Why I Am A Socialist

[Green Arrow]

My family has never been rich. Never been wealthy. Growing up, we always lived in the worst neighborhoods. We used to laugh at my high school because the West Side ghetto, which was like Los Angeles-level bad, was scared to death of going to games on our side of town because we had a reputation for being the Somalia-level side of town. We were actually not as bad as West Side, but hey, the reputation was amusing.

My family did somewhat better when we left California. I moved to Virginia first, and was homeless for six months because the job I had started layoffs the day I got there and my buddy's car broke down, stranding us. For six months, we lived on the streets and my knees will forever be shot for all the walking I did to find myself a job. I finally got lucky, and met someone at our church who was the general manager of a nearby McDonalds. After a month of taking the bus (and sometimes walking three hours) to work, we were able to get an apartment right next to the McDonalds I worked at. We had to share it with four other guys we met while homeless, though, because I barely made $200 every two weeks and my brother made about that off unemployment, which still left us $200 short on rent and unable to pay bills. With six of us, we were able to afford rent and utilities. For another six months, we struggled, but it was better than being homeless.

Meanwhile, my family had moved to Tennessee. One of our roommates, the most trustworthy of the bunch outside my brother and I, magically disappeared one day. Turns out, he took three months of rent money and used it to buy crack. Unable to get ahold of him and the rent money, we got evicted. My brother and I got lucky and found a new place, but my mom has this disease called Huntington's Chorea, and shortly after my brother and I moved to the new place, she had an episode. So, I moved in with my family in Tennessee. I got a job there delivering and installing appliances with a friend for three months, making $400 a week, and helped provide for my family. My grandmother contributed with her social security checks and my dad worked security. Seven of us, all family, living in the same house. With our combined incomes, we managed to get a decent house in a good, quiet neighborhood. But then, one of the nice things about Chattanooga is that there aren't a whole lot of bad neighborhoods.

After the contracting job ended, I got a job working at the same security company as my dad. That went fairly well, as I mostly worked for Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), guarding his properties. It got to where he would come into the building and we'd be on a first name basis and would sit there at my post and shoot the shit. Great job. But, all good things come to an end. So I move back to Virginia for a new opportunity. Do that for about eight months. Come to find out, now my 70 year old grandmother and 52 year old father are both working at the security company now, working the night shift. My grandmother, 70 years old, working from 10 PM to 6 AM every night. My father, 52 years old, working from 12 AM (midnight) to 8 AM, then going to school for criminal justice until around 1 PM. To top that off, my little sister, age 13, is having emotional breakdowns and hurting herself.

All of this, mind, is to make sure my family doesn't have to live in a bad neighborhood and can pay for my mom's drugs so she doesn't get to the point my grandfather got to, stumbling around the house cussing at everybody and beating on people, choking on her food, falling down, stuff like that, because the disease eats away at your brain and turns you into somebody else.

I don't care about wealth. I don't want to be rich. I just want to be able to provide for my family without my 70 year old grandmother having to work period, and without my 52 year old father having to work the night shift. I've always been politically minded, and happened upon a book on socialism about three years ago. Curious, I studied socialism in-depth. Then, I fell into all these problems. While homeless, I was in the city library for at least an hour every day (that was one of the homeless hangouts), so I picked up my socialism study books and kept reading.

After I finished, I saw a way that I might be able to help my family. A way that this oh-so-great big government capitalist system had failed. So that's why I'm a socialist. It's not because I'm some evil tyrant who wants a big totalitarian government and mass genocide. It's not because I'm a lazy underachiever who wants everybody else's money and doesn't want to work. It's not because I'm jealous of the "evil 1%" and want to be just as uber rich as them. It's just because I believe it's the best system to take care of my family.

[The Xl]

I don't think their is anything wrong with any system so long as the participants are doing so voluntarily. I think socialism on a small level is practical and even logical. Again, so long as it's on a voluntary and community basis.

[Green Arrow]

I don't think their is anything wrong with any system so long as the participants are doing so voluntarily. I think socialism on a small level is practical and even logical. Again, so long as it's on a voluntary and community basis.

Naturally. I wouldn't accept it if it wasn't.

[The Xl]

Naturally. I wouldn't accept it if it wasn't.

No beef here.

In before angry "capitalists" put you on blast, despite your ideal system being voluntary, and despite the fact that the politicians they support openly redistribute wealth, and do so by force.

[Green Arrow]

No beef here.

In before angry "capitalists" put you on blast, despite your ideal system being voluntary, and despite the fact that the politicians they support are openly redistribute wealth, and do so by force.

Bah, I can handle them. I grew up around those types of people. Even was one, for awhile :tongue:

[jillian]

After I finished, I saw a way that I might be able to help my family. A way that this oh-so-great big government capitalist system had failed. So that's why I'm a socialist. It's not because I'm some evil tyrant who wants a big totalitarian government and mass genocide. It's not because I'm a lazy underachiever who wants everybody else's money and doesn't want to work. It's not because I'm jealous of the "evil 1%" and want to be just as uber rich as them. It's just because I believe it's the best system to take care of my family.

socialism actually requires rules...

it's not consistent with anarchy.

[Green Arrow]

socialism actually requires rules...

it's not consistent with anarchy.

The founders of socialist thought were anarchists. Original socialism was anarchist. Plus, anarchy isn't chaos, it's perfect social order (philosophically speaking). It's not devoid of rules or even laws. The difference between an anarchist system and your government system is that an anarchist system is one of social order, where the government does not have a monopoly on force and all systems are voluntary. "Government" is simply two or more people getting together to make decisions. It's impossible to avoid without living your days as a hermit. Plenty of anarchist societies throughout history had "government," but that government was a totally different animal from the government beasts that roam the earth today.

[nathanbforrest45]

Socialism is perhaps the most evil system ever devised. It will suck your soul right out of your body. I would rather be a queer than be a socialist.

[zelmo1234]

I think that hardships will cause people to want anything that helps to provide for themselves and there families.

I have little issue with people believing is a Socialist system, However I yet to get them to tell me why I would continue to invest my capital and families security if the potential for earnings is limited?

The other problem that is see it that socialism does not work on a voluntary basis? There are to many of the high end earners that will not willingly participate? So they are forced to! And that tens to backfire and they just stop trying!

I see it as a system that lowers the standard of living for all in the name of equality, and that I feel heart broken over!

But with the current work ethic of todays citizens I see little other choice. NOT SAYING THAT YOU ARE ONE THAT HAS POOR WORK ETHIC, I DO NOT BELEIVE THAT~ We are not on the 5th break of the maintenance worker that is showing me around the properties. He has told me that he hopes if I buy the properties that I will keep him on, as they would not run without him!


Yet when I ask him why things are not fixed? He says he has not had time?

I am more of a hand up type than a hand out type!

[Green Arrow]

I think that hardships will cause people to want anything that helps to provide for themselves and there families.

I have little issue with people believing is a Socialist system, However I yet to get them to tell me why I would continue to invest my capital and families security if the potential for earnings is limited?

The other problem that is see it that socialism does not work on a voluntary basis? There are to many of the high end earners that will not willingly participate? So they are forced to! And that tens to backfire and they just stop trying!

I see it as a system that lowers the standard of living for all in the name of equality, and that I feel heart broken over!

But with the current work ethic of todays citizens I see little other choice. NOT SAYING THAT YOU ARE ONE THAT HAS POOR WORK ETHIC, I DO NOT BELEIVE THAT~ We are not on the 5th break of the maintenance worker that is showing me around the properties. He has told me that he hopes if I buy the properties that I will keep him on, as they would not run without him!


Yet when I ask him why things are not fixed? He says he has not had time?

I am more of a hand up type than a hand out type!

Socialist communities have flourished throughout history without forcing high end earners to participate.

[texan]

I am not an angry capitalist, but I am a capitalist.

I am extremely struck by your perfectly written story. I mean it is unbelievably well written. A guy that is evidently that talented couldn't work his way up? Wow, speechless. Certainly the opportunity was there for you my brother.

[MrJimmyDale]

Socialism is perhaps the most evil system ever devised. It will suck your soul right out of your body. I would rather be a queer than be a socialist. 2 completely different types of poundings......

[The Xl]

I am not an angry capitalist, but I am a capitalist.

I am extremely struck by your perfectly written story. I mean it is unbelievably well written. A guy that is evidently that talented couldn't work his way up? Wow, speechless. Certainly the opportunity was there for you my brother.

Green Arrow is an extremely smart and articulate guy.

[Green Arrow]

I am not an angry capitalist, but I am a capitalist.

I am extremely struck by your perfectly written story. I mean it is unbelievably well written. A guy that is evidently that talented couldn't work his way up? Wow, speechless. Certainly the opportunity was there for you my brother.

Working has never been my problem. It's getting a good enough job that allows my grandmother to quit work and my dad to work less that it fairly difficult, with the economy the way it is. Plus, my job history doesn't look flattering, since I basically only had jobs for six months, three months, and a year and two months. It was because of circumstances outside of my control, but it still doesn't look good.

[jillian]

Socialism is perhaps the most evil system ever devised. It will suck your soul right out of your body. I would rather be a queer than be a socialist.

both a purely socialist and purely laissez faire capitalist society are doomed to failure.

[Green Arrow]

both a purely socialist and purely laissez faire capitalist society are doomed to failure.

Well, socialism can't be mixed with capitalism, so a mix between the two would also fail.

Both a purely socialist society and a purely "laissez faire" capitalist society would work just fine on a small, voluntarist, community level.

[jillian]

Well, socialism can't be mixed with capitalism, so a mix between the two would also fail.

Both a purely socialist society and a purely "laissez faire" capitalist society would work just fine on a small, voluntarist, community level.

of course the two can be mixed. most successful countries do so quite easily.

[Green Arrow]

of course the two can be mixed. most successful countries do so quite easily.

No, what you're thinking of is social democracy. Republicans call that socialism, but it isn't. A necessary qualification of socialism is "no capitalism."

*EDIT* Don't get me wrong, I like social democracy, but it isn't socialism.

[jillian]

I am not an angry capitalist, but I am a capitalist.

I am extremely struck by your perfectly written story. I mean it is unbelievably well written. A guy that is evidently that talented couldn't work his way up? Wow, speechless. Certainly the opportunity was there for you my brother.

would you agree that one needs opportunity for social mobility in order to "move up"?

and would you agree that people aren't born on a level playing field?

[zelmo1234]

Socialist communities have flourished throughout history without forcing high end earners to participate.

And yet most are gone today. I studied the Roy Crofters , but they eventually loose that feeling of community and either move away or the organizations crumble

[zelmo1234]

would you agree that one needs opportunity for social mobility in order to "move up"?

and would you agree that people aren't born on a level playing field?

