Top 10 Reasons the US isnt free..

[Greenflame]

You are questioned and searched if you leave you're Yard
after Dark pretty mutch anywhare.When is that last time you
walked down you're Road after Dark? umm..yea.
The entire Econimy is specificly designed to only benefit
people who make over 50k a Year.
The USA has a BIG problem with Imperialism, and ignoring
the lower class when in the presense of the Financial Elite.
US Citizens are so obsessed with Finance they will stop at nothing
to consume and take.
The easter colored Housing developments that are spawning that no
one seems botherd by.There like Plantations for Office workers and
'Im a idiot isnt that cool' teens.
Our Government continuesly lies to us and raises our taxes yet only
few complain.
You are manipulated by Law Enforcement when Protesting.They do
things like leed large(Non-Violent) groups into allyways away from the
rest of the peoples line of sight, so they can load you into the paddy
wagon and hall you to a Cage or Institution.
In the US if you dont work you are Ignored or considerd Scum,Lazy,
a Terrorist, a Communist.I think this Technique was adapted from the
Ant Colonys by Government Intelligence and speaded through the
Population.
We have Cafe's of the same Franchise right across the street from
each other, and the people all dress like Hippie Drones, or Veggie
Mongers.
If you're Government has something valuable chances are the US
has already Attacked them or is Passivly Controlling them.

[gbu-36]

Dont forget the numerous firearms regulations that are a slap in the face of the second amendment.

[Serix]

Okay, I'm a liberal, and I don't believe anyone in the US is really free, but I have to say...most of that list is crap.

For example, the final one, number 10, has absoultely nothing to do with the internal affairs of the United States, which would dictate whether or not it's citizens are free. Then you have things like number 9, which proves the US is free. Capitialism is a part of freedom. If that franchise grew to such a size, it's because the consumers enjoy it, and as thus, it grew. I won't even bother with anything else. Just wanted to say that.

[torcher]

numerous firearms regulations? yeah, maybe so, but we are still allowed to have them, unlike some countries.

[Stone]

Like Ireland... No country is really free. We still have a bunch of overpaid liars (who are only voted for becauese there really is no better alternative) who make rules for us to live by where we are fined/imprisoned for breaking them. In Ireland, you can't even smoke a cigarette in any building where somebody works (pretty much everywhere except a house). We can't even smoke in pubs or nightclubs! Now there's rumours that the government want to make smoking illegal while driving because it causes the driver to 'be distracted' from driving. What a load of cock! All it is, is the government think that we are idiots and we don't know whats best for ourselves, and they should make all our decisions for us. I fucking hate my government. I'm not a socialist, but I'd rather have a socialist government than the cocks we have. I mean, Fianna Fail (the party who are in power in Irish government) started around the Irish Civil War in the 1920's, and were formed as a republican party who a section of the IRA fought for. They have always had 'the Republican Party' written underneath the logo, but recently removed it because they might be seen as having ties with the IRA in NI by the British government. Talk about selling out! This government annoys me so fucking much! I'm not the only one who feels this way about our government, and I'll bet they're glad guns are illegal 'cos there would sure as hell be a revolution if they weren't. I could go on for pages about what's wrong with the Irish government, but that's for another thread. All I'm trying to do here is just let ye yanks know that ye'r not the only country to have to put up with a government that consistantly infringes on your freedom and whatever.

[DoctaD]

Just one of the biggest, loudest, most aggorant... :wink:

[torcher]

damn straight.

[Greenflame]

Okay, I'm a liberal, and I don't believe anyone in the US is really free, but I have to say...most of that list is crap.

For example, the final one, number 10, has absoultely nothing to do with the internal affairs of the United States, which would dictate whether or not it's citizens are free. Then you have things like number 9, which proves the US is free. Capitialism is a part of freedom. If that franchise grew to such a size, it's because the consumers enjoy it, and as thus, it grew. I won't even bother with anything else. Just wanted to say that.

AT-DoctaD:
I agree! Bush is all of those Things.Of course thats what happens when
people who come up not having to do what the dont want to(Financial
Elite) run Countrys.It's safe to say Governments are not "For the People
by the People", but itstead for the Money, by the Money.

In the US if you dont work you either end up Homeless or in a Institution.
In Ant colonys if you dont work you are driven away or killed.

AT-Serix:
First off what the hell are you talking about? Do you even know how the
Econimy and Capitialism works?

