Why I am a Socialist

Misunderstandings abound regarding Marxism and these are usually represented by a lack of education on the differing political philosophies. I think if one looks at European adaptations of socialism one will find that they work. I never understood how a country like the USA that values freedom could make workers into slaves of a corporate dominated society that values only capital and goods over common humanity. Marx had the right idea; his ideas were just implemented poorly. I am a socialist and a democrat and this is not an ideology. It is concern for my fellow man, concern for workers, concern for those who have no food, no education and no friends in the American Military Industrial Complex. We are slaves to our capitalistic society. We don't get up in the morning anxious to go to work, anxious to contribute. We get up tired and weary for another day of slave labor for the robber barons who own us. We are able to pay our transportation costs, buy some food, provide a shelter and that is all we have. Slaves often get food and shelter too. What is the difference in being a slave and being a peon in a capitalist profit machine.

Do slaves get ipods? Then sign me up, baby.

Plus, I am only a part time worker. Often, it seems to me that Americans are slaves to their own greed, and money mismanagement and addictions and desire for status and mindless thrills.

A new Schlitterbaum is opening up near me. Wheeeeee!!!

:eyes:

Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

and took it as a blueprint for the future of the Republican party.

It's present tense, not future. Can there really be any doubt that the MIC and the multinational corporations are stronger than our former democratic state, and that they OWN our government?

...that place is soooooooooooooooooo conservative.

But even with a Masters, I have no mobility. I have lost my freedom and I am a slave. You are absolutely right - but how do I get out?

and cared for, serfs are disposable and no investment is required.

When they die or become sick or are troublesome, you just replace them from the endless supply.

;)

modern workers have no right to nothing.

Unfortunately, that characteristic is not one which we seek to ape.

We're not livestock. We're tools. That's the difference between slavery and fuedalism. Slaves were at least provided food (to a degree) and weren't expected to take up arms to defend their right to be slaves.

Like when my boss finds out I'm a socialist LOL LMAO

Ask a former steel worker, PATCO member, auto worker, or farmer.

:kick:

In fact the average life expectancy of a slave arriving in the New World was about 5 years. They were worn out and discarded.

Racist apologists for slavery have been spouting this crap about slaves being happy and cared for because they were wealth for many centuries, and it's amazing how the gullible still buy it.

You might want to read an actual book about it before spouting off.

Who said anything about happy? People were worked to death but still they must be fed and housed, however miserably, and that was a considerable expense to the slaveholder. Hardly an apology for slavery.

Slavery here in the states, an exclusively racists institution after cutting out the white slaves and granting them the dubious distinction of becoming a sub-class to stand between the master and slave, never accepted the economic logic of the Europeans. There serfdom, a condition barely above that of chattel slavery, was eliminated sheerly as a matter economics. The serfs were freed to work for a pittance or starve, all of the former obligations were void.

Because the consensus of historians is that, in fact, no where in the New World was there a demographically stable slave population except in a few pockets, such as a few areas of worn out soil in the Upper South, from which the strange apologist notion, that slave masters had an economic incentive to keep the slave population alive, derives.

Your own post shows the illogic of the slave apologist theory. As you point out, food and shelter were a "considerable expense" of the slave owner, and as an enterprise operating in the capitalist system, owners had an overwhelming incentive to spend as little as possible on them to keep costs down and maximize profits.

As a result, slaves were malnourished, ill clothed and ill sheltered, leading to high mortality rates. The economic calculus was to spend as little as possible, for as much work as possible, and if the balance was to use up the capital asset rather than preserve it, that's what the owner did.

Being sold to the lower south or frontier south was a death sentence -- hence the American expression, "sold down the river," meaning sold down the Mississippi River to the lower south, the ultimate betrayal, and tantamount to murder.

Rather than go by what your "gut" tells you masters did based on arm chair economic theorizing, you might take a look at any one of the many books by historians that document how slaves actually lived and died.

Given that importation ended in 1808 (yes there was some smuggling, the last incident in 1851, I believe, but the 'supply' was vastly reduced) how could the slave masters maintain their work force with that sort of attrition and the greatly diminished supply? Reproduction could not possibly answer such demand, even with children laboring in the field.