Of course not, but would you agree that in every generation there are people that rise from the bottom to the top?

They took advantage of what they had, nothing in life should be given, but should be earned!

80% of the millionaires in the USA are first generation! There are not that many lottery winners

[zelmo1234]

Working has never been my problem. It's getting a good enough job that allows my grandmother to quit work and my dad to work less that it fairly difficult, with the economy the way it is. Plus, my job history doesn't look flattering, since I basically only had jobs for six months, three months, and a year and two months. It was because of circumstances outside of my control, but it still doesn't look good.

Have you ever thought of repairing appliances???? I can't think of a community that is not in need of a quality repair person!

[jillian]

Of course not, but would you agree that in every generation there are people that rise from the bottom to the top?

They took advantage of what they had, nothing in life should be given, but should be earned!

80% of the millionaires in the USA are first generation! There are not that many lottery winners

If you start poor in San Francisco, Salt Lake City, New York, Boston, Houston, you’ve got a decent chance to rise. But if it’s Atlanta? Charlotte? Memphis? South Bend? A whole lot harder.[/quote]

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/23/upward-mobility

it is not hard to be a millionaire... that only takes ownership of a house

easy to lose if you have an unanticipated illness and lose your insurance.

the measure is how mobile we are.... now... not when my dad was born or when i was born....

[Green Arrow]

And yet most are gone today. I studied the Roy Crofters , but they eventually loose that feeling of community and either move away or the organizations crumble

True, but is it any surprise? We live in a highly commercialized culture. Even farmers these days have enough machines and hired hands that they rarely do the farming themselves anymore. If 80% of the population of today's America tried to establish an autonomous community, they'd all starve.

It's all by design.

[Green Arrow]

Have you ever thought of repairing appliances???? I can't think of a community that is not in need of a quality repair person!

I don't have the knowledge to repair them. We only installed them, which was was fairly simple (except for dishwashers...I hate dishwashers...). I am working on being able to go to technical school though so I can pick up a useful trade.

[zelmo1234]

I don't have the knowledge to repair them. We only installed them, which was was fairly simple (except for dishwashers...I hate dishwashers...). I am working on being able to go to technical school though so I can pick up a useful trade.

It is not that hard, If you are in an area grab that phone book, find a self servicing appliance dealer the will usually advertise we service what we sell.

it is a three week class that cost about 3K Then they can get you started installing and fixing items in the shop! Om about a year they will be able to put you on the road.

Then it is just working hard and smart! But you might be able to find an employer that will pay for your school!

[jillian]

Have you ever thought of repairing appliances???? I can't think of a community that is not in need of a quality repair person!

one has to be trained, zelmo... this is not 1950, when someone can just put up a shingle... or even better... when there were trade schools.

oh wait... it doesn't pay to repair most appliances now... cheaper to replace them and buy new ones.

[Captain Obvious]

Mankind is incapable of governing itself.

Just like our legislators, label, paint, define them whichever way you can, same shit right down the line.

Same goes for governments, call, define it however the fuck your little heart desires in virtually all cases no matter what the government or political system or whatever the fuck you want to call it, the vast minority of people will control the majority of wealth and power.

Just like death and taxes, and the little guy gets fucked every time.

So whatever, looks great on paper. So does porn.

[Green Arrow]

Mankind is incapable of governing itself.

Just like our legislators, label, paint, define them whichever way you can, same shit right down the line.

Same goes for governments, call, define it however the fuck your little heart desires in virtually all cases no matter what the government or political system or whatever the fuck you want to call it, the vast minority of people will control the majority of wealth and power.

Just like death and taxes, and the little guy gets fucked every time.

So whatever, looks great on paper. So does porn.

Ireland lived under an anarchist system that did not work as you claim for over a thousand years.

[The Xl]

Mankind is incapable of governing itself.

Just like our legislators, label, paint, define them whichever way you can, same shit right down the line.

Same goes for governments, call, define it however the fuck your little heart desires in virtually all cases no matter what the government or political system or whatever the fuck you want to call it, the vast minority of people will control the majority of wealth and power.

Just like death and taxes, and the little guy gets fucked every time.

So whatever, looks great on paper. So does porn.

On a large scale, I agree. However, on a community level, I think certain systems can get away without all of that.

[Captain Obvious]

Ireland lived under an anarchist system that did not work as you claim for over a thousand years.

Which is why I said "virtually".

Ireland is irrelevant for all intents and purposes, unless you want to move there.

[Captain Obvious]

On a large scale, I agree. However, on a community level, I think certain systems can get away without all of that.

How so?

[The Xl]

How so?

Everybody knows everybody, and is more privy to what goes on. Their would also be less people to wake up, in the event that something nefarious is going on. I would think corruption would be harder to come by in that scenario.

[nathanbforrest45]

Socialist communities have flourished throughout history without forcing high end earners to participate.


Name them

[Chris]

I don't think their is anything wrong with any system so long as the participants are doing so voluntarily. I think socialism on a small level is practical and even logical. Again, so long as it's on a voluntary and community basis.


Agree.

I used to be dead set against socialism because I identified it with collective statism but have learned it can be voluntary and community based.

[zelmo1234]

one has to be trained, zelmo... this is not 1950, when someone can just put up a shingle... or even better... when there were trade schools.

oh wait... it doesn't pay to repair most appliances now... cheaper to replace them and buy new ones.

Please don't try to tell me my business! There is a huge opportunity for this and it is not rocket science!

My distribution company distributes luxury appliance's We are in desperate need and the other distributors are as well. for the right people, we will send them to the training schools

Training and intern period we are paying people about 12.50 once they are on the truck that goes to 18 dollars.

This is the problem with liberals they can always find a reason why they are not able to better themselves. There is not reason for those that are not willing to accept the poverty that the democrats try and force on them!

[Chris]

No beef here.

In before angry "capitalists" put you on blast, despite your ideal system being voluntary, and despite the fact that the politicians they support openly redistribute wealth, and do so by force.


Which isn't then capitalism in any free market sense, but something better called corporatism, the corrupt crony collusion of government and, well, special interests like businesses or unions or any group.

[The Xl]

Which isn't then capitalism in any free market sense, but something better called corporatism, the corrupt crony collusion of government and, well, special interests like businesses or unions or any group.

I'm aware. They aren't, though.

[Captain Obvious]

Everybody knows everybody, and is more privy to what goes on. Their would also be less people to wake up, in the event that something nefarious is going on. I would think corruption would be harder to come by in that scenario.

Not really sure I understand how that would work, a ton of questions are flowing through my mind.

[The Xl]

Not really sure I understand how that would work, a ton of questions are flowing through my mind.

Ask away.

For the record, this would be the sort of thing that would happen if the country was broken up into small country states, which will never happen.

[Captain Obvious]

Ask away.

For the record, this would be the sort of thing that would happen if the country was broken up into small country states, which will never happen.

Yeah, in a bit if that's ok. I'm curious but heading out to the bar in a few minutes.

Wing night.

[Green Arrow]

Which is why I said "virtually".

Ireland is irrelevant for all intents and purposes, unless you want to move there.

If you say "this system doesn't work," but that system did work, bringing up the example of it working is never irrelevant.

[Chris]

The founders of socialist thought were anarchists. Original socialism was anarchist. Plus, anarchy isn't chaos, it's perfect social order (philosophically speaking). It's not devoid of rules or even laws. The difference between an anarchist system and your government system is that an anarchist system is one of social order, where the government does not have a monopoly on force and all systems are voluntary. "Government" is simply two or more people getting together to make decisions. It's impossible to avoid without living your days as a hermit. Plenty of anarchist societies throughout history had "government," but that government was a totally different animal from the government beasts that roam the earth today.


You have the patience of a saint to bother explaining to such blatant nonsense as anarchy is chaos.

Anarchy is governance sans government. It is a social order. You cannot volunteer without agreeing to social rules.

[Chris]

I am not an angry capitalist, but I am a capitalist.

I am extremely struck by your perfectly written story. I mean it is unbelievably well written. A guy that is evidently that talented couldn't work his way up? Wow, speechless. Certainly the opportunity was there for you my brother.


I'm a free market capitalist as well. The free implying voluntary.

[Chris]

both a purely socialist and purely laissez faire capitalist society are doomed to failure.


Why? And before you answer, please define your terms. "Purely" sounds like a no true Scotsman.

[Chris]

Well, socialism can't be mixed with capitalism, so a mix between the two would also fail.

Both a purely socialist society and a purely "laissez faire" capitalist society would work just fine on a small, voluntarist, community level.



So then they can mix.

No matter which you choose you must specialize with division of labor and then engage in trade. Shouldn't matter if that is done by individuals or groups.



Note: I first typed, they can be mixed, but that would be true in a statist system with government coercively mixing, and failing. So I changed it to they can mix, iow, socialists and free market capitalists can mix, specialize and trade freely, voluntarily.

[Germanicus]

You sure do not seem like a socialist. As a socialist I see you as an enemy and a fraud. Or confused.

Many people claiming to be socialist are just after an identity.

[Green Arrow]

You sure do not seem like a socialist. As a socialist I see you as an enemy and a fraud. Or confused.

Many people claiming to be socialist are just after an identity.

As a human being going by the handle "Green Arrow," I don't care what you think. I know what I am.

[The Xl]

Yeah, in a bit if that's ok. I'm curious but heading out to the bar in a few minutes.

Wing night.

Sure, sounds good.

[The Xl]

You sure do not seem like a socialist. As a socialist I see you as an enemy and a fraud. Or confused.

Many people claiming to be socialist are just after an identity.

Why not elaborate on the matter?

[Chris]

Mankind is incapable of governing itself.

Just like our legislators, label, paint, define them whichever way you can, same shit right down the line.

Same goes for governments, call, define it however the fuck your little heart desires in virtually all cases no matter what the government or political system or whatever the fuck you want to call it, the vast minority of people will control the majority of wealth and power.

Just like death and taxes, and the little guy gets fucked every time.

So whatever, looks great on paper. So does porn.



Learned that in government schools, that theory of government?

If you take a good hard look around you you would see we do a good job of governing ourselves despite the intervention of government. Governments like ours were created to serve the liberty of the social order around us, but always end up serving the interests of a few against the many.

[Chris]

I'm aware. They aren't, though.


I can dispense with the word capitalism and just talk free markets.

[Chris]

If you say "this system doesn't work," but that system did work, bringing up the example of it working is never irrelevant.


One look at any of the governments around the world should serve as example of what doesn't work.

[Captain Obvious]

Learned that in government schools, that theory of government?