Number 10 very mutch so dictates wether the US is free.If the US is
going around attacking Countrys for Profit, and spending billions of
US Tax payer Money to do so, that means they are Going to Raise
Taxes, and seeing as the Citizens who make over 90k a Year get alot
of Tax breaks, that leavs the people who can barely Pay Rent to
struggle.I know you probly live with you're Parents so it dosent really
matter to you, but people like Me who pay $900(atleast) in Rent a
Month are already falling behind.The US has spent Hundreds of Billions
up till now and are about to spend more(Most of that has been "lost").


And for number 9.So you're saying a Starbucks right across the street
from another Starbucks is proving we are Free? how is that exactly?If
you do the Math you will see that Having the same Buisness heavly
Populated in Each Town or City kills Independant Buisness Owners.

The same goes for WALMART, and all the Media Distibution Mediums
that are owned by Time Warner.AOL Time Warner has replaced all
the Science,Independent,Specific Intrest Broadcast's over all of the
Communications Medium's over the last 15 Years with Pop Music and
Advertisement.

If you dont have atleast ~20 Million to start a Buisness in the US you
are gradually flushed out by Big buisness who come in and offer
the People a cheaper, but pour quality product that replaces your's.

Things that the Subjects in my Previous List have changed:

There very few Mom&Pop buisnesses in America that ar not going
up for sale due to Bankruptcy or Low Income.
You can not get any decent Educational Products like Computer
Kits and Advance Math Toys.They have been replaced by shitty
Plastic Cartoony wind up things.
A 20oz Soda costs atleast $1.75 each.
Fossil Fuel and Petrolium is outrageous, there have literally been
people Freeze to Death in recent Years cause they cant afford Heating
Fuels.
There are alot more Homeless people since 8 Years ago.
Big Buisness is Out-Sourcing
People who where Honest and had Morality 6-7 Years ago are now
Scamming,Robbing,Killing,Stealing

I cut it short because to not know these things you would have to be
Incredibly Dumb, or Ignorant.

[Stone]

And for number 9.So you're saying a Starbucks right across the street from another Starbucks is proving we are Free? how is that exactly?If you do the Math you will see that Having the same Buisness heavly Populated in Each Town or City kills Independant Buisness Owners.

So what are they supposed to do? Bring in a law about how many braches a company can have? That is infringing on their freedom.

Things that the Subjects in my Previous List have changed:
Fossil Fuel and Petrolium is outrageous, there have literally been
people Freeze to Death in recent Years cause they cant afford Heating
Fuels.

What the fuck! The US has some of the cheapest oil prices in the world! We pay almost twice what you'd pay for our petrol! And ye drive around in big fucking 4/5 litre cars while finding anything over 2 litre is rare here, because you'd have to spend all your wages to fill it's fucking tank. Don't give out about US fuel prices, you don't know how fucking lucky you are there.

People who where Honest and had Morality 6-7 Years ago are now
Scamming,Robbing,Killing,Stealing

Can you prove this? Can you show me the statistics? No? Fucking bullshit man.

I cut it short because to not know these things you would have to be Incredibly Dumb, or Ignorant.

How the fuck can you call people dumb/ignorant for not knowing your idiotic points?

[Serix]

Stone said pretty much everything I had to say. So I'll just cheer him on for now.

[Jesus]

I have to say, I'm not one for politics, but i must agree with greenflame on the list that he made about why the U.S. isn't free. I just try not to pay much attention to it and live life to the fullest.

[OsirisGuy429]

To be quite honest, I don't think he can prove any of that.

[Armalite]

Any discussion on freedom is pointless, because freedom is just a catchword used to instill patriotic feelings used to control people. Actual freedom is just another way of saying death. No person has ever lived free in any civilisation on this planet. Its the human condition. Get used to it. You'll understand someday, green. I used to rattle on about anarchist and socialist political structures and post long critiques of US foreign policy(I live in the US, so I tend to focus attacks on the US government). Eventually you will realize that nothing will change. Even if everyone suddenly wakes up and overthrows their governments and forms lasting, orderly, anarchist communities based on effective models of direct democracy, you will not be free. So stop chasing freedom, and start chasing pussy. Don't be apathetic, though. Watch what is happening around and be aware of the political events in the world. But don't worry about it. You can't change it anyway. Life goes on.

[Stone]

So stop chasing freedom, and start chasing pussy.

:lol:

[Armalite]

Well. What can I say. I never caught up with freedom. But I did manage to outrun some pussy here and there. :wink:

[Unabomber]

Capitalism is not part of a free society, it is part of slavery/monopoly capitalist society.

