swiss Cheese maker? I've never seen so many holes in one rant of "logic" before that I must assume this is actually swiss cheese.
my concern is the millions of sick, impoverished, uneducated, homeless, disabled and elderly people.
'Free market' capitalism does not stand to help these people, nor is it protective of the environment by it's design.
So far I have little interest in it.
No, your concern is forcing other people to care for the sick, et al by pointing the all-wise government gun at anyone better off than yourself.
<<The "down with corporate influence in politics" and the "no more bailouts" is accepted by everyone in the nation.>>
Then, who does it?
It is accepted by everyone about everyone else, anyway...
Yes, but what are all the others doing to stop this? Shouting in the street? http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-this-movement-fails-corrected/
I am for stopping it - but this movement isn't about stopping it. Not really. It is about forcing a bailout of college students and the unemployed. It is about taking the corporate "influence" and milking it for more money to point at a populist agenda.
Essentially the movement isn't about overthrowing and replacing capitalism; it's about harnessing the power of capitalism for the everyday American to benefit from instead of a very small, very insular group. The majority here do not want an end to private property or private enterprise; they simply want to see enough basic regulation in place so that they can build better lives for themselves and their children.
Die hard free market capitalist here. I am entirely against the current corporatist (economic fascism) that we have. I am confident when this system is torn down that no one will accept any form of communism to work towards the end of this horrible system with anyone else who wishes to be an ally.
Fuck these labels. Marxist, socialist, pick your poison.....it is this sort of compartmentalized, connotation-laden, judgmental , and divisive mindset that has landed us in such a disturbing world today. Anyone who's ever studied rhetoric, or even pondered it aimlessly as they smoked a doobie, can attest that anything can be cast in any light, if aided by anyone with a sharp enough wit. The Occupy movement seeks to dissolve these barriers, not reinforce them and print fresh labels for our mental file cabinets. We don't all need to agree on every fucking detail or point fingers about how this guy's ideology resembles that of Marx in certain areas OMGWTF!!! We just need to agree insofar that everyone should have an equal voice, and the needs of all should be considered, and power/wealth not so ridiculously distributed. How does this work? Many decisions will obviously have to be made, but a small-scale prototype is already available for the viewing: the protest itself. Everyone gets a say, everyone votes to a consensus....
.................and basic principles like PEACE, EQUALITY, RESPECT, COMPASSION and NONVIOLENCE are upheld at all costs. If we actually, truly, effectively instill pillars such as these into the heart of society, I daresay the details of how we can label and judge each other's affiliations would fade away into the obsolete.
That's the whole damn objective. That's the shared goal of everyone participating: DECENCY. HUMANITY. Basically, looking at the current setup and mutually agreeing, if for a variety of specific reasons, "WTF?!?! No more." Our nonviolent approach leaves the frazzled media desperate for damning footage of protestors doing something stupid/violent, but that footage isn't coming. So they try to capitalize on how we "lack organization" or "a clear message" (when in reality we have repeatedly issued very specific, focused demands)...they say some of us are protesting the war, some of us bitching about Medicaid, some of us protesting taxation policies...thus we must not be a unified front. In reality, we are the most unified front possible, because that's our whole point: EVERY VOICE GETS HEARD, and EVERYONE CONDUCTS THEMSELVES PEACEABLY AND WITH DECENCY AND RESPECT FOR HUMANKIND.
In conclusion, Marxism irrelevant. One must step outside of the box of societal conditioning/political opinions we've been spoon-fed before understanding the heart of this movement.
Fuck these labels. Marxist, socialist, pick your poison.....it is this sort of compartmentalized, connotation-laden, judgmental , and divisive mindset that has landed us in such a disturbing world today. Anyone who's ever studied rhetoric, or even pondered it aimlessly as they smoked a doobie, can attest that anything can be cast in any light, if aided by anyone with a sharp enough wit. The Occupy movement seeks to dissolve these barriers, not reinforce them and print fresh labels for our mental file cabinets. We don't all need to agree on every fucking detail or point fingers about how this guy's ideology resembles that of Marx in certain areas OMGWTF!!! We just need to agree insofar that everyone should have an equal voice, and the needs of all should be considered, and power/wealth not so ridiculously distributed. How does this work? Many decisions will obviously have to be made, but a small-scale prototype is already available for the viewing: the protest itself. Everyone gets a say, everyone votes to a consensus....