If you take a good hard look around you you would see we do a good job of governing ourselves despite the intervention of government. Governments like ours were created to serve the liberty of the social order around us, but always end up serving the interests of a few against the many.

I disagree wholly when you consider all of the inhumanity we have brought in ourselves through history.

You are painting the walt disney interpretation.

[texan]

Hey people feel the way they feel. But I will caution you a bit. Things that are written in text books and tested in labs often fail in the real world. Socialism has not proven to be a system that can sustain itself without big problems. The larger issue is in a socialist environment you can't right the ship very often. The people are conditioned to expect someone to solve their problems. In a capitalistic society you can right the ship and generally do it pretty darn quick. Greeny is smart enough to get out of this, he seems like a younger guy. He has plenty of time to make the system work for him. Frustration can really take you down, its all attitude.

Whoopie Goldberg was born in Manhattan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan) and raised in the Chelsea-Elliot Houses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea-Elliot_Houses) – the daughter of Emma (née Harris), a nurse and teacher, and Robert James Johnson, Jr., a clergyman.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-clergyman-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-4) Some sources give her birth year as 1955, but according to the African-American Registry[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-5) and a New York Times article from 1984,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-6) she was born in 1949. Goldberg has described her mother as a "stern, strong, and wise woman" who raised her as a single mother after Goldberg's father had left the family.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-cigar-7) Goldberg's recent ancestors migrated north from Faceville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceville,_Georgia), Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)); Palatka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatka,_Florida), Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida); and Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-bookref1-8)
As a teenager Goldberg dropped out of high school.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-10)
She worked as a phone sex operator, working from home at night.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-YouTube1-11)

Jay Leno - Homeless
ME! Homeless at one point. If not for our system I wouldn't be where I am today which is good.

There are many others.

USE THE SYSTEM MY BROTHER.

[kilgram]

I am not an angry capitalist, but I am a capitalist.

I am extremely struck by your perfectly written story. I mean it is unbelievably well written. A guy that is evidently that talented couldn't work his way up? Wow, speechless. Certainly the opportunity was there for you my brother.
It is the myth of the capitalism. No, there are a whole bunch of talented people who cannot work their way up. It is the most normal. The exception is getting a way to work the way up. Not the norm.

[Chris]

I disagree wholly when you consider all of the inhumanity we have brought in ourselves through history.

You are painting the walt disney interpretation.


Well, not real sure what you're saying there, the first sentence.

The standard view seems to me to be we have government, always have, therefore it's justified. Nice theory, based on the naturalistic fallacy. And what has government provided? I see a technologically advanced and materially rich world around me with the morals of Neanderthals. Let's fight another statist world war.

[Chris]

It is the myth of the capitalism. No, there are a whole bunch of talented people who cannot work their way up. It is the most normal. The exception is getting a way to work the way up. Not the norm.



It is the myth of capitalism as Marx defined the term.

[kilgram]

Well, socialism can't be mixed with capitalism, so a mix between the two would also fail.

Both a purely socialist society and a purely "laissez faire" capitalist society would work just fine on a small, voluntarist, community level.
I agree and disagree with you.

I disagree that purely socialist society would work only fine on a small voluntarist, community level. It can work in big size.

Also, I am more radical than you in the point that I don't believe possible that would ever work a laissez faire system.

Also I disagree with you about the mix of socialism and capitalism. It is true that is possible to fail, but the only way to keep capitalism from its natural destructive nature is making some counter with socialist pieces.

[Chris]

Hey people feel the way they feel. But I will caution you a bit. Things that are written in text books and tested in labs often fail in the real world. Socialism has not proven to be a system that can sustain itself without big problems. The larger issue is in a socialist environment you can't right the ship very often. The people are conditioned to expect someone to solve their problems. In a capitalistic society you can right the ship and generally do it pretty darn quick. Greeny is smart enough to get out of this, he seems like a younger guy. He has plenty of time to make the system work for him. Frustration can really take you down, its all attitude.

Whoopie Goldberg was born in Manhattan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan) and raised in the Chelsea-Elliot Houses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea-Elliot_Houses) – the daughter of Emma (née Harris), a nurse and teacher, and Robert James Johnson, Jr., a clergyman.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-clergyman-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-4) Some sources give her birth year as 1955, but according to the African-American Registry[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-5) and a New York Times article from 1984,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-6) she was born in 1949. Goldberg has described her mother as a "stern, strong, and wise woman" who raised her as a single mother after Goldberg's father had left the family.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-cigar-7) Goldberg's recent ancestors migrated north from Faceville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceville,_Georgia), Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)); Palatka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatka,_Florida), Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida); and Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-bookref1-8)
As a teenager Goldberg dropped out of high school.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-10)
She worked as a phone sex operator, working from home at night.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-YouTube1-11)

Jay Leno - Homeless
ME! Homeless at one point. If not for our system I wouldn't be where I am today which is good.

There are many others.

USE THE SYSTEM MY BROTHER.



Where does government exist but in various theories of government and on constitutional and legal paper.

Well, OK, its monopoly on force.

[kilgram]

It is the myth of capitalism as Marx defined the term.
It is the reality.

I don't base in Marxism because I don't know how he defined it. I only say it from observation.

I've not read anything of Marxism. It is true that I've read or listened some modern marxists, but my conclusions are previous to their influence, I think.

[nic34]

Hey people feel the way they feel. But I will caution you a bit. Things that are written in text books and tested in labs often fail in the real world. Socialism has not proven to be a system that can sustain itself without big problems. The larger issue is in a socialist environment you can't right the ship very often. The people are conditioned to expect someone to solve their problems. In a capitalistic society you can right the ship and generally do it pretty darn quick. Greeny is smart enough to get out of this, he seems like a younger guy. He has plenty of time to make the system work for him. Frustration can really take you down, its all attitude.

Whoopie Goldberg was born in Manhattan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan) and raised in the Chelsea-Elliot Houses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea-Elliot_Houses) – the daughter of Emma (née Harris), a nurse and teacher, and Robert James Johnson, Jr., a clergyman.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-clergyman-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-4) Some sources give her birth year as 1955, but according to the African-American Registry[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-5) and a New York Times article from 1984,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-6) she was born in 1949. Goldberg has described her mother as a "stern, strong, and wise woman" who raised her as a single mother after Goldberg's father had left the family.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-cigar-7) Goldberg's recent ancestors migrated north from Faceville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceville,_Georgia), Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)); Palatka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatka,_Florida), Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida); and Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-bookref1-8)
As a teenager Goldberg dropped out of high school.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-10)
She worked as a phone sex operator, working from home at night.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-YouTube1-11)

Jay Leno - Homeless
ME! Homeless at one point. If not for our system I wouldn't be where I am today which is good.

There are many others.

USE THE SYSTEM MY BROTHER.

Good post texan..

[kilgram]

Learned that in government schools, that theory of government?

If you take a good hard look around you you would see we do a good job of governing ourselves despite the intervention of government. Governments like ours were created to serve the liberty of the social order around us, but always end up serving the interests of a few against the many.
The problem is authoritarism and lack of transparency.

And both problems are inherent to any authoritarian institution.

[Chris]

I agree and disagree with you.

I disagree that purely socialist society would work only fine on a small voluntarist, community level. It can work in big size.

Also, I am more radical than you in the point that I don't believe possible that would ever work a laissez faire system.

Also I disagree with you about the mix of socialism and capitalism. It is true that is possible to fail, but the only way to keep capitalism from its natural destructive nature is making some counter with socialist pieces.


In another thread you said large scale socialism required democracy, a form of government.


If you conflate free-market capitalism with statist corporatism, discussion will be difficult.

[kilgram]

In another thread you said large scale socialism required democracy, a form of government.


If you conflate free-market capitalism with statist corporatism, discussion will be difficult.
I've never said that large scale socialism required democracy. I've said and affirm this, that anarchism is the democracy in its maximum state of representation.

[Green Arrow]

Hey people feel the way they feel. But I will caution you a bit. Things that are written in text books and tested in labs often fail in the real world. Socialism has not proven to be a system that can sustain itself without big problems. The larger issue is in a socialist environment you can't right the ship very often. The people are conditioned to expect someone to solve their problems. In a capitalistic society you can right the ship and generally do it pretty darn quick. Greeny is smart enough to get out of this, he seems like a younger guy. He has plenty of time to make the system work for him. Frustration can really take you down, its all attitude.

Whoopie Goldberg was born in Manhattan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan) and raised in the Chelsea-Elliot Houses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea-Elliot_Houses) – the daughter of Emma (née Harris), a nurse and teacher, and Robert James Johnson, Jr., a clergyman.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-clergyman-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-4) Some sources give her birth year as 1955, but according to the African-American Registry[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-5) and a New York Times article from 1984,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-6) she was born in 1949. Goldberg has described her mother as a "stern, strong, and wise woman" who raised her as a single mother after Goldberg's father had left the family.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-cigar-7) Goldberg's recent ancestors migrated north from Faceville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceville,_Georgia), Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)); Palatka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatka,_Florida), Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida); and Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-bookref1-8)
As a teenager Goldberg dropped out of high school.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-10)
She worked as a phone sex operator, working from home at night.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-YouTube1-11)

Jay Leno - Homeless
ME! Homeless at one point. If not for our system I wouldn't be where I am today which is good.

There are many others.

USE THE SYSTEM MY BROTHER.

I appreciate and value your words. I don't expect to ever get my ideal system, and I am far from the type to just sit on my ass and wait for what may never come. So for better or worse, this is the system I live in, and as long as I live in it, I will work to change it, but I will also work my ass off to get the best out of it. Not for me, but for the people I love.

[Chris]

It is the reality.

I don't base in Marxism because I don't know how he defined it. I only say it from observation.

I've not read anything of Marxism. It is true that I've read or listened some modern marxists, but my conclusions are previous to their influence, I think.



As I said earlier then for those fixated on particular definitions I will simply use the term free market then.

[Chris]

The problem is authoritarism and lack of transparency.

And both problems are inherent to any authoritarian institution.



We agree on the problem of authoritarianism or, as I prefer to call it, statism.

[killianr1]

What incentive is there to work hard to better your station in socialism?
If you speak to people who lived through the USSR socialist experience, they would tell you that no one wanted to be the boss because it was just more work for no more reward.
The same holds true for productivity.
Ultimately, as in the case of the USSR, the system fails.

[kilgram]

We agree on the problem of authoritarianism or, as I prefer to call it, statism.
It is the difference between you and me. It is why I am socialist and you are not. I see authoritarism in other institutions rather state. State is only one of them.

[Kalkin]

Voluntary socialism is fine. It's not fine if it's funded by mandatory taxation.