This filthy capitalist deMOCKcracy is nothing but freedom in the Ancient greek sense: Freedom for the slave owners! Capitalism forces you to toil endlessly (8 hours a day, while in the former USSR it was 6-7 depending on profession), to give up your vacation, to destroy your marriage, to stress you out to the point of explosion, and for what? So that your boss can STEAL half of the money you produced with your own blood sweat and tears.

The reason people in America haven't risen up is because it's not in their material reason. This is why I don't look to americans or any western cosmopolitan middle class shithead for a revolution, I look towards the toiling world who is under the heel is United States tyranny and funding America's parasitical lifestyle. They are the last hope of humanity, and if the oppressed world overcome Yankee imperialism, then American's will follow.

[madscientist]

Capitalism forces you to toil endlessly (8 hours a day, while in the former USSR it was 6-7 depending on profession), to give up your vacation, to destroy your marriage, to stress you out to the point of explosion, and for what? So that your boss can STEAL half of the money you produced with your own blood sweat and tears.

#1 Your boss probably worked your job for 15 years before you got there.
#2 Losing vacations, failed marriages, etc. are generally the choice of the employee, who is overworking due to excessive desire for material goods, or the wife blowing money like a retard.

Even the poorest of the poor (I've seen some bad... I've helped in Appalachia) in the US are far better off than any overseas. The USSR was a shithole. I used to personally know someone that fled from there as a teenager.

[Unabomber]

#1 Your boss probably worked your job for 15 years before you got there.

Well if working 15 years is the only criteria for becomming a boss then why isn't every single old person a boss?

Let's say, hypothetically, that your boss got his position because of "hard work and dedication" like all the amerikwans say, does that give him a right to steal, embezzle, and own slaves? Does that give him the right to hold the destiny of hundreds or thousands or millions of human beings in his hands?

Let's say you are a worker who produces 200 dollars worth of goods a day, does that give your boss the right to steal 150 for his own pocket because he was there 15 years before you?

Another point is in the third world, corporations are run by westerners and few locals ever get to be bosses.

Capitalism is slavery.


#2 Losing vacations, failed marriages, etc. are generally the choice of the employee, who is overworking due to excessive desire for material goods, or the wife blowing money like a retard.

Not really, the fact is most people HAVE to work that hard to survive. Gasoline, bills, food, clothing, you can't get any of this by working 5-6 hours a day unless you have a grossly overpaying job.


I can agree because the majority of America is made up of middle class parasites (the real hard labour jobs are sent to the third world), but i think a lot of the reason people work like dogs (IE, an inhumane 6 days a week, 8 hours a day, the standard work week)

Even the poorest of the poor (I've seen some bad... I've helped in Appalachia) in the US are far better off than any overseas.

In some senses yes, and some senses no. With all the monoey plundered from the worlds enslaved people (eastern europe/Balkans, latin america, afrika, asia) they can afford to make some concessions to the poor, but even then they fail in many departments.

For example per capita more people in North Korea have access to safe drinking water than people in the United States.

The USSR was a shithole. I used to personally know someone that fled from there as a teenager.

The USSR was humanity's last hope for liberation from the American dogs and slavedrivers. I work tirelessly to fight for the USSR's restoration because they were the only ones to stand up for oppressed people.

I know many friends and comrades from the USSR, and they all agree. The Gorbachev era i do not consider USSR, that was capitalist restoration. By no means was the USSR a utopia, but under Joseph Stalin there was light at the end of the tunnel for all people who love their countries and want to live a life where they can control their work place and have everything they need to survive (and diverse consumer goods as well).

[Stone]

Joseph Stalin there was light at the end of the tunnel for all people who love their countries and want to live a life where they can control their work place and have everything they need to survive (and diverse consumer goods as well).

PWAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

The people who lived under Stalin had no control over anything! He slaughtered more ruskies than Hitler did Jews, just because either a) he was paranoid they were going to try and take power from him (I'm sure you've heard of the Purges) or b) they owned land/farms (collectevisation).

Vlad, if the USSR was the right way to go, it would have won the Cold War, but no... It imploded because their system was shit. Y'know what, go to Germany... Have a look at East, and compare it to West. A couple of years ago they still had dirt roads in cities in East Germany while West Germany had the best roads in Europe. And the unification happened ~ 15 years ago. That's one example.

And what exactly are you going to do to bring the USSR back? Many eastern European countries just joined the EU, and many eastern European citizens have come to Ireland to live and have a better quality of life. I work with three Polish people, and they hate the USSR, they love Ireland. Why? Because they are free to make thier own decisions, because when they work, they can afford to buy nice food, nice clothes, etc. In fact, it's not just being able to afford them, it's the fact that they can even get them. Granted the situation in Poland has improved alot, but they're thinking back 15 to 20 years ago, when they really were the slaves.