.................and basic principles like PEACE, EQUALITY, RESPECT, COMPASSION and NONVIOLENCE are upheld at all costs. If we actually, truly, effectively instill pillars such as these into the heart of society, I daresay the details of how we can label and judge each other's affiliations would fade away into the obsolete.
That's the whole damn objective. That's the shared goal of everyone participating: DECENCY. HUMANITY. Basically, looking at the current setup and mutually agreeing, if for a variety of specific reasons, "WTF?!?! No more." Our nonviolent approach leaves the frazzled media desperate for damning footage of protestors doing something stupid/violent, but that footage isn't coming. So they try to capitalize on how we "lack organization" or "a clear message" (when in reality we have repeatedly issued very specific, focused demands)...they say some of us are protesting the war, some of us bitching about Medicaid, some of us protesting taxation policies...thus we must not be a unified front. In reality, we are the most unified front possible, because that's our whole point: EVERY VOICE GETS HEARD, and EVERYONE CONDUCTS THEMSELVES PEACEABLY AND WITH DECENCY AND RESPECT FOR HUMANKIND.
In conclusion, Marxism irrelevant. One must step outside of the box of societal conditioning/political opinions we've been spoon-fed before understanding the heart of this movement.
Yes we would all love to see the streets run red with the blood of the bourgeoisie.
By the time the idiots in the country figure out what we're up to, it will be too late.
Thanks for posting, I thought I was the only one who saw these idiotic communist undertones.
we just want an even playing field, which we had before 1999:
The only way we can get back on safe financial footing again is to close the Enron Loophole for oil speculators and bring back The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prevented the current banking and insurance scams/loopholes. After all, it worked great until late 90's when Congress threw it out. Since then, like prior to 1933, we are experiencing what our country went though then, total Wall Street greed with no penalties, its all legal now...Thanks to the architects of our new system in 1999, President Clinton and Senator Gramm. Cheers to all that are involved! Jim
Why we need Glass-Steagall to be reinstated:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#axzz1aPEc3wXj http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/19/shattering-the-glass-steagall-act/
Why are oil prices high?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbdtTGYQBMU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNp0y0SjOkY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-kExdTgNZA&feature=channel
if all of the defenders of this system - where as a worker you work all day and earn just enough to live while at same time there is billionaires where you have no idea how they got that silly rich - are against marxism... maybe you should give the old man a try and read what he wrote about the system you live in, capitalism.
Read it. It wasn't even good as toilet paper. Even my toilet rejected it.
Marx died in 1883 perhaps you could come up with something a little more relevant to lie about.
After all because we don't like capitalism we must be...dum da da dumb... A communst woooooooooooo....evill Morons and your duality... Woooooooooooo if we are not one then by ball means we must be the other evil.. We can't possibly be anything else.
The extremes of left and right always exist. Practical political solutions rarely go that far, at least when a diverse population is using the vote to get it accomplished. I mean, if people on the left wanted to sound strident, we could say that the Tea Party has fascist components, (strong military and police components in partnership with huge corporations). We have to meet somewhere in the middle between left and right, not between far right and right of center. The left has a right to exist like any other philosophy, in this land of "free speech", and if you read your history, they have, so get over it. http://sibob.org/wordpress/?p=8012
its pretty clear that you are trolling, and its pretty clear that we are not interested in nor affiliated with marxism.
Nobody is hiding anything. your spinning inside of right wing delusional paranoid head games.