[texan]

Trying to stay out of politics on this one if that is where you went?

Someone above sounds as tho they have given up.........I hate that for them. My dad quit school at 14 washed dishes lied and joined the military. He is as lower to mid class as they come. He has managed to do a good job and taught / prepared his kids to get another leg up. There is no magic bullet, but people complaining of no opportunity are just flat wrong, it is all around us. BTW you can take all the money from all the wealthy and you couldn't sustain a month of what is being asked. The wealthy are not the issue.

[Chris]

It is the difference between you and me. It is why I am socialist and you are not. I see authoritarism in other institutions rather state. State is only one of them.

Only the state has a monopoly on coercive force. We've been here many times and you have yet to demonstrate any other entity with a monopoly on coercive force. Apodictically, that's logically impossible, a contradiction of terms.

[Chris]

Voluntary socialism is fine. It's not fine if it's funded by mandatory taxation.

Agree. Ditto capitalism, voluntary capitalism. Not corporatism controlled or managed by the state.

[Chris]

What incentive is there to work hard to better your station in socialism?
If you speak to people who lived through the USSR socialist experience, they would tell you that no one wanted to be the boss because it was just more work for no more reward.
The same holds true for productivity.
Ultimately, as in the case of the USSR, the system fails.


Even in a voluntary system of socialism, given scare resources, I fail to see how it would work too without some form of authoritarian state. How would you calculate and coordinate the allocation of resources?

I guess only a socialist can explain that.

[kilgram]

Only the state has a monopoly on coercive force. We've been here many times and you have yet to demonstrate any other entity with a monopoly on coercive force. Apodictically, that's logically impossible, a contradiction of terms.
I've explained you that violence is not necessary to be violent neither coercion.

[Chris]

I've explained you that violence is not necessary to be violent neither coercion.

For example, the granmother of green arrow is coerced to work because if she does not work they don't have the enough means to live. It is coercion. And more when she must work in age beyond the normal age of getting retired. She should have left to work as much late at her 65 yrs old.



Yes, you've explained many times how life is coercive and forces you to work to feed and clothe and shelter yourself. We all suffer that. It's called life.

[kilgram]

Yes, you've explained many times how life is coercive and forces you to work to feed and clothe and shelter yourself. We all suffer that. It's called life.
Yes, we don't agree. And I am tired. So I am not going to discuss it anymore. You have your opinions, and I have the mines. I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me.

You don't see as authoritarism pyramidal structures I do. You don't see religion as authoritarism I do. You don't see corporations as authoritarian I do. We only agree that state is authoritarian. You don't see as coercion the necessity of something basic like feeding and how it is nulling the personality of a person and making it much more vulnerable to any kind of abuse and it goes against any idea of freedom I do. You don't see how there are things cannot be left to the market (profit) and I do.

I understand your point and I am able to understand better some ways of thinking however I don't agree with them. So thank you.

[Chris]

Yes, we don't agree. And I am tired. So I am not going to discuss it anymore. You have your opinions, and I have the mines. I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me.

You don't see as authoritarism pyramidal structures I do. You don't see religion as authoritarism I do. You don't see corporations as authoritarian I do. We only agree that state is authoritarian. You don't see as coercion the necessity of something basic like feeding and how it is nulling the personality of a person and making it much more vulnerable to any kind of abuse and it goes against any idea of freedom I do. You don't see how there are things cannot be left to the market (profit) and I do.

I understand your point and I am able to understand better some ways of thinking however I don't agree with them. So thank you.


Because they are not coercive without the state, with its monopoly on force, behind it.

[Kalkin]

My lungs are coercing me to breathe.

[donttread]

My family has never been rich. Never been wealthy. Growing up, we always lived in the worst neighborhoods. We used to laugh at my high school because the West Side ghetto, which was like Los Angeles-level bad, was scared to death of going to games on our side of town because we had a reputation for being the Somalia-level side of town. We were actually not as bad as West Side, but hey, the reputation was amusing.

My family did somewhat better when we left California. I moved to Virginia first, and was homeless for six months because the job I had started layoffs the day I got there and my buddy's car broke down, stranding us. For six months, we lived on the streets and my knees will forever be shot for all the walking I did to find myself a job. I finally got lucky, and met someone at our church who was the general manager of a nearby McDonalds. After a month of taking the bus (and sometimes walking three hours) to work, we were able to get an apartment right next to the McDonalds I worked at. We had to share it with four other guys we met while homeless, though, because I barely made $200 every two weeks and my brother made about that off unemployment, which still left us $200 short on rent and unable to pay bills. With six of us, we were able to afford rent and utilities. For another six months, we struggled, but it was better than being homeless.

Meanwhile, my family had moved to Tennessee. One of our roommates, the most trustworthy of the bunch outside my brother and I, magically disappeared one day. Turns out, he took three months of rent money and used it to buy crack. Unable to get ahold of him and the rent money, we got evicted. My brother and I got lucky and found a new place, but my mom has this disease called Huntington's Chorea, and shortly after my brother and I moved to the new place, she had an episode. So, I moved in with my family in Tennessee. I got a job there delivering and installing appliances with a friend for three months, making $400 a week, and helped provide for my family. My grandmother contributed with her social security checks and my dad worked security. Seven of us, all family, living in the same house. With our combined incomes, we managed to get a decent house in a good, quiet neighborhood. But then, one of the nice things about Chattanooga is that there aren't a whole lot of bad neighborhoods.

After the contracting job ended, I got a job working at the same security company as my dad. That went fairly well, as I mostly worked for Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), guarding his properties. It got to where he would come into the building and we'd be on a first name basis and would sit there at my post and shoot the shit. Great job. But, all good things come to an end. So I move back to Virginia for a new opportunity. Do that for about eight months. Come to find out, now my 70 year old grandmother and 52 year old father are both working at the security company now, working the night shift. My grandmother, 70 years old, working from 10 PM to 6 AM every night. My father, 52 years old, working from 12 AM (midnight) to 8 AM, then going to school for criminal justice until around 1 PM. To top that off, my little sister, age 13, is having emotional breakdowns and hurting herself.

All of this, mind, is to make sure my family doesn't have to live in a bad neighborhood and can pay for my mom's drugs so she doesn't get to the point my grandfather got to, stumbling around the house cussing at everybody and beating on people, choking on her food, falling down, stuff like that, because the disease eats away at your brain and turns you into somebody else.

I don't care about wealth. I don't want to be rich. I just want to be able to provide for my family without my 70 year old grandmother having to work period, and without my 52 year old father having to work the night shift. I've always been politically minded, and happened upon a book on socialism about three years ago. Curious, I studied socialism in-depth. Then, I fell into all these problems. While homeless, I was in the city library for at least an hour every day (that was one of the homeless hangouts), so I picked up my socialism study books and kept reading.

After I finished, I saw a way that I might be able to help my family. A way that this oh-so-great big government capitalist system had failed. So that's why I'm a socialist. It's not because I'm some evil tyrant who wants a big totalitarian government and mass genocide. It's not because I'm a lazy underachiever who wants everybody else's money and doesn't want to work. It's not because I'm jealous of the "evil 1%" and want to be just as uber rich as them. It's just because I believe it's the best system to take care of my family.

I hope you know that America is corporatist, not socialist. Under corporatism the corporations "own" the government, under socialism the government "owns"the corps. For freedom to live the megacorps must die

[Chris]

My lungs are coercing me to breathe.


Therefore you are exploited. ;-)

I think there's a failure here to distinguish what life requires of you and what others can.

[Chris]

I hope you know that America is corporatist, not socialist. Under corporatism the corporations "own" the government, under socialism the government "owns"the corps. For freedom to live the megacorps must die



Not sure I buy the distinction as you're phrasing it. I would agree, we are corporatist. But corporation own capital, wealth, not the government, though with that wealth they can rent seek and purchase political favors from government which has a monopoly on power. In this collusion there is an exchange of wealth for power so to speak, but not ownership.

I would say that prior to the 16th amendment coprorations had the upper hand, but afterward, government has had the upper hand since it gained direct access to wealth through taxation.

[donttread]

Not sure I buy the distinction as you're phrasing it. I would agree, we are corporatist. But corporation own capital, wealth, not the government, though with that wealth they can rent seek and purchase political favors from government which has a monopoly on power. In this collusion there is an exchange of wealth for power so to speak, but not ownership.

I would say that prior to the 16th amendment coprorations had the upper hand, but afterward, government has had the upper hand since it gained direct access to wealth through taxation.

OK , good point. The "two major parties" are corporate whores rather than corporate property. Fair interpretation?

[Heyduke]

Kind of all depends on your definition of socialism. It's a very loaded word.

Funny thing about USA, the trilogy I recently read by John Dos Passos, is that his novels are set during a time when the words ‘socialist’ and ‘anarchist’ were often used interchangeably. And historically speaking, this has often been the case. Anarchism passed its infancy in the company of socialism, before the two eventually became incompatible.

Socialism meant something completely different before Marx co-opted and redefined the word, turning into an agent of the Industrial Revolution rather than an enemy.

Even at the time of Dos Passos’ USA, set in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to be vs. the Man usually meant to be a socialist. Two of his drunkard anarchist socialist hobo characters are talking, and one makes the point that it would be so easy to bring down the State if every worker joined in on a general strike. Easier said than done, but the traditional weapon of the socialist has always been the general strike, which has always also been the greatest fear of both the Democrat and Republican parties.

One strand of early anarchism centered on the doctrine of mutualism, which held that the workers of a society should avoid involvement in politics, and should liberate themselves by direct action on the streets and in the factories. This form of anarchistic mutuality was very much compatible with the popular brand of socialism which also regarded the major political parties as antagonistic to liberty.

Later, the individualist-anarchist strain of dudes like Max Stirner proved by their own principles to rule out any chance of consciously/intentionally effective organization. The individualist-anarchist (Stirner and co.) had abandoned mutualism. And today, we find that the socialist liberal is not in the least bit liberal, and the modern brand of socialism places faith in central government as the paternal overseer of workers’ rights. Today, the anarchist and the socialist are at opposite ends of a spectrum. But, in times long passed away, the anarchist and the socialist were allies vs. the Man.

[Dr. Who]

I appreciate and value your words. I don't expect to ever get my ideal system, and I am far from the type to just sit on my ass and wait for what may never come. So for better or worse, this is the system I live in, and as long as I live in it, I will work to change it, but I will also work my ass off to get the best out of it. Not for me, but for the people I love.
Have you considered Federal Student Aid? They will also help with a part-time job while attending school.