Back the the last question. what are you going to do to bring the USSR back? Have you invented a time machine? Vlad, the USSR is dead, communism is dead. There is no comeback. There are no real communist countries left that can do anything about the situation. So... Y'know what you should do? Go get a job or something, go scrub the toilets in McDonalds or something, 'cos it's all you are good for.

[madscientist]

If a worker walked into a factory and received all the fruits of his labor, the men that designed that factory and took the initiative to build it (much more work than you realize) would be the slaves.

Have you ever paid your own bills, or looked into the economic possibilities that exist here? It is very, very difficult to starve unless you are making literally no effort whatsoever to survive.


For example per capita more people in North Korea have access to safe drinking water than people in the United States.

Who told you that, Ping Pong Ying Yang himself? Somehow I doubt the truth in it, seeing even in Appalachia everyone had access to safe drinking water. In countries still bearing the footprint of the USSR (I have a friend who's visited Bulgaria), most people don't even have a toilet.

You are obviously a child.

[Unabomber]

The people who lived under Stalin had no control over anything! He slaughtered more ruskies than Hitler did Jews, just because either a) he was paranoid they were going to try and take power from him (I'm sure you've heard of the Purges) or b) they owned land/farms (collectevisation).

Under the 30 years of Stalin's rule between 750-800,000 people perished, yes it's true ( a bulk of them were executed during the purges).

A lot of western jewish historians like to say Stalin was "paranoid" because he thought some of his aids were traitors when WWII was about to begin, I say to them, look at france! The real reason the French lost so quickly was not because the Frenchmen were cowards (I hate france so this isn't defending them) but really because many of the French generals were German spies who would call for their troops to retreat (allowing German's to shoot down retreating troops)

During Collectivization there was lots of kulak (rich landowners) death but that wasn't directly Stalin's doing. An immense class-struggle took place in the Ukrainian countryside the masses of poor peasents took up arms and coerced the kulaks to collectivize or die. I see no moral dillema here.

Vlad, if the USSR was the right way to go, it would have won the Cold War, but no... It imploded because their system was shit. Y'know what, go to Germany... Have a look at East, and compare it to West. A couple of years ago they still had dirt roads in cities in East Germany while West Germany had the best roads in Europe. And the unification happened ~ 15 years ago. That's one example.

I agree with you, when Stalin died the socialist system slowly became more and more capitalist. Starting with Khruschev. However if a leader like Stalin would've arisen after 1953 I have no doubt the entire world would be socialist today.

I don't understand something. If the USSR was such a shithole, why did 1/2 of the world live under a Socialist government at one point? It wasn't just Soviet invasion, because China, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, etc all turned to socialism on their own.

West Germany had the best every thing in Europe because the Western countries poured billions of dollars into it to look nicer than East German. Yes, West Germany has lots of neon lights and discotecques because that's where all their money was invested. But in terms of culture, of education, or spirituality, of social justice and happiness, East Germany prevailed. Around 40-60% of the former GDR population vote for the former communist party.

And what exactly are you going to do to bring the USSR back? Many eastern European countries just joined the EU, and many eastern European citizens have come to Ireland to live and have a better quality of life. I work with three Polish people, and they hate the USSR, they love Ireland. Why? Because they are free to make thier own decisions, because when they work, they can afford to buy nice food, nice clothes, etc. In fact, it's not just being able to afford them, it's the fact that they can even get them. Granted the situation in Poland has improved alot, but they're thinking back 15 to 20 years ago, when they really were the slaves.

There are literally hundreds of groups in Eastern Europe trying to bring back the USSR. I am a member of a few such as northstar compass and regularly donate money.

The E.U. usurping of Eastern Europe is a mess. Yes in the short term, the citizens who can escape free-market madness in poland etc to go to stable imperialist countries like England, France, are going to live it up. But what's going to happen to their mother countries? All of the technicians, professionals, thinkers, etc are all moving to the west, causing a major braindrain that is going to be devastating to the people in Eastern Europe if it continues.

And to tell you the truth the Polish are rather ....POLISH. I personally don't agree with Stalin forcing socialism on Eastern Europe (which is why it worked in some countries and not in others, because some people didnt want it) but the Pollacks should show some fucking respect. The reason they hate the USSR is because they imposed atheism, not really that they disagreed or agreed with the economics of it (pollacks are very devout catholics) When the USSR was liberating eastern europe from German occupation the pollacks were living in the 18th century. Socialism revolutionized them and atleast brought them to the 20th century, something capitalism failed to do before that.