The system of slavery that I was talking about was the one I live in. Not the one the blacks in the south lived in. It is a lesser form indeed, but still a form of indentured servitude. Are you old enough to remember the economy of the 50's, 60s and 70's before corporate tax rates were slashed for the Rich by Reagan?

This was in no way an apology for slavery, simply a view of the economics of slavery vs. necessitous "freedom".

http://eh.net/Clio/Conferences/ASSA/Jan_00/rosenbloom.shtml">From 1740-49 to 1800-09 prices more than tripled, rising from $125 to $381

Slaves require an initial outlay of capital and then require ongoing expenses, unless that outlay become a dead loss (those of you reading this and intelligently staying away, please pardon the pun), whereas you can always get a "mick" for a dollar a day and easily replace them if they become sick or are injured.

Books are your friend. Whatever your armchair theorizing, historians have gathered the data, and slaves were more likely to be worked to death than treated as capital assets.

That resolved, I also have to ask, does the typical American worker get whipped for slow work? Are their children sold away from them? Are their feet cut off for attempting to change employers (run away)?

Yes or no?

If no, then why are you endorsing the mind numbingly stupid idea that American workers are slaves?

2. Did you read the post?

Yes or no?

It's a simple yes/no question. Please answer before going on into other topics.

Yes or no?

If no, then why are you defending the slavery apologist notion that wage work is the same as slavery?

You ask a rhetorical question and demand an answer.

You follow that with a false premise.

Do you still beat your wife?

The premise of this thread is that modern wage labor is the same as slavery. We have a vast literature that tells us exactly what slavery is. You might want to look at any of a number of books that describe the essential features of slavery. These features include: complete absence of rights; being bought and sold; natal alienation and the break up of families through sale; corporal punishment, especially whipping; and the master's power of life and death over the slave.

If your premise -- that modern wage work is slavery -- then modern workers have to be whipped, bought and sold, and must be liable to have their children sold away.

If those things are not features of modern wage labor, then modern wage labor is not slavery; and the absolute idiotic foolishness of the premise of the thread is revealed.

So, yes or no: Are modern American workers whipped by their employers? Are their children bought and sold?

If you answer no, then you must agree that modern wage work is not slavery.

Q.E.D.

That's not a rhetorical question. You obviously don't even know what a rhetorical question is.

What's next a truckload of bullshit?

Did you ever take logic and critical thinking in school - probably K-12 only of Liberty university

There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.

Why don't you come on back to the war, that's right, get in it,
why don't you come on back to the war, it's just beginning.

Well I live here with a woman and a child,
the situation makes me kind of nervous.
Yes, I rise up from her arms, she says "I guess you call this love";
I call it service.

Why don't you come on back to the war, don't be a tourist,
why don't you come on back to the war, before it hurts us,
why don't you come on back to the war, let's all get nervous.

You cannot stand what I've become,
you much prefer the gentleman I was before.
I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control,
I didn't even know there was a war.

Why don't you come on back to the war, don't be embarrassed,
why don't you come on back to the war, you can still get married.

There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the left and right,
a war between the black and white,
a war between the odd and the even.

Why don't you come on back to the war, pick up your tiny burden,
why don't you come on back to the war, let's all get even,
why don't you come on back to the war, can't you hear me speaking

Leonard Cohen

I'll tell you why, cause you're just making shit up, just what you're accusing other people of doing.

Fact is, your numbers are impossible. Five year attrition rates likely occured in some rare, early, mismanaged situations but were killing to profits. it was all about profits, after all.

You don't have to make shit up.

You know, the guy who gets on his high horse telling ya what's common knowledge and ya oughta read books and stuff. The guy who, when confronted with the outright impossibility of his statement ignores ya while continuing to spew his nonsense elsewhere in the same thread.

Him.

I will answer you anyway - Yes, I work for the social services industry and kids are sold away every day. People live in poverty and go down the drain with no hope for the future. Child Protective Services takes the kids and farms them out to foster homes. The foster homes are profit centers for the private sector. They are also sent away to boarding school, reform school, jail prison the military and they die on the streets.

You are not thinking straight. If you were you would not use logical fallacies.

As one other tried to point out to you your questions are framed in a context that is black and white.o provide an example of gray area thinking here is Leonerd Cohen.