[Blackrook]

My family has never been rich. Never been wealthy. Growing up, we always lived in the worst neighborhoods. We used to laugh at my high school because the West Side ghetto, which was like Los Angeles-level bad, was scared to death of going to games on our side of town because we had a reputation for being the Somalia-level side of town. We were actually not as bad as West Side, but hey, the reputation was amusing.

My family did somewhat better when we left California. I moved to Virginia first, and was homeless for six months because the job I had started layoffs the day I got there and my buddy's car broke down, stranding us. For six months, we lived on the streets and my knees will forever be shot for all the walking I did to find myself a job. I finally got lucky, and met someone at our church who was the general manager of a nearby McDonalds. After a month of taking the bus (and sometimes walking three hours) to work, we were able to get an apartment right next to the McDonalds I worked at. We had to share it with four other guys we met while homeless, though, because I barely made $200 every two weeks and my brother made about that off unemployment, which still left us $200 short on rent and unable to pay bills. With six of us, we were able to afford rent and utilities. For another six months, we struggled, but it was better than being homeless.

Meanwhile, my family had moved to Tennessee. One of our roommates, the most trustworthy of the bunch outside my brother and I, magically disappeared one day. Turns out, he took three months of rent money and used it to buy crack. Unable to get ahold of him and the rent money, we got evicted. My brother and I got lucky and found a new place, but my mom has this disease called Huntington's Chorea, and shortly after my brother and I moved to the new place, she had an episode. So, I moved in with my family in Tennessee. I got a job there delivering and installing appliances with a friend for three months, making $400 a week, and helped provide for my family. My grandmother contributed with her social security checks and my dad worked security. Seven of us, all family, living in the same house. With our combined incomes, we managed to get a decent house in a good, quiet neighborhood. But then, one of the nice things about Chattanooga is that there aren't a whole lot of bad neighborhoods.

After the contracting job ended, I got a job working at the same security company as my dad. That went fairly well, as I mostly worked for Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), guarding his properties. It got to where he would come into the building and we'd be on a first name basis and would sit there at my post and shoot the shit. Great job. But, all good things come to an end. So I move back to Virginia for a new opportunity. Do that for about eight months. Come to find out, now my 70 year old grandmother and 52 year old father are both working at the security company now, working the night shift. My grandmother, 70 years old, working from 10 PM to 6 AM every night. My father, 52 years old, working from 12 AM (midnight) to 8 AM, then going to school for criminal justice until around 1 PM. To top that off, my little sister, age 13, is having emotional breakdowns and hurting herself.

All of this, mind, is to make sure my family doesn't have to live in a bad neighborhood and can pay for my mom's drugs so she doesn't get to the point my grandfather got to, stumbling around the house cussing at everybody and beating on people, choking on her food, falling down, stuff like that, because the disease eats away at your brain and turns you into somebody else.

I don't care about wealth. I don't want to be rich. I just want to be able to provide for my family without my 70 year old grandmother having to work period, and without my 52 year old father having to work the night shift. I've always been politically minded, and happened upon a book on socialism about three years ago. Curious, I studied socialism in-depth. Then, I fell into all these problems. While homeless, I was in the city library for at least an hour every day (that was one of the homeless hangouts), so I picked up my socialism study books and kept reading.

After I finished, I saw a way that I might be able to help my family. A way that this oh-so-great big government capitalist system had failed. So that's why I'm a socialist. It's not because I'm some evil tyrant who wants a big totalitarian government and mass genocide. It's not because I'm a lazy underachiever who wants everybody else's money and doesn't want to work. It's not because I'm jealous of the "evil 1%" and want to be just as uber rich as them. It's just because I believe it's the best system to take care of my family.

The reason I'm not a socialist is because I don't want to rob people of their freedom. I like being free, and I want others to respect my right to be free. In a socialist society, no one is free because the government takes away most of your income and then pisses it away on giving away free diapers and school lunches to people who can afford these things for themselves.

[Blackrook]

I think all American socialists should move to Canada or Europe and let America remain a free country for those of us who appreciate freedom.

If the United States goes socialist, there will be no harbor of freedom anywhere in the world. The entire world will be in economic bondage.

[Green Arrow]

Have you considered Federal Student Aid? They will also help with a part-time job while attending school.

Each time I've tried to get into the local community college, I've applied for FAFSA. Family stuff just gets in the way of me actually following through and going. Now, I've given up the idea of just going to regular college and going straight to a technical/trade school. Would they pay for that?

[Green Arrow]

I think all American socialists should move to Canada or Europe and let America remain a free country for those of us who appreciate freedom.

If the United States goes socialist, there will be no harbor of freedom anywhere in the world. The entire world will be in economic bondage.

You have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm used to that so it's okay. I would like you to explain, however, just how you think it is "freedom" to tell people that if they don't think exactly like you, they should leave America. I can guaran-damn-tee you that the founders would have soundly rejected such a silly idea.

[countryboy]

I am not an angry capitalist, but I am a capitalist.

I am extremely struck by your perfectly written story. I mean it is unbelievably well written. A guy that is evidently that talented couldn't work his way up? Wow, speechless. Certainly the opportunity was there for you my brother.
Is there for him. He is still quite young. :wink:

[Green Arrow]

Is there for him. He is still quite young. :wink:

I'm losing it, though. My dad found a growing bald spot while giving me a haircut and my hair is visibly thinning on the sides and along the hairline. Just put me in my casket and call it :cry:

[patrickt]

Green Arrow: "After I finished, I saw a way that I might be able to help my family. A way that this oh-so-great big government capitalist system had failed. So that's why I'm a socialist. It's not because I'm some evil tyrant who wants a big totalitarian government and mass genocide. It's not because I'm a lazy underachiever who wants everybody else's money and doesn't want to work. It's not because I'm jealous of the "evil 1%" and want to be just as uber rich as them. It's just because I believe it's the best system to take care of my family."

Sorry, but it took me a bit to find this in another thread from yesterday evening, 6:37 p.m.
"I can't even remember the last time I called myself a libertarian. I just stick with left-anarchist and anti-statist."

[Green Arrow]

Green Arrow: "After I finished, I saw a way that I might be able to help my family. A way that this oh-so-great big government capitalist system had failed. So that's why I'm a socialist. It's not because I'm some evil tyrant who wants a big totalitarian government and mass genocide. It's not because I'm a lazy underachiever who wants everybody else's money and doesn't want to work. It's not because I'm jealous of the "evil 1%" and want to be just as uber rich as them. It's just because I believe it's the best system to take care of my family."

Sorry, but it took me a bit to find this in another thread from yesterday evening, 6:37 p.m.
"I can't even remember the last time I called myself a libertarian. I just stick with left-anarchist and anti-statist."

Okay. What's your point?

[countryboy]

I'm losing it, though. My dad found a growing bald spot while giving me a haircut and my hair is visibly thinning on the sides and along the hairline. Just put me in my casket and call it :cry:
If it's any consolation, I'm 50 and have a full head of hair. :grin:

Heck, there were kids in my high school with receding hairlines. I hear bald is beautiful.

[Green Arrow]

If it's any consolation, I'm 50 and have a full head of hair. :grin:

Heck, there were kids in my high school with receding hairlines. I hear bald is beautiful.

My dad rocks the bald look. We are basically mirror images of each other, so I can prolly pull it off too.

[Chris]

OK , good point. The "two major parties" are corporate whores rather than corporate property. Fair interpretation?

Excellent choice of word.

[Chris]

Kind of all depends on your definition of socialism. It's a very loaded word.

Funny thing about USA, the trilogy I recently read by John Dos Passos, is that his novels are set during a time when the words ‘socialist’ and ‘anarchist’ were often used interchangeably. And historically speaking, this has often been the case. Anarchism passed its infancy in the company of socialism, before the two eventually became incompatible.

Socialism meant something completely different before Marx co-opted and redefined the word, turning into an agent of the Industrial Revolution rather than an enemy.

Even at the time of Dos Passos’ USA, set in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to be vs. the Man usually meant to be a socialist. Two of his drunkard anarchist socialist hobo characters are talking, and one makes the point that it would be so easy to bring down the State if every worker joined in on a general strike. Easier said than done, but the traditional weapon of the socialist has always been the general strike, which has always also been the greatest fear of both the Democrat and Republican parties.

One strand of early anarchism centered on the doctrine of mutualism, which held that the workers of a society should avoid involvement in politics, and should liberate themselves by direct action on the streets and in the factories. This form of anarchistic mutuality was very much compatible with the popular brand of socialism which also regarded the major political parties as antagonistic to liberty.

Later, the individualist-anarchist strain of dudes like Max Stirner proved by their own principles to rule out any chance of consciously/intentionally effective organization. The individualist-anarchist (Stirner and co.) had abandoned mutualism. And today, we find that the socialist liberal is not in the least bit liberal, and the modern brand of socialism places faith in central government as the paternal overseer of workers’ rights. Today, the anarchist and the socialist are at opposite ends of a spectrum. But, in times long passed away, the anarchist and the socialist were allies vs. the Man.



Great post!

[BB-35]

I'm losing it, though. My dad found a growing bald spot while giving me a haircut and my hair is visibly thinning on the sides and along the hairline. Just put me in my casket and call it :cry:

My hair started thinning in my 20's,but then
I spent the better part of a year hairless due to chemo,so it changed my perspective...

[patrickt]

Okay. What's your point?

Let's see. One evening you're a "left-anarchist and anti-statist." The next morning you're a socialist. I guess that means you dream of being a politician.

[kilgram]

That you're clearly a politician.
Can you reason it more? Why do you say that?

[donttread]

Not sure I buy the distinction as you're phrasing it. I would agree, we are corporatist. But corporation own capital, wealth, not the government, though with that wealth they can rent seek and purchase political favors from government which has a monopoly on power. In this collusion there is an exchange of wealth for power so to speak, but not ownership.

I would say that prior to the 16th amendment coprorations had the upper hand, but afterward, government has had the upper hand since it gained direct access to wealth through taxation.


I'd say prior to the 16th the people had the upper hand

[Green Arrow]

Let's see. One evening you're a "left-anarchist and anti-statist." The next morning you're a socialist. I guess that means you dream of being a politician.

Clearly, you don't understand that socialism is left-anarchism.

[patrickt]

Can you reason it more? Why do you say that?

Of course. Politicians, in the worst sense of the word, change their tune more often than they change their underwear. They tailor their positions, opinins, and labels to the audience and they can change from morning to night. And, best of all, they love to use meaningless terms that can mean whatever they want.

[patrickt]

Clearly, you don't understand that socialism is left-anarchism.