Back the the last question. what are you going to do to bring the USSR back? Have you invented a time machine? Vlad, the USSR is dead, communism is dead. There is no comeback. There are no real communist countries left that can do anything about the situation. So... Y'know what you should do? Go get a job or something, go scrub the toilets in McDonalds or something, 'cos it's all you are good for.

There are many groups and I support them. I think the biggest pro-Communist sentiment is in Russia. The only reason the capitalist tyrant Putin is still in power is because he panders to communist sentiment (renaming Volgograd memorials ot Stalingrad, building statues for Dzerzhinsky, planning to build a Stalin statue in a few years) but once people wise up to his lies they will overthrow him.

Oh and I do have a job.

[Unabomber]

If a worker walked into a factory and received all the fruits of his labor, the men that designed that factory and took the initiative to build it (much more work than you realize) would be the slaves.

This is a fairly poor argument. Under a Socialist system managers DO get paid more than Workers, because their labour takes more knowledge and skill, but that doesn't mean the manager steals from his workers. Managers should get paid the worth of their labour and I don't believe factories should be privately owned, so your point falls flat.

Why would the managers be slaves if they got paid what their labour is worth? You're telling me that you're a slave if...you don't enslave OTHER people?


Have you ever paid your own bills, or looked into the economic possibilities that exist here? It is very, very difficult to starve unless you are making literally no effort whatsoever to survive.

I do agree. When I speak I mostly talk about the third world countries, not the west. In an imperialist country, the mother country lives parasitically off the exploited labour of third world countries, hencing giving the people in mother countries higher lifestyles (which is whyeveryone immigrates from the third world).



Who told you that, Ping Pong Ying Yang himself? Somehow I doubt the truth in it, seeing even in Appalachia everyone had access to safe drinking water. In countries still bearing the footprint of the USSR (I have a friend who's visited Bulgaria), most people don't even have a toilet.

It's been 16 years of capitalism, isn't capitalism supposed to fix everything? In 15 years Stalin turned the USSR into the largest producer of coal, oil, steel, and other heavy industries in the world.


You are obviously a child.

I do not care what you have to say, I am an adult in a year anyway. I think my way of life is more productive than your drug binging one.

[madscientist]

Yeah, that is, until the FBI kills you.

[Armalite]

I would like to add a BIG FUCKING DISCLAIMER to all of Unabomber's misled and rebeliousness-fetish driven statements. As a person of a anti-authoritarian-socialist bent, I can tell you that the majority of socialists laugh at persons such as Unabomber. His statements only pollute the socialist name. Marxist politics and most of its derivatives are essentially dead, due to repeated real world failures, and theoretical inconsistencies and discrepencies that were pointed out to Marx himself by Bakunin and others. Modern socialism tends toward anti-authoritarian and anarchistic ideas and theories. Association with authoritarian brands of "socialism" is anathema to contemporary socialist thought, and many go to great lengths to distance themselves from it; i.e. the many words that have been written and spoken on the topic of "post-left" anarchism and socialism. Most modern socialist thinkers will tell you quite bluntly that socialism requires the abandonment of authoritarian structures alongside the various economic revolutions that must occur. In actuality, structures of power and influence are based on control of goods, and on monopolies of violence(police, military). So any real attempt to dismantle either the structure of capitalist economics or the govermental and societal structures that support and maintain it will require the demolition of the other as well. What good is economic freedom if you still have a power structure telling you how you may use your goods?


Unabomber. You are stupid. ;-)

[Unabomber]

Here comes armalite with the typical idealist anarchist rhetoric. Anyone who thinks Anarchism is even remotely feasible has no knowledge of human society or how the capitalist system works.

As a person of a anti-authoritarian-socialist bent

There is no such thing as an "Anti-authoritarian socialist". Socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism in which the proletariat assumes state power to dictate their interests over the bourgeoisie.

I can tell you that the majority of socialists laugh at persons such as Unabomber.

As opposed to people taking Anarchism seriously?

Obviously the people of Nepal aren't "laughing" at me as the Marxist-Leninist's there are months away from complete control of the country.

I don't see many people who laugh at the Shining Path after almost taking power 3 times in the early 90's.

His statements only pollute the socialist name.

I'm not here to uphold any name, I have my own ideas.

Marxist politics and most of its derivatives are essentially dead, due to repeated real world failures, and theoretical inconsistencies and discrepencies that were pointed out to Marx himself by Bakunin and others.