We do not intend communistic solutions, we intend genuine democracy.
your spinning, your lying, and your right wing BS talking points are not interesting and you are not going to suck us off into right wing paranoid delusional commie witch hunt land
http://occupywallst.org/forum/thetruth-socialismcapitalismcommunismmarxism/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-versus-corporatism/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/help-me-understand/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-a-love-story/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/sociology/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/energy-101-solution/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ethics/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/break-your-left-right-conditioning/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/nader-kucinich-and-paul/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/5-facts-you-should-know-about-the-wealthiest-one-p/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-am-homeless-joe-jp-morgan-chase-accidentally-for/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/can-we-end-the-fed/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-end-the-federal-reserve-and-what-do-you-replac/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/teaching-the-occupation/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-forum-needs-structure/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-not-your-personal-billboard-for-your-politi/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/systems-theory-primer/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/organize-inform-take-action-effect-change/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/better-website-needed/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-playing-the-devils-games/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/nonviolence-the-only-path/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-not-against-capitalism/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-is-not-about-political-stripe-it-is-about-bas/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/national-initiative-for-democracy/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-third-political-party-the-movement-of-the-middle/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/300-fema-camps/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-a-false-flag-operation/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-this-will-not-work/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/paradigm-shift-now/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-proposal-for-focus/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-the-bullshit-posts-and-get-organized/
Could we be living in corporate fascism?
so you want to take corporate influence out of politics and end bailouts but you dont support the "how to" behind it? so you suggest we force on a global depression without figuring out how to get ourselves out?
Historically, there was a lot more to the left than Marx and Social Democracy. In New York Henry George was quite important and he and Marx hated each other.
i am getting together a poll to collect demands. find my post or get with me holla@richardkentgates.com i have my own web resources.
Nice question, i got one for you, why does this government and the corporate owned media hide that this kind of capitalism has got very little to do with free entrepeneurism/ competition? The companies in brandssectors come together in secret and decide to throw money on top ,equal percentages. The consumer is paying. Duopoly that's called. A good example is the politics itself, basicly a twoparty system. Let's both move to the right. That's why OWS exists.
Cronyism is THE issue. I do not, have not contended otherwise. My problem with this whole movement is the only solutions being offered are
1) more government oversight (Fox, meet the henhouse.)
2) tax the rich more (despite historical evidence that this doesn't increase government revenue)
3) Replace the system with equal or near-equal income distribution on the beleif that this will mean no one suffers (don't call that Marxism if you don't want to, but it is. And that has killed a hundred million.)
I don't think these are good solutions.
And there is the dance of so many members saying they don't want marxism, they want democracy . . . a democracy that redistributes wealth and results equally irregardless of a person's ability or willingness to work for themselves.
Like
There's no hiding. Many people incorrectly believe that a system which puts people before profits is necessarily communistic. They believe that taxing the rich is socialism. This is a democratic movement and all occupiers are able to participate in the General Assemblies and determine the direction of the movement.
Yeah, I've seen your consensus General Assemblies at (not)work. Fail.
It will be interesting to watch you all vote to take the money from the rich people until one person shouts that they block it . . .
The GA doesn't have to reach full consensus. Many GA assemblies only block motions after some finite number of blocks.
Criticizing democratic GA assemblies would be a valid point, that is, if there were any other options out there that have been shown to work.
So instead, 51% can vote to sacrifice the rich on the alter of the greater good.
I still vote no. I want to be rich someday. I work for me and mine.
What do you mean by rich? Top 1% starts at $5 million. Follow their example and fight for a tax cut for your income group.
That's fine if you want, but social mobility in the U.S is lower than all of the other developed countries and is becoming lower with time. Most who want to be rich someday aren't going to get the chance to work for it. And besides, even the rich will suffer when we destroy this planet.
The majority of people in the top 20% of income weren't raised in it. Movement between the quintiles is plenty fluid. I was raised at the bottom of the 3rd from the bottom quintile and have already risen to the 2nd highest. At 32 I am flirting with that top 20% of income earners. Mobility is great. People just freak out that mobility includes a downward motion if you personally are not careful.