Clearly. That's funny. And Socialsim is anti-statism. And anti-statism is whatever the politician wants it to be. The reason you refer to yourself one afternoon as a left-anarchist and the next morning as a socialist is because they mean the same thing. Clearly.

[Green Arrow]

Clearly. That's funny. And Socialsim is anti-statism. And anti-statism is whatever the politician wants it to be. The reason you refer to yourself one afternoon as a left-anarchist and the next morning as a socialist is because they mean the same thing. Clearly.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1433469/bueller-bored-o.gif

Your pathetic attempts at insulting me are just boring anymore. Just read something for once. These ideas have been around for almost two hundred years. Inform yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism)

[Chris]

I'd say prior to the 16th the people had the upper hand


Perhaps, but were increasingly losing their liberty to the power of government.

[Chris]

Clearly. That's funny. And Socialsim is anti-statism. And anti-statism is whatever the politician wants it to be. The reason you refer to yourself one afternoon as a left-anarchist and the next morning as a socialist is because they mean the same thing. Clearly.


Left anarchists, even left libertarians, are generally socialists (green) or communists (kilgram), and right anarchists/libertarians, are generally free marketers, free traders, etc.

I think you need to view it in two dimensions rather than one:

http://i.snag.gy/QD1YA.jpg

IOW, being a statist or anarchist on one axis doesn't define where you are on the left v right axis.

[Mini Me]

Left anarchists, even left libertarians, are generally socialists (green) or communists (kilgram), and right anarchists/libertarians, are generally free marketers, free traders, etc.

I think you need to view it in two dimensions rather than one:

That's right! We need labels so we can pidgeonhole each other and shout insults!

Your chart is contrived and goofy!

http://i.snag.gy/QD1YA.jpg

IOW, being a statist or anarchist on one axis doesn't define where you are on the left v right axis.

[Chris]

...

Labels are good descriptors that act as aids to discussion. The labels are even defined for you, or'd you miss that?

And it's not my chart, but a Nolan chart. Surely you know that, don't you?

Is that what you do, pigeonhole?

http://i.snag.gy/wXvQ5.jpg

[Heyduke]

When I was in elementary school my family moved from SF out to a village in the coastal mountains. We had a volunteer fire department, which was comprised of everyone with access to a chainsaw and a truck (preferably with a winch). The volunteer fire department with water trucks and equipment was and is supported by benefits (pancake breakfasts, Fireman's Muster, donations, etc.).

There’s a scene in the early moments of the HBO special on John Adams. A fire breaks out in Boston. A young John Adams runs into the house and grabs a bucket and runs back toward the fire. They didn’t have a BFD (Boston Fire Dept.). Every able man in Boston was the fire department. That image sticks with me as an example of social anarchy. But, we should remember that the largest city by population in America in 1760 was Philadelphia (25,000). At that time, London had a population of over 800,000.

But, there's a lot of examples of social anarchy in modern cities as well.

Libertarian socialism is synonymous with mutualistic anarchism. And the key thing to remember about libertarian socialism or any kind of anarchism is that it ignores government altogether. It lives without government, or in spite of it. So, you can't really point to a Nation-State and say, "See, look, that form of government doesn't work".

[patrickt]

I'm not trying to insult you, Green Arrow. I mean, you want to be a politician. How could I insult that. And to be a politician you need labels that you define and change as the mood, and the audience, demand. I do find you amusing. I can't think of anyone more deserving of a career as a politician. I can't think of anyone who would be a better fit with John Kerry. And, Barack Obama. And, Barney Frank. And Ted Kennedy. And Harry Reid. And Nancy Pelosi. And Sheila Jackson-Lee. And, my personal favorite Hank "Guam might tip over and sink" Johnson. Almost forgot. Chris Dodd. Lyndon B. Johnson. Jimmy Carter. Charlie Rangel.

[kilgram]

I'm not trying to insult you, Green Arrow. I mean, you want to be a politician. How could I insult that. And to be a politician you need labels that you define and change as the mood, and the audience, demand. I do find you amusing. I can't think of anyone more deserving of a career as a politician. I can't think of anyone who would be a better fit with John Kerry. And, Barack Obama. And, Barney Frank. And Ted Kennedy. And Harry Reid. And Nancy Pelosi. And Sheila Jackson-Lee. And, my personal favorite Hank "Guam might tip over and sink" Johnson. Almost forgot. Chris Dodd. Lyndon B. Johnson. Jimmy Carter. Charlie Rangel.
Are you comparing Green Arrow with them? Just because you don't understand something thi is very dishonest from your part.

And I find interesting how you show your ignorance about Anarchism. If you don't know about the history of anarchism is your problem.

[jillian]

I'm not trying to insult you, Green Arrow. I mean, you want to be a politician. How could I insult that. And to be a politician you need labels that you define and change as the mood, and the audience, demand. I do find you amusing. I can't think of anyone more deserving of a career as a politician. I can't think of anyone who would be a better fit with John Kerry. And, Barack Obama. And, Barney Frank. And Ted Kennedy. And Harry Reid. And Nancy Pelosi. And Sheila Jackson-Lee. And, my personal favorite Hank "Guam might tip over and sink" Johnson. Almost forgot. Chris Dodd. Lyndon B. Johnson. Jimmy Carter. Charlie Rangel.

and this is where you're unable to discern between people.

at least if you're going to label people, you should do so accurately.

good luck with that.

[jillian]

Are you comparing Green Arrow with them? Just because you don't understand something thi is very dishonest from your part.

And I find interesting how you show your ignorance about Anarchism. If you don't know about the history of anarchism is your problem.

he showed his ignorance about both GA's views and those of the people he mentioned... (who have disparate views themselves... )

[Chris]

Are you comparing Green Arrow with them? Just because you don't understand something thi is very dishonest from your part.

And I find interesting how you show your ignorance about Anarchism. If you don't know about the history of anarchism is your problem.


You've got to understand that different people have different definitions for political terms. He associates socialism with statism. I used to too but have learned it can be anarchistic and voluntary. You and I define capitalism differently. Many here confuse political anarchy with social chaos. What can you do but keep talking. He's not trying to insult, and I believe him.

[kilgram]

You've got to understand that different people have different definitions for political terms. He associates socialism with statism. I used to too but have learned it can be anarchistic and voluntary. You and I define capitalism differently. Many here confuse political anarchy with social chaos. What can you do but keep talking. He's not trying to insult, and I believe him.
Yes, I understand that people have different definitions for political terms. But also people should be open minded when they find themselves front of a concept that they never considered. And not trying to force their own views on other people that don't share that views that person is trying to force on them. That is dishonest and a fallacy.

Now, about me and you. You are wrong with me that I define differently capitalism from you. What we have different vision is in the consequences of that capitalism. But I perefectly understand and know how you think about the capitalism. I mean that capitalism, whatever in its form, leads to authoritarism. It is my vision. It means that every kind of capitalism, the one defined by Friedman, Hayek, Adam Smith or the corporativism of today, just to give an example of different "views" of capitalism, all them lead to a situations where corporations control everything. It is my vision. Maybe it is wrong. But that are my conclusions about how I see how works capitalism, even in the free market form.

However, now I am going to throw stones on my roof. This same thing could be thought about anarchism (Communist or Socialist anarchism) and I won't deny that many times I've thought "and if... ". I mean that also this kind of Socialism would lead to an authoritarian structure like the USSR.

Do you understand now? I understand and I respect your view of capitalism and I know how you define it. Just I disagree with you on the analysis of this system.

And maybe he is not insulting and I can believe him. But I think that he should try to arrive to a compromise and try to understand the other point of view, and after that, he can point correctly where he disagrees or where he believes that idea is utterly wrong. As I think you and me did.

PS: I don't know how I end doing such long posts.

[Chris]

Yes, I understand that people have different definitions for political terms. But also people should be open minded when they find themselves front of a concept that they never considered. And not trying to force their own views on other people that don't share that views that person is trying to force on them. That is dishonest and a fallacy.

Now, about me and you. You are wrong with me that I define differently capitalism from you. What we have different vision is in the consequences of that capitalism. But I perefectly understand and know how you think about the capitalism. I mean that capitalism, whatever in its form, leads to authoritarism. It is my vision. It means that every kind of capitalism, the one defined by Friedman, Hayek, Adam Smith or the corporativism of today, just to give an example of different "views" of capitalism, all them lead to a situations where corporations control everything. It is my vision. Maybe it is wrong. But that are my conclusions about how I see how works capitalism, even in the free market form.

However, now I am going to throw stones on my roof. This same thing could be thought about anarchism (Communist or Socialist anarchism) and I won't deny that many times I've thought "and if... ". I mean that also this kind of Socialism would lead to an authoritarian structure like the USSR.

Do you understand now? I understand and I respect your view of capitalism and I know how you define it. Just I disagree with you on the analysis of this system.

And maybe he is not insulting and I can believe him. But I think that he should try to arrive to a compromise and try to understand the other point of view, and after that, he can point correctly where he disagrees or where he believes that idea is utterly wrong. As I think you and me did.

PS: I don't know how I end doing such long posts.


You suggest others be open minded and then close your own.

You offer your opinion on the outcomes of free-market capitalism but offer no explanation how those outcomes come about. In your view, it just is. That's definitional, and we're right back at the problem of different way people define things.

You have lately expressed authoritarian visions of communism by means of democracy which would, in process, be a majoritarian rule.

You get around definitional disagreements by explaining what you mean.

[Green Arrow]

You've got to understand that different people have different definitions for political terms. He associates socialism with statism. I used to too but have learned it can be anarchistic and voluntary. You and I define capitalism differently. Many here confuse political anarchy with social chaos. What can you do but keep talking. He's not trying to insult, and I believe him.

You don't know my history with patrickt. I've known him across three forums for almost two years now, and in that time, he's held a grudge against me and anyone who defends me because I told him he made something up once.

I'm flattered that he's so obsessed with me, actually, but I'm really not his type, so he'd be better off finding someone else.

[Chris]

You don't know my history with patrickt. I've known him across three forums for almost two years now, and in that time, he's held a grudge against me and anyone who defends me because I told him he made something up once.

I'm flattered that he's so obsessed with me, actually, but I'm really not his type, so he'd be better off finding someone else.


OK, well, I'm not much interested in personal stuff on the forum.

[kilgram]

You suggest others be open minded and then close your own.

You offer your opinion on the outcomes of free-market capitalism but offer no explanation how those outcomes come about. In your view, it just is. That's definitional, and we're right back at the problem of different way people define things.

You have lately expressed authoritarian visions of communism by means of democracy which would, in process, be a majoritarian rule.
I don't see how the decissions taken by the people is authoritarian, but well.