There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.

Why don't you come on back to the war, that's right, get in it,
why don't you come on back to the war, it's just beginning.

Well I live here with a woman and a child,
the situation makes me kind of nervous.
Yes, I rise up from her arms, she says "I guess you call this love";
I call it service.

Why don't you come on back to the war, don't be a tourist,
why don't you come on back to the war, before it hurts us,
why don't you come on back to the war, let's all get nervous.

You cannot stand what I've become,
you much prefer the gentleman I was before.
I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control,
I didn't even know there was a war.

Why don't you come on back to the war, don't be embarrassed,
why don't you come on back to the war, you can still get married.

There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the left and right,
a war between the black and white,
a war between the odd and the even.

Why don't you come on back to the war, pick up your tiny burden,
why don't you come on back to the war, let's all get even,
why don't you come on back to the war, can't you hear me speaking

or is it so much gas.

It's not some secret knowledge or something. If you took American History 101 or Civil War and Reconstruction 102 or Antebellum South 103, this is consensus reality knowledge.

If you didn't, and you get all your information from slavery apologists, Gone With The Wind romanticists, or Confederate defenders, this might be radical news to you.

Where is the 5 year figure from. My guess is that you do not have the slightest proof to support your 5 year life span. The slave population in this country was growing inspite of the end of importation of new slaves into the country. To have a growing population, life spans for adults have to be considerablt better than 5 years. I do not get my information from slave apologists. Where do you get your information from, thin air, wishing or hoping the BS you are spewing is true?

in my opinion.

Peace dude

:puke: :puke:

Ooooh Noooo!!!!

He thinks a lifelong human rights advocate is a racist. What's that make him? Great input.

enough to read him that they had to arrange an independent study.


Marx, whether 'socialism with a human face' or 'liberation theology', fails to accept that to move from a scarcity base market to a market based on Marx's 'labor theory of value' is going to require consolidation of power and the brutal exercise of the same.

You cannot have a Marxist state without also having Leninism.

Arriving in Vietnam a few months after 'liberation' I witnessed the forceful point of this when tens of thousands of families who escaped back from 'new economic zones' (real slavery) slept on the sidewalks.

You would have a different point of view if you could have met some of the 500,000 refugees I relocated from their Marxist homeland.

Now if you think that they are all 'reactionaries' etc etc etc you would be wrong.

The refugee camps also housed Viet Cong who were completely purged and became 'slaves' after the North Vietnamese liberated the south. The Northern Communists did not have confidence that the southern communists were ideologically pure (which in fact was true, the southern communist being much more 'humanist' and not really appreciative of the brutal Leninist tendencies of the Northerners.)


I also lived in 'socialist' Singapore. Post people don't realize that Singapore's People's Action Party is also a 'left wing' party. They were originally elected in an alliance


On 12 November 1954, Lee, together with a group of fellow English-educated middle-class men whom he himself described as "beer-swilling bourgeois", formed the "socialist" PAP in an expedient alliance with the pro-communist trade unionists. This alliance was described by Lee as a marriage of convenience, since the English-educated group needed the pro-communists' mass support base while the communists needed a non-communist party leadership as a smoke screen because the Malayan Communist Party was illegal. Their common aims were to agitate for self-government and put an end to British colonial rule. An inaugural conference was held at the Victoria Memorial Hall, attended by over 1,500 supporters and trade unionists. Lee became secretary-general, a post he held until 1992, save for a brief period in 1957. UMNO's Tunku Abdul Rahman and MCA’s Tan Cheng Lock were invited as guests to give credibility to the new party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew#Formation_of_the_PAP


After getting to power Lee then took a page out of the communist book and imprisoned all of his other left wing allies, a couple of whom still live in isolation on a small island today.

The PAP pushed thru reforms nationalizing most of the land and providing vast social benefits, but most people think of it as a capitalist haven because they are also very pro business.

What they have in common with Vietnam and other Marxists states is that they allow no real political opposition. They have free elections but if you say anything against the Prime Minister they will sue you and win a huge libel settlement. No one does anymore.



Rather than being a 'marxist' or 'capitalist' why not support a mixed system that in some cases, fire protection, mail delivery, health system is better served with a collectivist entity and other areas left to individual private enterprise?