I have a college degree but I do not use it in my career. I have mortgaged my meager belongings to finance my advancement (and previously lost $50k but have recouped it and more). I do not support corporate lobbying, bail-outs, or other hand-outs. I am one of the 53% who pay a net federal income tax on top of all the other taxes. I create jobs - 13 this year. I donate 12%+ of my take-home income to charity and 2+ hours a week to community service. My wife works at home with our kids and donates far more time to community service each week than I do.
I represent those who are truly squeezed when the noisy "bottom" pressure action out of the politically protected "top". What will suffer first if you all succeed; my family, my employees, or the charities?
You need to realize that I am who you are fighting when you claim to fight the 1%.
I don't at all agree that we are fighting you. My wife and I make a net of just over $300k per year. I feel like my interests are definitely be represented in this movement.
And mobility is dropping, despite whatever you are saying. People have calculated the lack of correlation between an offspring's income quintile and that of their parents. It's lower than it's been in a long, long time, and it's lower than the other developed countries which have a more regulated market system.
Glad to hear of your charity work btw.
Your interests are best represented by the solution being offered me over and over? I wonder. I keep getting the suggestion for commentors that we need a "democracy" that takes all the income of all businesses and distributes it evenly to everyone no matter the job the did (or didn't). You be taking a pay cut, brother. And you cannot improve.
Not true on many accounts.
1). For one, to say that the movement advocates complete equality of income is wildly unsupported. Sure, maybe you can find a couple people who say that, but I'd imagine 99% of the 99% would not say that.
2). Pay is not the only thing that matters in this world. Political voice matters too. Sure, we can afford what we need and take vacations, but we're not wealthy enough to have our voices heard fairly in the political process.
3). Children. We'd like there to be a world for them to grow up in.
1) While I cannot say that 15 is even 1%, that's how many I am up to with virtually no one offering ideas. My cross-section of the movement has been marxists and marxist-lite 99% of the time - no exaggeration.
2) So align yourself with the movement that wants what you want 100%. If this is it, you are free to align. I think you're wrong and will always offer my voice of disagreement to any movement I disagree with (and support to the parts I support). Just be sure the solutions to the problems this movement eventually agrees on are what you want.
3) I have 3 kids. They are learning to live by what they make, share what they can freely - without government compulsion, and rejoice in their failures if they tried hard . . . then try again on their own. If they take out student loans, they will not ask the government to pay it for them. There will be a world for our children. I think mine might rule it.
1). In the General Assemblies I've been to the number is much, much lower than that.
2). The likelihood of any mass movement ever wanting exactly what I want is very slim. Mass movements are by their very definition diverse, and you shouldn't pour the baby out with the bathwater.
3). I wasn't talking about being okay economically. We will do our best to give our children the best education and they'll be fine from inheritance alone quite likely. I meant environmentally. If the planet is completely polluted or war-torn, it doesn't matter whether you made an A on your math test.
$300k does not go far in the bay area. I bet you do not have $5 million in assets-that is the top 1%!
Well, I'm pretty frugal, but no, I currently don't have $5M in assets. But what's the point? I'm not complaining about my economic situation, I'm complaining about my lack of political representation and the fact that science takes a backseat to profits. My children need to have a healthy world to live in and jobs available when they get out of college.
Right now, 40% of the nations wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. That kind of centralization of power is incompatible with the kinds of changes you-and any other folks here want. Just FYI the next 4% control the next 40% of the nations wealth-but virtually all gains in assets have been concentrated in recent years among the upper 1%.
Do you have more than $5 million in net assets? That is the top 1%
Someday I will. Unless you all succeed.
You might actually more likely to succeed in an environment where there was less of a strong trickle up effect.
Except, as I keep having to point out throughout this forum, that the solutions being offered by the members of the movement are usually designed to redistribute everything I make after a certain point and thus eliminate a top.
www.theamericanconservative.com/2004_06_21/cover.html Nader wants to eliminate all taxes on incomes under $100K-and put an asset tax in place on concentrated wealth.