You get around definitional disagreements by explaining what you mean.
No. The problem is that you don't agree with my explanation of how capitalism becomes authoritarian. Strictly speaking how is not authoritarian a system where the workers cannot hava voice in the decissions. In a system where the decissions come from the boss, the owner of the means of production. How is that not authoritarian, how is not possible to see that is a mini-state, where it depends of the good will of the owner. And where the only option if I don't like that is going to other corporation, it means emigrate(in the statism). Is it not the same. Just in a smaller scale (in some cases). Think, what is the problem of statism? It's verticality, no? It's pyramidal structure where a few decide for the rest and they have the force. How is that you are not able to see that this exact structure is absolutely possible in a free market system where the corporations don't have any restriction except the market itself which is absolutely controllable and make it work according to your own interests.

It is a short summary. Maybe I am wrong, but it is my view. For this, I've supported that America if is able to go to strong Libertarianism, and let's see in reality if I was wrong or not. But until then I believe that this analysis is not far from reality.

[Chris]

I don't see how the decissions taken by the people is authoritarian, but well.


No. The problem is that you don't agree with my explanation of how capitalism becomes authoritarian. Strictly speaking how is not authoritarian a system where the workers cannot hava voice in the decissions. In a system where the decissions come from the boss, the owner of the means of production. How is that not authoritarian, how is not possible to see that is a mini-state, where it depends of the good will of the owner. And where the only option if I don't like that is going to other corporation, it means emigrate(in the statism). Is it not the same. Just in a smaller scale (in some cases). Think, what is the problem of statism? It's verticality, no? It's pyramidal structure where a few decide for the rest and they have the force. How is that you are not able to see that this exact structure is absolutely possible in a free market system where the corporations don't have any restriction except the market itself which is absolutely controllable and make it work according to your own interests.

It is a short summary. Maybe I am wrong, but it is my view. For this, I've supported that America if is able to go to strong Libertarianism, and let's see in reality if I was wrong or not. But until then I believe that this analysis is not far from reality.



I explained how: Majoritarian rule. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch, Benjamin Franklin I think said that.


Kilgram, you have not given an explanation how, only a definition what.

[kilgram]

I explained how: Majoritarian rule. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch, Benjamin Franklin I think said that.


Kilgram, you have not given an explanation how, only a definition what.
Well, then I don't know how to explain it better.

Edit: Well, I've read something not directly linked but at the same time it is.

It is what declared the CEO of Bayer Marijin Dekkers when he said "we don't creat drugs for Indian we create them for the Occidental people who can pay them".

Source: Diario El País (http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2014/01/23/actualidad/1390497913_508926.html) (Spain)

[The Sage of Main Street]

Socialism was thought up by thrill-seeking Heirheads with an undeserved "Born to Rule" attitude. Check it out if you are afraid to take my word for it. We the people should cut the children of the rich off at 18 while letting their Daddies maintain their control of our laws. Junior will have to go through the same lack of non-destructive opportunities that real Americans are forced to put up with. Their Daddies will have to change the rules in order to save their own children from this suffocating economic oppression. Naturally, because they are no more talented than anyone else, most of their brats will be stuck in blue-collar jobs. That level playing field will force the plutocrats to buy laws that make unionization mandatory. Their brats will drop out of college if allowances are outlawed, so they will demand a living wage for college students. Socialism was created to detour us from this solution. If we have to do it on our own, so must the children of the rich. Or we will target them, since they are America's worst enemies.

[jillian]

well, no one can accuse you of using actual definitions….

or history, for that matter

you seem bitter.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I am not an angry capitalist, but I am a capitalist.

I am extremely struck by your perfectly written story. I mean it is unbelievably well written. A guy that is evidently that talented couldn't work his way up? Wow, speechless. Certainly the opportunity was there for you my brother.

What, sucking his thumb in college, working without pay and living like a 15-year-old so that even if it gets him a high-paying job, he will never grow up? Anybody who isn't a Low-IQ mind-slave knows that College Is for Coolies. How dare the plutes demand that permanently damaging slavery, which it obviously is to anybody who isn't in denial about being a slavish brown-nose and bootlicker? STUDENT Is an Anagram of the Word STUNTED.

That demand alone
means
that the ruling class must be overthrown.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

What, sucking his thumb in college, working without pay and living like a 15-year-old so that even if it gets him a high-paying job, he will never grow up? Anybody who isn't a Low-IQ mind-slave knows that College Is for Coolies. How dare the plutes demand that permanently damaging slavery, which it obviously is to anybody who isn't in denial about being a slavish brown-nose and bootlicker? STUDENT Is an Anagram of the Word STUNTED.

That demand alone
means
that the ruling class must be overthrown.
Is there anyone you don't despise?

[Chris]

Well, then I don't know how to explain it better.

Edit: Well, I've read something not directly linked but at the same time it is.

It is what declared the CEO of Bayer Marijin Dekkers when he said "we don't creat drugs for Indian we create them for the Occidental people who can pay them".

Source: Diario El País (http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2014/01/23/actualidad/1390497913_508926.html) (Spain)



Sorry, I don't understand that.

How does capitalism becomes authoritarian? --And, please, keep in mind I do not mean corporatism, or state capitalism, but the free market, the market free of state.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Of course not, but would you agree that in every generation there are people that rise from the bottom to the top?

They took advantage of what they had, nothing in life should be given, but should be earned!

80% of the millionaires in the USA are first generation! There are not that many lottery winners

80% actually means that the 1% had an outrageous twenty times their natural quota of success. And your precious 80% were sick workoholic zombies who are too conceited, fanatical and dangerous to be given any economic power over their employees. Anyone who accepts such lopsided results for those born in the 1% has to be a destructive megalomaniac.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Have you ever thought of repairing appliances???? I can't think of a community that is not in need of a quality repair person!

Tell that to the preppies. We will make sure they have no better future than anyone else.

[The Sage of Main Street]

You sure do not seem like a socialist. As a socialist I see you as an enemy and a fraud. Or confused.

Many people claiming to be socialist are just after an identity.

So are blue-collar Right Wingers. They hate their Daddies for not getting rich and spoiling them, so they refuse to blame their Daddies' plutocratic bosses for that.

[The Sage of Main Street]

In a capitalistic society you can right the ship and generally do it pretty darn quick. Greeny is smart enough to get out of this, he seems like a younger guy. He has plenty of time to make the system work for him. Frustration can really take you down, it's all attitude.

Whoopie Goldberg was born in Manhattan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan) and raised in the Chelsea-Elliot Houses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea-Elliot_Houses) – the daughter of Emma (née Harris), a nurse and teacher, and Robert James Johnson, Jr., a clergyman.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-clergyman-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-4) Some sources give her birth year as 1955, but according to the African-American Registry[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-5) and a New York Times article from 1984,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-6) she was born in 1949. Goldberg has described her mother as a "stern, strong, and wise woman" who raised her as a single mother after Goldberg's father had left the family.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-cigar-7) Goldberg's recent ancestors migrated north from Faceville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceville,_Georgia), Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)); Palatka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatka,_Florida), Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida); and Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-bookref1-8)
As a teenager Goldberg dropped out of high school.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-10)
She worked as a phone sex operator, working from home at night.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopi_Goldberg#cite_note-YouTube1-11)

Jay Leno - Homeless
ME! Homeless at one point. If not for our system I wouldn't be where I am today which is good.

There are many others.

USE THE SYSTEM MY BROTHER.

The exception proves the rule. By using these atypical examples, Bootlickers prove that they are incapable of forming an intelligent argument.

[kilgram]

Sorry, I don't understand that.

How does capitalism becomes authoritarian? --And, please, keep in mind I do not mean corporatism, or state capitalism, but the free market, the market free of state.
I always make reference to free market. I usually ignore the corporatism.

But let's start from the basis. Capitalism in its own definition is authoritarian. In capitalism an owner have the absolute control of all what is related to that means of production. In that relation he is on the top. Right?

Well, then when I am on the top, I have absolute power on it. Let's put a simple example. I am the owner of a house. In that house I can do whatever I want, from set up tramps, to hire security,... What happens in my house is everything controlled by me, and everyone that goes inside my house have to abide to my rules. If they don't then they can go to other house. I am the master of the house, I am the ruler.

Now, this house can become of any size and then extrapolate it to other things.

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is the myth of the capitalism. No, there are a whole bunch of talented people who cannot work their way up. It is the most normal. The exception is getting a way to work the way up. Not the norm.

The plutocratic parasites would be endangered if they hired smart people to work for them. The plutes are dumb jock bullies who need dumb cowards. They make sure that any smart person has no self-respect. But that is a losing strategy in the long run, because those who swallow their pride choke their talent forever.

[Newpublius]

Only if authoritarian you mean being able to get what you want when you pay for it. I mean, when you earn money and go into a restaurant and order a meal, you expect that meal, don't you? And if the restaurant prepares it poorly or otherwise messes up the meal, you will be less likely to go there in the future. You can spend your money the way you want to, in the same way that people who paid you money got to.

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is the reality.

I don't base in Marxism because I don't know how he defined it. I only say it from observation.

I've not read anything of Marxism. It is true that I've read or listened some modern marxists, but my conclusions are previous to their influence, I think.

Marx was a fraud who was born rich. In condemning Marxism, the Right is condemning its own class, which must be abolished. "Familyism" is even more primitive and subhuman than tribalism. These people and their Left Wing spawn are nothing but King Apes. They should be an endangered species but not a protected one.

[The Sage of Main Street]

What incentive is there to work hard to better your station in socialism?
If you speak to people who lived through the USSR socialist experience, they would tell you that no one wanted to be the boss because it was just more work for no more reward.
The same holds true for productivity.
Ultimately, as in the case of the USSR, the system fails.

Being a Communist Party member provided plenty of incentive. The brown-noses here who claim to support Capitalism would have joined the Party if they had been born in the USSR.

[donttread]

The plutocratic parasites would be endangered if they hired smart people to work for them. The plutes are dumb jock bullies who need dumb cowards. They make sure that any smart person has no self-respect. But that is a losing strategy in the long run, because those who swallow their pride choke their talent forever.

Under capitalism companies compete in markets under corporatism they manipulate the markets to avoid having to compete. which sounds like us?

[Chris]

I always make reference to free market. I usually ignore the corporatism.

But let's start from the basis. Capitalism in its own definition is authoritarian. In capitalism an owner have the absolute control of all what is related to that means of production. In that relation he is on the top. Right?

Well, then when I am on the top, I have absolute power on it. Let's put a simple example. I am the owner of a house. In that house I can do whatever I want, from set up tramps, to hire security,... What happens in my house is everything controlled by me, and everyone that goes inside my house have to abide to my rules. If they don't then they can go to other house. I am the master of the house, I am the ruler.