He/she said "socialist."

I disagree with your premise that "communism" was ever really put in place. The quality of government has to do with the morality of the people in charge.

By nature, I think successful government is a mixture of "capitalism" and your so-called "marxism." THAT is what I think "socialism" actually is.

close as possible to the individual's level of income.

Even after the creation of the welfare state in Britain, after WWII (a comprehensive and completely free, national health service, nationalised transport, utilities, telephone, our taxes were never levied on any basis even approaching such a just system.

I've yet to meet one personally. Many have skimmed it for a class in order to pass a test or such, and many that will cite/quote parts of it, but get into the details and it becomes clear that they have not actually read the whole thing, nor understood what they did read.

Much like Christians and their Bible, they pick out the bits they like and ignore the rest.

of the truth the far-right have been peddling. I read one fairly brief article on Common Dreams, and it was clear that reading the entire tome could not have provided me with more compelling proof of their twisted, indeed, inverted propaganda against the poor man's actual teaachings.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/23/4046

As for Christians, watch your mouth! You could learn some common-sense from us.

entire village, or is it OK to hold a closed auction?

Puhlease, enough with the superstitious fantasies. Believe what you like, but keep it between you and your God and we'll all get along much better. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to call down the wrath of the omnipotent Flying Spaghetti Monster on your house.

sure you wouldn't be happier as a freemason...? Promise me you won't set the spaghetti monster on me, though.

It's just one of those Bible rules/rites I've always found to be ambiguous. Of course, as a Socialist I would have an open auction, but I was simply unsure how God would look upon it.

Don't tell anyone but, it is my understanding that the FSM doesn't really do house calls, so no worries.
:toast:

Judaeo-Christain Christian scripture. Marx could not have come from any culture other than a Judaic or Judaeo-Christian one. Certainly not Buddhism, not Islam, not Hinduism, not Taoism, not Shinto. And they would have been the more probable candidates. 'cep they aren't. He, in fact, came from a long line of rabbis, and in order to "get on" in his society, more specifically to study law, he converted to Lutheran Christianity.

The latter was seemingly little more than a cosmetic faith, but like so many illustrious figures claimed by atheists (Darwin, a theology graduate springs to mind, as does Adam Smith, a moral philosopher whose teachings have been grotesquely misrepresented by the right/wrong), Marx was clearly a child of his compassionate, religious family-background and culture, and learnt how to think independently, thanks to the faith they were brought up in and their consequent relationship with God and his wisdom.

What do atheist Socialists do? Simply exploit the Commandment to love your neighbour as your self (commonly called, the Second Command), as a political front, just as, historically, the right has used the First Commandent.

Politicians are all right-wingers by nature, and few left-wing politicians have been sufficiently spiritual to resist the lure of the "World and its empty promises". There have been a few "old money" One-Nation types in the UK and the US, who were not driven by lust for money and status. If only there were sufficient today to form a Government and stop the atheist rot.

:)

Funny as hell - oooh set myself up, didn't I LOL

because its illegal.

Look, I know the abuses that have been perpetrated in Leninism. I am not suggesting that the people in charge in the USA continue to rule. I'm suggesting that the people actually rule. I am not suggesting communism. I'm suggesting humanity.

about your total condemnation of Marxism.

What Marxism did, in its admittedly brutal fashion in too many places, was utterly obliterate an oligarchy. At its best, it supplied the destruction with the old feudal order with either colonialists or aristocrats at the top with a path to achieve a more democratically run mixed economy.

At its worst, it became what it sought to supplant, another oligarchy based on party rather than aristocracy.

The record has to be seen as a very mixed one. Oligarchies tend to be as stable as they are miserable. It takes something drastic to smash them, and Marxism would seem to be one such thing. Whether or not it is permitted to evolve beyond the first stage would seem to depend on the leaders and to a lesser extent the country in which it comes to be.

A further caveat would be to remind everyone that just because a party calls itself socialist doesn't mean it is. For the proof of that, refer to the NSDAP.

The system in Singapore is totalitarian. Whether or not it also has elements of socialism is moot.