If Marxism is such a failure, how come half of the world's population was living under a Soviet-style government at one point in the 20th century?

To say Marxism is a failure and then turn around to uphold some Anarchist fantasy is the real comedy. As Jello Biafra says, "whose going to fix the sewers" under anarchism?

Association with authoritarian brands of "socialism" is anathema to contemporary socialist thought, and many go to great lengths to distance themselves from it; i.e. the many words that have been written and spoken on the topic of "post-left" anarchism and socialism.

And this my friend, is exactly why Socialists in industrial countries are getting NOTHING done. The best they do is sit around and whine about globalization. That's not what socialism is about. Socialism isn't about pleading and whining about legalizing marijuana and petty shit like that that scummy western "socialists" "struggle for", Socialism is about killing your master and taking what is yours.

BTW, can you name me any "post-left" socialist groups? You mean Communist Party USA? Those are all liberal democrats really.

The last hope for socialism lies in the third world, where people who think like me live and fight.

Most modern socialist thinkers will tell you quite bluntly that socialism requires the abandonment of authoritarian structures alongside the various economic revolutions that must occur.

Well those "Socialists" will never get any of their ideas off the drawing board. People who have thought like that in the past never have either, and their ideas did get put into place it was on a small-scaled basis .

In actuality, structures of power and influence are based on control of goods, and on monopolies of violence(police, military). So any real attempt to dismantle either the structure of capitalist economics or the govermental and societal structures that support and maintain it will require the demolition of the other as well. What good is economic freedom if you still have a power structure telling you how you may use your goods?

The power structure is what guides the poor and oppressed and protects them from the rich. The goal of the central government is to coerce and dictate policy, in bourgeois republican society the bourgeoisie dictates everything, in proletarian republican society the workers dictate everything.

[Armalite]

Its the First fucking International all over again!!!

Anyone who thinks Anarchism is even remotely feasible has no knowledge of human society or how the capitalist system works.

Many would say the same of Marxism. And no one will disagree that it is unfeasible in the present. However, as a more or less apathetic person, I think that at some point far beyond our lifetimes it would be the natural course for humanity to shift to some variety of anti-authoritarian socialism. But I dont really care at this point in life. I used to be a vehement and politically active, spreading leaflets and zines and such to and ranting wildly to everyone with ears. I just can't seem to force myself to care anymore.

There is no such thing as an "Anti-authoritarian socialist". Socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism in which the proletariat assumes state power to dictate their interests over the bourgeoisie.

This is a semantics debate that has been raging between Marxists and anarchists since the First International and its split. What gives your definition of socialism more credibility than mine? Because Lenin said so? This reveals a deeper problem with the attitude of Marxism. It's disturbing and reminiscent of churches and the manner in which religious doctines are codified. And that itself is evidence of an even DEEPER problem, rooted in the idea of the revolutionary vanguard. But I'll get to that later...you left plenty of opportunities for it. ^_^ In reality, communism and socialism are the same thing, but what that thing is is different based on who you ask. The term "communism" has fallen into disfavor for whatever reason. Just as HTML tags fall into disuse with every subsequent version of HTML.

As opposed to people taking Anarchism seriously?

Obviously the people of Nepal aren't "laughing" at me as the Marxist-Leninist's there are months away from complete control of the country.

I don't see many people who laugh at the Shining Path after almost taking power 3 times in the early 90's.

In almost every instance of socialist revolutionary struggle, anarchist and anarchism is involved, for instance, you might want to read up on the history of the revolution in Russia itself. The anarchist role has been pushed into obscurity, as the winners write the history, but its not hard to find mention of it.

I'm not here to uphold any name, I have my own ideas.

Of course. As do I. I merely meant that to the layman, the socialism is almost always taken to mean Marxism.

If Marxism is such a failure, how come half of the world's population was living under a Soviet-style government at one point in the 20th century?

To say Marxism is a failure and then turn around to uphold some Anarchist fantasy is the real comedy. As Jello Biafra says, "whose going to fix the sewers" under anarchism?


Are they still living under a Soviet-style government?

The idea of anarchism being a fantasy can easily be compared to the idea of Marxism being held out as a fantasy. Both viewpoints are wildly popular. The same thing is done to all dissident ideas.

And this my friend, is exactly why Socialists in industrial countries are getting NOTHING done. The best they do is sit around and whine about globalization. That's not what socialism is about. Socialism isn't about pleading and whining about legalizing marijuana and petty shit like that that scummy western "socialists" "struggle for", Socialism is about killing your master and taking what is yours.