That might mean it is less likely you would create a huge fortune-but far more likely you might create one between $1-5 Million. Right now, you are NOT part of the uber rich. Is it really in your interest to identify with them? Or are you simply being used by them?
One example from history that is important. Rome had much of what it needed to have an industrial revolution. However the upper class Romans had a deep attachment to slavery-which was largely incompatible with an industrial revolution. I personally would much rather be middle class in a society with modern health care than rich in ancient Rome. What are we missing out on now?
I'd also keep in mind: even in a regime with high taxes on assets you will still have substantial private fortunes. However the ability to appeal to and lead other people that have substantial assets will count for a lot more than it does today.
After a certain point, wealth means little in terms of lifestyle-it is really about influence and control.
Yes we all stop right away, poor danimal is getting squeezed by the top 1%. We'll tell that to the 1.5 million homeless children. Everybody pack up, right now!
I'm squeezed by my requirement to support everyone and you're movement is asking for me to support even further. I will have higher taxes or higher costs because of further squeezed corporate profits by your actions. When that happens I have to fire a real person, stop paying debts, or stop feeding the homeless in my community.
You choose.
From each by his ability, to each by his need. Words to live by.
There is definitely a strong undercurrent of SOLIDARITY. If you're confused "wiki" it.
Capitalism is a failing system, just look at Russia. After Russia became capitalist (I should say more capitalist as a pure capitalist or socialist system does not exist) things were in chaos, many people died, and in general things were worse then ever, even compared to the Soviet Union. You can argue all you want about how awful Communism or socialism is (again the terms need clarification as they are extremely broad and not all who oppose capitalism support the Soviet Union or wish to promote such a system, for example) but capitalism as a system is clearly failing. Once a progressive system that helped overturn the feudal order, the system is becoming more and more regressive, and its prospects for changing it more futile.
Perhaps you, as someone dissatisfied with wall street, hopes that the those that rule America (the 1 percent or arguably more) will give some concessions, but when in history did any aristocrat or businessman give up their power without a fight?
Growing up in Russia, Europe, and America, perhaps I am not as closed minded about ideologies outside the narrow Republican-Democrat pro-capitalist and big business standpoint. So maybe I just don't understand your grievances. Is it fact that marxists exist or that these protests are somehow legitimizing their existence? Should they not be allowed to speak whatsoever?
And if the posters truly think that Marxism/Socialism/Communism are the same base words which simply mean "mind chanting to slogans," I think they truly need a history/political science lesson. Or better yet, some reading of Marx may be beneficial. Whether you agree or not, I promise it won't hurt.
Great post, Danimal!
Marxists always hide their intentions because their dogma has failed repeatedly- China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc
Is that why China borrowed the usa a trillion dollars, because it's dogma failed?
Well, according to you leftists, they engage in forced labor and don't pay anyone.
They have accepted capitalism and grow their GDP by 10% per year. They export huge amounts of products (thanks to currency manipulation, among other things) and loan us back our dollars.
China "loans" us money.
Is the b est system the system where people own most? By the way, what is the difference , loads of americans live in a car and run two jobs and slave labor in china. America has such a huge deficit for your wars. School system sucks, medical system is expensive because of corruptuion but sucks. Prison population biggest on the planet.
Your answer is very muddled by incoherent grammar but I'll answer several of your tirades.
1) There are far more Chinese in true poverty than Americans. By sheer numbers or percentages. In America a poor person has some food, emergency hospital access, free K-12 school, police protections, (and usually shelter, some or all the heat they need, TV, phone, and even internet) while the Chinese poor do not. That is kind of a big difference . . .
2) It ain't just "your" wars - it is all of ours. I do not like them and do not support them. Take it up with Congress rather than assigning them to random people on blogs.
3) If the schools suck despite our per capita spending on education being ridiculously high, remember that at least you have it. Third world poor do not. They have no access or nearly none.
4) The medical system is mostly expensive because of government intervention. I know this - I work in supplying the system with goods. My costs would be much lower without a drop in quality or effectiveness if the government allowed for free market competition.