One that serves the people and allows a degree of profit without the social tyranny of these other systems. Seems our system in the USA has great strengths. I would hope we could have a truly democratic society where people are valued just a bit more than property and where workers have a living and rights like health care. Do you have a strategy on how this could be done? I would be all for it. I'm not against competition and incentive. I feel politically and economically oppressed by the super rich. I feel brainwashed my media that is not quite free, to commercial, heartless, black and white. What has happened is we have abandoned science. We have abandoned humanity for cash and goods. We have abandoned the "path with a heart." Where I live, most people take mythology literally and know nothing of science. They are therefore easy targets for commercial markets that place the value of a human being on what care he drives, how big his house is, and how often he prays to the correct God.

All of its laws and all of its court decisions can be appealed to the High Court in Britain, as their Supreme Court.


It is an authoritarian state that uses British Law to stiffle dissent.


Nevertheless the people are free to vote the PAP out of office.


Interestingly enough a bunch of young neophytes recently ran against the Prime Minister and got 31% of the vote.


Most of the opposition WP's team of 6 were their 20s and the constituency was contested for the first time in 15 years. Its decision to contest Ang Mo Kio came as a surprise, as the opposition was expected to stay away from GRCs helmed by heavyweight ministers; but the party said that giving Ang Mo Kio residents a chance to vote was a prime reason for contesting the GRC. Given the inexperience of the WP team and Lee Hsien Loong's position as the Prime Minister, they won a surprisingly strong 49,468 votes (30.94%). There were also an extremely high percentage of void votes, 13,813 (8.64%).


The sad fact is that the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans have absolutely no interest in politics and would rather spend their time shopping than discuss anything of a philosophic or religious or political nature.

Land of the greedy and ignorant

What you have now is fairly flimsy: political movements labeling themselves "left-wing" or "Marxist", operating in unindustrialized counties and (in the manner of Leninists everywhere) persecuting rather than allying with independent leftists.

Robespierre claimed to be a democrat.

BS

I'm an old f$%k.

The Idaho hippie
:)

The Upstate NY wannabe hippie.

:hippie:

ya' old *&!#

:D

I'll buy you a drink.:toast:

Life ain't fair, so please don't tell me death is just more of the same. Oh, please don't.

;) :toast:

can bring about ruin rather easily.

LOL

(original) healthcare proposal more than Hillary's. He made it optional, so some could try it, at least get some coverage, and then tell us about it. We could compare it and see if it works.

Of course, in the end I'm for France's style of healthcare. Spent some time in Europe, and talked to the people there. They think we're insane for using all private care.

And people I have spoken to from there say it is the best idea for health care because you can pay for it with private insurance or take the public option. The competition between the two keeps the quality of both high.

did have some complaints.

Nevertheless, when I had to go to a doctor in Spain for a throat infection, I was seen in ten minutes upon arrival (tho people did go in before me). Also, at the pharmacy, I had my prescription within a minute. Just handed them the scrip, and they gave me the antibiotics -- no fuss.

Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein

http://monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php

pnorman

Stunning - Kudos.

capital and goods over common humanity..."

Having had great grandparents who actually were slaves and heard many horror stories about what it was like passed down the generations, I can assure you that no one in America is a "slave" of a "corporate dominated society."

When you start off with blatant counter-factual, bizarro world assertions, you tend to get a lot of people to just write off everything you have to say.

Moreover, whatever society's faults, it is also blatantly counter-factual to say that society "only" values capital and goods.

Are you saying that not a single American values his or her family? There is not a single American, group or community in all of society who value nature and the environment?

Is there not a single religious American who values his or her faith?

In fact, are you saying there is not a single DUer who values political discussion over "capital"?

Can you see why this kind of post just gets written off?

Don't suppose you could be twisting the subject to a different dialogue because you don't have an argument unless you change the argument to one more popular. Do You?

I agree with your postings on this thread. What an insult to slaves and their descendants.

Next thing you know they'll be mocking you saying that you don't have to deal with any bigotry.

Marx neglected the inevitability of coercion for compliance with centralized planning and Friedman neglected short-sighted thinking, stupidity, and greed in laissez faire policies.

That is the entire point of the "workers' state": like the capitalist state, it protects and defends socialist ownership.