BTW, can you name me any "post-left" socialist groups? You mean Communist Party USA? Those are all liberal democrats really.

The last hope for socialism lies in the third world, where people who think like me live and fight.

I don't see where this really fits in. BTW, YOU are a western socialist. And the idea of the CP being post-leftist is ridiculous. Post-leftism is a way of seperating anarchism and Marxism.

Well those "Socialists" will never get any of their ideas off the drawing board. People who have thought like that in the past never have either, and their ideas did get put into place it was on a small-scaled basis .

Their are NUMEROUS instances of these ideas becoming reality throughout history, even in pre-capitalist times. Ever heard of Zeno and the Stoics? The Paris Commune? The Spanish Civil War? Of course, they are all on a small scale, and tragically short lived. The fact that such communites are small scale is no problem really, as this is often a part of anarchist ideas. But the fact that anarchistic communities spring up spontaneously in far removed locales and times in the absense of a politicising party or vanguard says something in itself, don't you think?

The power structure is what guides the poor and oppressed and protects them from the rich. The goal of the central government is to coerce and dictate policy, in bourgeois republican society the bourgeoisie dictates everything, in proletarian republican society the workers dictate everything.

<gospel singing voice>DON'T ASK, NO QUESTIONS, I SAID, DON'T ASK, NO QUESTIONS, ABOUT HOW COME PREACHER GOTTA HAVE A NICE CAR, AND LIVE INA BIG HOUSE, AND FLY TO PARIS EVERY WEEKEND, I SAID, DON'T ASK NO QUESTIONS, JUST GIVE TO THE LOOOOORDDDD!!!!</gospel singing voice>

And here we come to the revolutionary vanguard. It is based on the idea that people are basically stupid and cannot comprehend their own needs. It is also predicated on the assumption that you can take one such idiot(or a soviet of them) and put them in charge, and they will be able to run things effectively and with the people in mind at all times. In fact, replacing one ruling class with a slightly different one is no revolution at all.


BTW, Theodore Kazynski's(the Unabomber) ideas are of a distinctly anarchist flavor.

[Clit]

This pretty much sums it up


Unabomber. You are stupid. ;-)

Damn, some things just don't change. Vlad why do you almost always pull facts out of your ass. When I read the drinking water thing I could not stop laughing. When will you all learn Unabomber is the most stubborn person you will ever met and will not change.

[Kakkaraun]

<<So what are they supposed to do? Bring in a law about how many braches a company can have? That is infringing on their freedom.>>

Not doing it (or something similiar) is a violation of the PEOPLE's freedom. The supposition, oft-lauded by ignorant Objectivists and so-called Libertarians who seek mainly a justification for their immoral and selfish economic actions, that a corporation is a person is both highly idiotic and highly dangerous. People have rights, and yes, they have rights extended through business. However, the existence of a corporate entity is dependent not only on extra support from the government, but on the exploitation of workers. This is proven as easily as pointing out the fact that the people in command of the Big Money do significantly less work (and work less risky jobs--read Fast Food Nation, or at least the good parts, the ones about meatpacking workers) than the people who are living hand to mouth. A corporation is indeed an entity--and the nature of an entity is to propogate itself, a thing made much simpler (and more profound) when said entity is one of great power. In truth, the Corporation is the TOP of this world's food chain, more powerful even than government and religion--and even less moral than both of those, if you can fathom it.

I object to corporate power primarily in my belief that it's morally okay to do anything as long as you're not unduly hurting other people. One look at the average worker at a meatpacking plant, or the average third-world sweatshop labourer, should be good enough for a rational person to see that corporations are hurting many of the individuals in the world a good deal, physically, mentally, spiritually, and in terms of a reduction of individual rights.

Others object to corporations on the ground that they're not a market entity, but rather a government entity (a fact which necessitates acceptance after a good amount of research into the issues at hand, and one accepted even by many prominent Objectivists/Libertarians, despite the fact that it cuts their position into ribbons...they just ignore it by slapping labels onto things). I don't think that's necessary. Like Dirty Harry said, when I see a guy raping a woman, I shoot--I don't care how he's doing it.

<<#1 Your boss probably worked your job for 15 years before you got there.>>

Paris Hilton.

<<does that give him a right to steal, embezzle, and own slaves?>>

When you overstate and exaggerate like that, you damage the movement as a whole.