And the Soviet Union, of course.
The American public has been brainwashed to think that anything left of Liberalism (social democracy, socialism, communism, etc) are evil, so using any of those terms is off limits, even if they are entirely accurate.
Indeed, this is a socialist movement, it just can't call itself that.
why are we giving the government more power i down understand you guys do realize that they like the corporations are only looking out for their best interest not yours
You have to come to realise that there is nothing between "you" and "the government", they are one and the same. The difference is that "the government" is a shared bond between "you" and every other "you" out there.
It requires a certain amount of trust, otherwise it doesn't work.
There is now. The government is now an elite class that tries to rip all of us off. By elite, I mean they think they are.
Our respective political systems have lead to the predictable result - a corrupt ruling class, I don't disagree.
Where we part ways in where we think the solution to be.
Make the government what it should be - indeed, what the Founding Fathers of the great United States - intentioned it to be, an expression of the free will of the people, to further their collective peace, prosperity and freedom.
I completely agree
have you been following what has been going on in the u.s. for the last 50 yrs.? and you want us to trust them!!!? (and btw its not working for the 99%)
For the best part of 50 years the United States has been moving away from democratic socialism towards economic fascism. Recall the 1950s, were they not America's "Golden Age"?
The U.S. government played a much more active roll in the economy, which lead to a greatly reduced poverty rate, full employment, and an ever rising standard of living for the growing middle class.
You're right, for most of the 99% of the population our current fascist-inspired system is failing us. But unless you're going to do away with government all together, the answer lies in empowering the organs of government to work to the benefit of society as a whole, not just a tiny cabal of the rich.
certainly, but let us not forget that the u.s. had the only intact industrial base in the world after ww2 so success had little to do with govt. policy and more to do with resupplying the world. and as anonymous has clearly stated the govt. and the moneyed classes are ripping us off. yes, we must take control of the govt. and never allow financial fascism to flourish again. btw did you know president eisenhower warned us about the threat of a military-industrial state?
Indeed, and that same military-industrial state has been both an amazing blessing, and a terrible curse.
I believe a large part of the problem revolves around how people view government vis-a-vis themsevles. Forget government policies of any direction for a moment.
Think of your church, is it made up of the monks and the nuns, or is it made up of the people of the congregation?
We must stop viewing "government" as something separate, something distinct from ourselves. We have democracy for a reason, we should employ it to effect positive change in our societies. Socialism does not replace democracy, it enhances it.
we are unwillingly part of a country by birth. your attitude reminds me of the chinese who view the government as the head of the family.
"Government" is a collective bond to each other.
The question is whether you will use it for collective advancement?.... or in personal gain at the expense of others?
We (Social Democrats) are quite clear, and indeed, very proud, of where we come down.
Humanity before money.... is the choice really that hard for you?
whoa!! wait a minute! i left the u.s. in 1986 because i couldn't handle a second reagan term. already then i saw the beginnings of the middle class crunch and couldn't bare to watch it or experience it. i value humanity before money but i don't trust governments either. i live in switzerland where the socialist party is one of the two biggest parties and like it much better than the u.s. america is very overrated
I'm always happy to meet a fellow European (I'm from the U.K. myself).
I am somewhat surprised then, after your experience in Switzerland, that you should view the roll of government is such a way. ("head of the family").
In your experience, are the Swiss not much more humane than North Americans generally are? and does their society not benefit from it greatly (as opposed to the more North American-Anglo-Saxon model?)
i said your view of all of us as part of the government 'reminded' me of how the chinese view their government.
i'm an american living in switzerland not swiss not a european. i would prefer earth citizenship.
the social net here is very good. they even support the junkies. less crime if they're taken care of and its cheaper than chasing after them, hauling them in front of a court and then prison.
Ah, well, wouldn't Earth-citizenship be grand, of course?