But just because it is coercive does not mean it is totalitarian. All states are coercive.

That is the very point of government in the first place. It is to push those who would otherwise rebel into order.

Without it, anarchy would take hold and everything would go to shit.

Everyone thinks Marx was this idealist that didn't have real life applications. But in reality, that is anything but the truth.

The strength of a political/economic system is determined by its ability to tolerate its detractors

to control the monopoly on violence.

and in that respect we agree.

Marx/Engels thought up a fucking plan for revolution. That is coercion in one of its purist forms. They understood the need for coercion. They weren't idealist anarchists. They simply believed that those who produced should be in control of production, not powerful Bourgeoisie.

You are not for us.
You are not against us.
All areas are gray areas

throw out the baby with the bathwater.

If we stop buying goods and force companies to change with boycotts isn't that a way we surfs could force change? As more and more jobs disappear and more service oriented jobs take their place we wont have much left for our children in the way of jobs. Currently I see the work force divided up into banks/investment, healthcare and the remainder being jobs that service our country (garbage, laundromat, food, shopping etc). Can't we force the change in a more efficient form of revolution of spenders and consumers that refuse to consume?


And just a question if I could glean some information from a few of you. I recently had a disagreement with someone that said fascism is a form of socialism and they are basically the same. I pointed out many differences and facts to the contrary. What is the difference between communism, socialism, fascism and capitalism? I've read the standard definitions but I feel like the reich wing uses these terms and has now intertwined their meaning to be a convenient attack, like there is a new term to describe what Obama is doing that should elicit strong fear from Fascism-Socialism-Communism. As if all 3 could destroy our country any more than their own republican party has already with capitalism. Thank you for any insight offered.

Thanks brother

Keep talking!

And Socialism does not equal Marxism. I am a Socialist but I am not a Marxist.

and his theory ends up destroying the intellectual foundations of everything, including liberal democracy, because social science and political philosophy cannot function on a narrow basis of strict falsifiability.

Like so many post-Enlightenment thinkers, he thus relegates reason to narrow technical instrumentalism ("How can this specific narrow end be achieved?"), and leaves the important questions, no longer susceptible to rational analysis, to be subject to the whims of those with arbitrary and irrational convictions.

Popper's main aim was to save social science from Historicism, social science as prophesy, and making it a real science; Because Historicism leads to totalitarian utopianism.

And his ideas are a defense of Liberal Democracy against both Fascism and Marxism, so I don't get how his ideas "destroy" lineral democracy.

:)

like Rothbard and von Mises. Popper's opinions on socialism mean as much to me as Rush Limbaugh's opinions on liberalism.

He had no problem with regulation and the welfare state, that makes him automatically not a libertarian. Have you even read "The Open Society and It's Enemies"? I doubt it, if you did you wouldn't be spewing the "Popper is a Libertarian mouthpiece" BS.

:)

There are a lot of good and bad ideas out there. They don't come in packages. You have to ferret them out. The problem with the right is they read one book and take it as all true but don't follow the good advice of Christ - "Love your brother as you love yourself." Which is the core of that religion but who is really practicing it. Almost nobody, Yet some 85% identify themselves as Christians. I regard philosophy and spirituality as chosen behaviors. I wish the right would live by their own philosophy.

Wikipedia it.

:-) Thanx

Welfare states do not socialism make.

They rest on heavily regulated "capitalist systems" that keep control of big industry essential to stability in the hands of the government.

but in any case "big industry essential to stability" was only ever a fraction of the means of production. Nor was the nationalization of a socialist character: it often contained protectionist-like measures protecting the jobs of the people who worked there, but it did not seek as a matter of general economic principle to redistribute capitalist profits to the workers.

Worker-owned businesses are.

And I am not advocating that. But if you think they don't have socialism, I would waste my time talking about Max Factor eye shadow with a supermodel.

Even the most socialist country in Europe, Sweden, has an economy where more than 50% of the means of production is in private hands.

Capitalism does one thing well. It turns human life into a commodity. Slaves need to be maintained like work animals need to be kept healthy.

In our system, humanity is dispensable. It's one time use. As long as new people keep coming, it doesn't matter what happens to the old ones. It's even more horrifying than slavery. It completely removes what makes us human. It removes emotion because emotion for your fellow man always trumps capital. Just as true love is so much greater than any monetary gain. And in a capitalist system, that means that emotion is the enemy.