Now, this house can become of any size and then extrapolate it to other things.


You're special pleading when you begin by defining what you need to show.

Again, what you need to show (explain, not prove, just explain) is that free market capitalism is authoritarian. Not define it so, show it.

Yes, in your house you are master of your castle. In fact I should not be able to enter it without your invite. Invited, entered, I am free to leave. In fact I would likely not accept the invitation without expectation of certain liberties, explicit or implicit, we would form a contract whereby you would gain what you value and I what I value, even if all that is is each other's company. Even if you hired me to paint your house it would be the same, by some contract we would agree to terms such that you gained what you value, a fresh coat of paint, and I what I value, a good meal or a check for an agreed upon amount. Once the contract was agreed on, we would each be bound to it, not me to you, or you to me, but both of us to the contract.

[Chris]

Only if authoritarian you mean being able to get what you want when you pay for it. I mean, when you earn money and go into a restaurant and order a meal, you expect that meal, don't you? And if the restaurant prepares it poorly or otherwise messes up the meal, you will be less likely to go there in the future. You can spend your money the way you want to, in the same way that people who paid you money got to.

^What I'm getting at.

[kilgram]

You're special pleading when you begin by defining what you need to show.

Again, what you need to show (explain, not prove, just explain) is that free market capitalism is authoritarian. Not define it so, show it.

Yes, in your house you are master of your castle. In fact I should not be able to enter it without your invite. Invited, entered, I am free to leave. In fact I would likely not accept the invitation without expectation of certain liberties, explicit or implicit, we would form a contract whereby you would gain what you value and I what I value, even if all that is is each other's company. Even if you hired me to paint your house it would be the same, by some contract we would agree to terms such that you gained what you value, a fresh coat of paint, and I what I value, a good meal or a check for an agreed upon amount. Once the contract was agreed on, we would each be bound to it, not me to you, or you to me, but both of us to the contract.
Well, you are demanding something is beyond my capacity, means and intelligence. I can't go farther(or further I always confuse this terms) this point. Sorry.

[Chris]

Well, you are demanding something is beyond my capacity, means and intelligence. I can't go farther(or further I always confuse this terms) this point. Sorry.

It's not your capability, you're intelligent and articulate even in a non-native language! I think it is an impossible task. Even Kropotkin in "Anarchist Communism" fails to explain it. All he says is the distribution of wealth is unfair because the people want more, iow, it's popular opinion. --That's all I've read so far, and it's a good piece, but don't want to jump into discussion of him yet--maybe this weekend I'll put together a topic on that piece.

[Mr. Right]

Green, my hat is off to you. I've suffered through the whole thread and have read the slams and derogotory comments back and forth regarding hair splitting ideology. In socialism, my story wouldn't have been possible. I'm a businessman, self employed and after all the years of struggling, I'm finally going to have a very profitable year. I borrowed money (a good chunk) from a crooked bank and had a very nice piece of equipment built for my business. With this piece of equipment, I can do things that many of my competeters can't. Early last month, I finally paid off the piece of equipment and in spite of the crippling govenment regulations imposed on my field, I'm going to make
a bundle this year. In a socialist environment such as the one run by the late Hugo Chavez, I'd likely never have been able to have the equipment constructed, I'd never have been able to take the chance or enter this venture. I'd also have stood a great chance to had the government seize my business if they chose. This nation wasn't founded on an idea of equal outcomes, just the opportunity to become whatever you want. When I first entered the business world, I sold my motorcycle, my truck, and my boat and bought a scooter to get around on. Three years later, I was driving a Porsche and was dating a beautiful woman who became my wife. We're not rich, but we're better off than we'd have ever been working for a factory or a government job. (unless I was a senator or congressman) LOL!

[Mister D]

Chris kilgram Green Arrow

Ever heard of this site? It came up a lot on a forum I was on 10 years ago or so.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/

[Chris]

Chris kilgram Green Arrow

Ever heard of this site? It came up a lot on a forum I was on 10 years ago or so.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/

No, but thanks. A quick glance it looks like left anarchism.

[Mister D]

No, but thanks. A quick glance it looks like left anarchism.

The guys who brought it up were leftists so that's not surprising I guess.

[Chris]

The guys who brought it up were leftists so that's not surprising I guess.

I'm reading some of Kropotkin's work at kilgram's suggestion and plan to read Bakunin. I need to learn more.

[Green Arrow]

@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

Ever heard of this site? It came up a lot on a forum I was on 10 years ago or so.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/

Never heard of it, but I like what I see. Thanks for the link, bro.

[Mister D]

Never heard of it, but I like what I see. Thanks for the link, bro.

It sprang to mind while I read the conversation here. Glad to share it.

kilgram quite a bit on Spain's civil war. We'll never see eye to eye on that but you may like this.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/spancivwar/spancivwarhis.html

[Guerilla]

You're special pleading when you begin by defining what you need to show.

Again, what you need to show (explain, not prove, just explain) is that free market capitalism is authoritarian. Not define it so, show it.

Yes, in your house you are master of your castle. In fact I should not be able to enter it without your invite. Invited, entered, I am free to leave. In fact I would likely not accept the invitation without expectation of certain liberties, explicit or implicit, we would form a contract whereby you would gain what you value and I what I value, even if all that is is each other's company. Even if you hired me to paint your house it would be the same, by some contract we would agree to terms such that you gained what you value, a fresh coat of paint, and I what I value, a good meal or a check for an agreed upon amount. Once the contract was agreed on, we would each be bound to it, not me to you, or you to me, but both of us to the contract.

I agree with kilgrams comparison between authoritarian politics and authoritarian economics. A business has a boss who is in charge of the employees. How is this different from a king who is in charge of subjects? The only difference is you have moved the authoritarian from the political to the economic.

It's true that if you would like to stay in the same economic establishment you are in, you must appeal to the boss, you must gain the bosses favor, or maybe get fired or layed off-- there can be dire economic consequences if you disobey your boss. That power can be used coercively, and I think it is authoritarian, as I said, it's just been moved to the economics where you are subject only while on the clock. You still are in a hierarchial structure in which you are subordinate, and to get out of it you must leave the establishment, same as a state.

I believe a non-hierarchial business structure would work best.

btw, I think kilgram was explaining it just fine.

[kilgram]

@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

Ever heard of this site? It came up a lot on a forum I was on 10 years ago or so.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/
Yes I did. But I left to use it after discovering the Anarchist Library (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/) which is more complete, in my opinion.
Green Arrow Chris

[kilgram]

It sprang to mind while I read the conversation here. Glad to share it.

@kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) quite a bit on Spain's civil war. We'll never see eye to eye on that but you may like this.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/spancivwar/spancivwarhis.html
About the civil war (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/topics/spain-1936) from the Anarchist Library Mister D

[The Sage of Main Street]

Under capitalism companies compete in markets under corporatism they manipulate the markets to avoid having to compete. which sounds like us?

Then Capitalism, according to your definition, doesn't exist. It's a phony come-on ideal, just like Lenin's "withering away of the state." Besides, you avoid the most important issue of economic systems. Are the people with the most natural talent put into the most responsible positions.? Only in sports is that true. Anyone who doesn't focus on that knows nothing about economics. Most of the self-appointed economists are toy rats for the fats cats to play with. They are house slaves of The Nobility With No Ability.

Libretardians are inferior people in superior positions. This sales pitch about corporations manipulating the government is preached just to trick us into letting the Low-IQ Greedhead predators, the King Apes, loot us without any protection for the victims. Only Criminals Hate It When People Claim to Be Victims.

[Chris]

Free market capitalism exist. What exactly do you think the state tries to manage? Same is true of anarchy.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Green, my hat is off to you. I've suffered through the whole thread and have read the slams and derogatory comments back and forth regarding hair splitting ideology. In socialism, my story wouldn't have been possible. I'm a businessman, self employed and after all the years of struggling, I'm finally going to have a very profitable year.
. In a socialist environment I'd likely never have been able to have the equipment constructed, I'd never have been able to take the chance or enter this venture. This nation wasn't founded on an idea of equal outcomes, just the opportunity to become whatever you want. When I first entered the business world, I sold my motorcycle, my truck, and my boat and bought a scooter to get around on. LOL!

You preach a socially destructive economics because you think it's all about wanting it bad enough. That makes you a wannabe.

Society can only prosper if it recruits the best raw talent and finances it up front to develop itself, just like it does now with naturally superior athletes. If the mentally talented weren't humiliated from childhood on, they would sacrifice through cyberwarfare any plutocratic bully who asked them to sacrifice themselves.

And yes, your kind would advance under Communism, because all you have going for you (and for you only) is ambition. You have no talent or you would have mentioned that instead of inviting us to a pity party for those who sacrifice, which has no merit and only means submission to the aristocrats' unfunded mandates.

[Toro]

Socialism sucks.

It assumes people will work hard for others. Except in times of extreme duress, that usually doesn't occur.

[Rebel Son]

It's not because I'm jealous of the "evil 1%" and want to be just as uber rich as them. It's just because I believe it's the best system to take care of my family.

Actually I think you are jealous. Otherwise you wouldn't even make this post.

I grew up dirt poor. We killed anything in the woods that we thought we could eat. There were a few times I thought I was starving to death but it was only a few hunger pains.

Now I have a good job making good money.

Anybody can get a good job, depends on how hard you want to work.

Can you climb to the top of a rig?
Can you run a trak hoe on a pipeline?
Pretty sure you can use a shovel and move up to a better paying job.
Lazy people never get anywhere but on the welfare roll..........................
What can you do and how long did you try before you collected the wonderful benefit of our tax money?

[Green Arrow]

Socialism sucks.

It assumes people will work hard for others. Except in times of extreme duress, that usually doesn't occur.

Completely false.

[Green Arrow]

Actually I think you are jealous. Otherwise you wouldn't even make this post.

I grew up dirt poor. We killed anything in the woods that we thought we could eat. There were a few times I thought I was starving to death but it was only a few hunger pains.

Now I have a good job making good money.

Anybody can get a good job, depends on how hard you want to work.

Can you climb to the top of a rig?
Can you run a trak hoe on a pipeline?
Pretty sure you can use a shovel and move up to a better paying job.
Lazy people never get anywhere but on the welfare roll..........................
What can you do and how long did you try before you collected the wonderful benefit of our tax money?

I am not collecting and have never collected any sort of welfare.

[donttread]

I am not collecting and have never collected any sort of welfare.

Welfare in its broadest sense is paid up and down from the middle class. First are the federal dole programs which should be replaced with state run hand up programs. Then there is all that corporate welfare.