In a sense, I don't object, then, to such a view (judgement? - which was the cause of my initial reaction to your statement, I meant no offense). If that is truly how the Chinese view their government, as an extention of their persons, as "family", I would say in many ways it is probably much healthier than many in the West view their governments, it's role, and functions (and just as importantly, their relationship with them).
The point is to have a friendly father figure, not an oppressive one. I very much admire the Swiss model, for what it's worth. I wish my native U.K., and adopted Canada, would move in that direction.
i dont trust someone else to run my life and tell me when i work or what my work is going towards when has socialism or marxism worked?
sweden, england, denmark, germany and switzerland have all had socialist governments or coalitions with the socialists in control. socialism is not authoritarianism, contrary to what you learn in american schools.
3 points, in order. You do actually accept, to no small extent, other people telling you how to live your life. Laws, regulations, bylaws are all rules we, as a society, agree are required for everyone to follow, otherwise we will have problems. You might want to drive on the left side of the road, but we have all agreed to use the right hand side. Think about how micro this level of goverance has become, and even Orwell might blush.
As for the "working" aspect. Again, in many ways you probably experience much less freedom in this regard than you might think. The best way to think of this is not on your own personal level, because for some people the current labour market does provide "decent" employment, but what of the millions around the country, or the billions around the globe, for whom the economy can't provide good employment, and causes them untold suffering as a result? Is that much of your current situation, or anyone else's, for that matter, really much of a result of how great they are, how skilled, or how intelligent? Or was alot of it down to blind chance? Who their parents were, where they were born, etc?
Should you get extra marks just because you weren't born with downsyndrome?
The entire idea of "work", as we know it in the West, is not fair, or accurate, and the division of wealth that comes from that work is even less fair than the labour market that supports it. Hense why "we are the 99%".
To your last point, "when has socialism or marxism worked?", it works very nicely, to a more or lesser degree in many countries. France, Germany, The United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, China, Canada, I could keep going on. Even the United States is, in many ways, socialist. Some of the U.S.'s greatest programs (Medicare, MedicAID, social security, EI) are socialist policies. There has never ben a truly "marxist" country, not the USSR, and not China.
History has shown us that the most successful countries are the ones that can blend the best aspects of both communal cooperation, caring and respect, with the human spirit to innovate and drive to invent, which is what Socialism is all about.
It's not about control, it's about freedom - for everyone.
i understand that socialism and marxism are beautiful in theory and you are right that all of those countries have been socialist recently would you agree? and look at where we are today look at greece it doesnt work we have a party attitude look at what our society is in love with reality tv about the stupidest shit why do i have to be brought down to someone on that level in terms of work i have as much freedom as i want i can only say what i know i cant think for anyone else i know what i like jobs aren't always gonna fun or pay too much but i wont work for the state i work for myself, people are very selfish and uncaring and greedy thats human nature and we need to account for that as well people make their own way in this world thts how it should be, as for the social contract ragulations will go as will unfair laws, i live within a society and respect every other member but i want that same respect
Ok, In respect to socialism being a recent invention of countries(?) Yes, many only in the 20th century, but to be fair, the concept was only devised in the late 19th century..
In the case of Greece; there are many other issues that factor into the Greek economic situation. I can suggest some reading on the topic if you like, but I'm not sure I could do the subject justice here, I am no Economist. But in brief, years of trade imbalances, expensive entitlement problems, a culture of not paying taxes, coupled with entry into the European monitary union have caused Greece many problems.
I suppose I would say, to your last point, that Socialist (like myself), would agree with your observation. Our societies are greedy and uncaring, and that being that way is not helpful towards our shared future here together. We are proposing a new way, in which everyone has a fair shake, a fair chance to make something of themselves, and not be controlled by (economic) realities beyond their own control. Many of use firmly believe that, rather than ceeding control, Socialism will free us to make the most of our time here.