The closer we get to being robots, the better we are for the capitalist system. Eventually humanity will either have to abandon the human experience of life in order to gain capital, or we will revolt against the powers that be.

shades of huxley's brave new world, perhaps?

seeing as orwell is already here?

Oh my ford how it disturbed me.

but Capitalism.

Almost all wrongs in the world stem from that unfortunate socialized trait.

And that is why I hate the philosophy of people like Ayn Rand who embrace selfishness because they see it as unavoidable. But what they don't understand is that you can teach future generations to be more selfless. It only takes a slightly different mentality each generation to, within a hundred years, completely alter the values of society.

I will teach my children to help others in need. And I hope that they teach their children the same.

:)

And Marx was a grandiose moron.

Do you think liberalism is stupid, too?

And, he wasn't confused.

Come on man, whine much? You're sitting at a computer typing how rotten your life is? "Oh the robber barons!" Answer this, can buy a car, rent DVDs, move to other state or leave the country for one of those European socialist paradises that make you so hot? Yes? Guess what you're no slave!

I wish I had a time machine so you could go back a century or two, march up to a slave (make sure to turn off your cell and ipod so you're not distracted) burst into tears and proclaim "Oh my brother, we are exactly the same!"

But you're not.

If a slave gets a day off he's not a slave LOL = Why am I working today?

Do you know how many millions of people across the world would change places with you in an instant?

I don't take offense at your ideas of about socialism or change. I take offense at your massive victim complex and the way you spit on the memories of the Americans that actually suffered under the yoke of slavery.

Perhaps everyone should run for the hills lest they be offended. I get offended by different ideas but I still want to hear them. The further you go back in time the more difficult it is to be a slave. Just because we are not as beaten down as we were in the old days (and I lived through the 60s and the south)and just because we are not being treated as poorly as we were then,you think there can be no social injustice. Huh???? Well, that is a fallacy and I intend to say whatever I want, whenever I want, however I want. If it offends you, let me know how that comes out for you. The people who complain about free speech are always the ones who have no logical argument for their position.I remember in my philosophy classes in college this condition of an individual was called The Egocentric Predicament. You see your world as the only world with you always in the canter of it judging everything from one very limited perspective. If anyone is short of empathy for the slaves of the past and present, it is you.And, who is wining now - look in the mirror.

I'm just disagreeing with you. Why do you play the victim?

Are different opinions not allowed in your socialist paradise?

Big hole in your speech there. May want to plug it and have another go after rethinking your plan.

Medical care, retirement, social security, disability, unemployment insurance, fire departments, search and rescue, Public broadcasting. So there is no socialism anywhere - even in Europe? Horse Shit.

but I'm glad you assumed some form of extreme there.

Europe, like the US is a mix of capitalism and socialist policies. Too much of either causes problems but a nice balanced mix would serve the people well.

:)

and I find it disgusting. You have a choice, they didn't.

If you are too lazy and uncreative to start your own business, don't blame others for your failures.

Dumb: I am not saying anyone had or has a choice - I work for nothing. People who work for nothing and get treated like shit are slaves. I don't compare my experiences to holocaust victims or to black people who were terribly persecuted or to gays who are tyrannized daily - My problems are small compared to them; but I don't like the direction we are going, and it will get worse. And, you don't have to be a person of color to be a slave. You just have to be in some way different. Conservatives enjoy making people who are different suffer. That is all of them except you

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?"

Albert

...as it pertains to the common rhetoric put forth by vested interests who seek to trivialize and diminish democracy in favor of the Profits Over People ideal.

Our country is in the condition it's in precisely because of the enormous propaganda efforts waged by the ownership class ... coupled with a framework established through a corporate, consumer culture that in and of itself creates attitudes and views friendly to the aims of the ruling class.

Thanks :-)

What is the difference in being a slave and being a peon in a capitalist profit machine?

The slave is treated worse than the peon. Still the peon ought not take his medicine but rather give it back to the corporation and the state shove it right up their behinds and pack it in with their worst nightmare - Socialism.

;)

a 'capital' idea.