We should no exist in competition - we should live together in the spirit of brotherhood and cooperation.
regardless of whether we should exist in competition we do everything is competition its human nature, embrace it... as for not being controlled by the "untamable" economy you'd rather be controlled by a small few who may be corrupt and lets say this generations socialist leaders aren't corrupt what about the next generation you dont have control of that
as for greece they have a gov that has been abusing its power and over spending as well as the rest of the european union its all going to shit over there and its as a result of the peoples laziness and entitled gov
You have articulated the difference between our positions.
I believe humans can (and should) work together for our mutual benefit, that doing so is the best option and highest aim.
You believe we should work against our collective goals, and define our lives in terms of the struggle between us as individuals.
In this, we have profound disagreement.
i know we wont ever agree but i dont believe we shouldn't work towards our collective goals i believe that we are governed by a natural law of competition we are animals at our core. we are individuals who need to live with one another but competition exists think about how when you fall in love with someone you'll do anything to be with them its a primal instinct now say your at a bar and that lovely someone is there and she or he starts flirting with someone else you are enraged or now do you benefit the group or do you make that special someone yours?
Do other animals lay claim to the natural resources of the Earth like some human do?
Humans are animals, absolutely, 1/2 a chromosome from Chimpanzees, and it shows. Our frontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too large, and our gentials look like they were designed by committee.
But... should the fact "we are animals" rule us? Should we toss out - reason, compassion, caring, our humanity, our knowledge of right and wrong and of suffering of ourselves and others - simply because we happen to be animals?
Or should we use our gifts, the very things that make us different, and unique, and important, and special from other animals to help every member of our species? I can not imagine turning away from our reason, our logic, our compassion, our caring, simply because "we're animals".
We are human beings, and we're better than that.
we are extremely complex animals but still animals, their will remain competition always its a natural law this arguement here is a great example of how it comes in to play i think i'm and you think you're right there is a competition to see which way we move our society
Our societies (and individuals) have always improved and benefitted when they have reduced competition and increased cooperation with each other.
I have you at a demostrable advantage, my friend.
how so? i'm trying to cooperate with socialists but you wont accept anything but socialism so therefore your competing to have your agenda be the agenda of this movement
This is not about - nor can it be viewed as - Capitalists vs. Socialists.
This is fundamentally about whether you believe every human being deserves the same basic duty & standard of care.
It's not that Social Democrats "won't accept anything but socialism", we are forced to everyday because many people think money - little green pieces of paper - are more important than human lives.
We disagree with this point of view, and hope & encourage others to see the world in the same way we do, because we honestly believe it will help us all.
Socialism is not above critisism, it has never been, nor can it ever be, it is simply the best of the alternatives humanity has come up with, and we think it's the right one.
I would be thrilled to be argued out of it (Socialism), because whatever replaces it would presumably be even better. The problem is that Capitalism has shown itself incapable of dealing with human needs and suffering in a way that doesn't cause more needless suffering, so for me (us) it is not an acceptable answer, it's already been proved wrong - else we wouldn't be seeing these protests, no?
what we have isn't capitalism its a corporate oligarchy, we haven't experienced a free market yet
The trouble is that the "free" market would be even worse than what we have now... unless you really like the idea of anarchy, which is essentially what you'd end up with.
Democratic socialism is seen as a "middle road" between anarchy/"free markets"/Capitalism on the one side, and Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism/Dictatorship on the other.
aren't we trying to take power away from the few 1%ers, they are no different then the govt and socialism gives a power like that more power i'd rather anarchism than socialism if we can cooperate with eachother than wouldn't anarchism(anarcho-capitalism that is) work?
I trust my fellow human beings (enough for me to believe Socialism would work), but not quite enough to allow anarchy.
the only difference would be that you trust the government to know whats right... where as with anarcho-capitalism you trust your fellow humans and yourself to survive comfortably
Again, I have to stress, the entire point is to stop seeing a distrinction between you, me, the individual, and "the government".
Government should be viewed as an extention of ourselves, not as something separate, and especially not as something evil.
but there is a huge distinction between me and you...no 2people are the same and yes govt should be an extension of our individual selves
Sorry dude, I needed to put on some track shoes to read that run-on sentence.
no problem man