<<Vlad, if the USSR was the right way to go, it would have won the Cold War, but no...>>

Vlad (this is our old friend the age-challenged Communist, eh? I supposed he would've altered his political stance by now) may be wrong about the USSR and communism in general, but the idea that a state's domestic moral high ground determines its ability to win a war (cold or otherwise) is far from right. This position can only be supported by a belief in God and a belief that he defends those that are moral.

<<Vlad, the USSR is dead, communism is dead.>>

Communism isn't dead because it's never been alive, there's never been a single communist state in existence anywhere other than the fevered dreams of a few idealistic guys hanging out in French coffeehouses.

<<Go get a job or something, go scrub the toilets in McDonalds or something, 'cos it's all you are good for.>>

Generally, a resort to ad hominem attacks is indicative of a lack of the ability to logically refute a debate opponent's position. This is, indeed, the case here--not to say that Vlad's right, you're just not either.

<<You are obviously a child.>>

Yeah, if this were a play I'd title it "Quarrelling Children: An Exercise in Ad-Hominem Foolishness." It'd be all Neal Simon-esque. It'd have a Jazz score, too.

<<Managers should get paid the worth of their labour>>

Right there is the crux of it. My main problem with corporate behavior (beyond the exploitation, which is actually only a vehicle to easily achieve what I'm about to talk about), is the improper distribution of money vis-a-vis work and skill. I do believe that a good idea, "entrepeneurship," is worth money, that a person who comes up with a great product or a great service or a great anything, really, should get plenty of scratch for it. However, I do not support the idea of boardroom goons (and if you disagree with my assertion that a corporation is a governmental entity, compare the halls of power of a corporation to those of a government) getting paid millions to, basically, decide which underhanded exploitation method is best. The corporate structure rewards immorality (basically avarice, taking the forms of exploitation and avoidance of labor, avoidance of taxation, avoidance of following laws, etc), and our government helps them by giving people like Ken Lay a light slap, if they even do ANYTHING about them (whatever happened to the people in Halliburton that were giving DIRTY FOOD to Americans in Iraq? Nothing? Wonder why...oh wait, what major corporation is it that Dick Cheney has ties to?).

In corporate America, the money is generally not in good ideas for what the business will actually do, and it's definitely not in hard work--it's in being a fucking rat. And in good ideas for milking the system.

<<I do not care what you have to say, I am an adult in a year anyway. I think my way of life is more productive than your drug binging one.>>

Now it's getting even more entertaining! Note that I'm not really flaming anyone, I think all of us here are equally idiotic...consider me a commentator. A point-by-point:

1.) You'd think a communist would have the balls to determine his own age of majority instead of sticking to the beorgoissie standard of 18.
2.) Ouch, burn. This is going to mushroom. It'll grow like a weed. I'm expecting a very poppy response.

<<As a person of a anti-authoritarian-socialist bent, I can tell you that the majority of socialists laugh at persons such as Unabomber.>>

Yeah, this is very true. I thought he'd have grown out of it by now (my own communist phase lasted about two weeks, after I read "The Jungle").

<<Here comes armalite with the typical idealist anarchist rhetoric.>>

Usually someone is wrong if they defend their beliefs by labelling their opponents like this. It's very evident in Objectivist literature, in religious-right gay/druguser/nonreligious/etc bashing, and all other groups of idiots. You'll notice that the Communist Manifesto doesn't do this, nor do many of the classics of any philosophy that have even a small grain of truth.

<<There is no such thing as an "Anti-authoritarian socialist".>>

Yes, because there totally is no such thing as anarcho-syndicalism. Actually, all variants on overarching political positions are figments of the imagination.

<<If Marxism is such a failure, how come half of the world's population was living under a Soviet-style government at one point in the 20th century?>>

Confusing Soviet-style government and Communism is kind of like confusing Jesus' compassionate philosophies with the Inquisition and the Crusades.

<<To say Marxism is a failure and then turn around to uphold some Anarchist fantasy is the real comedy. As Jello Biafra says, "whose going to fix the sewers" under anarchism?>>

Good job straw-manning an entire political system. Except it wasn't a good job and it sucked. You're confusing Anarchism with...well, Chaosism, which is practiced mainly by people like you. Anarchism is much more complex than you seem to realize.

<<The last hope for socialism lies in the third world, where people who think like me live and fight.>>

Please. What's your net family income.

<<Well those "Socialists" will never get any of their ideas off the drawing board. People who have thought like that in the past never have either, and their ideas did get put into place it was on a small-scaled basis .>>

And when they DID go for the goal--millions of people didn't die! This can not be said for your brand of ideal, which, of course, virtually necessitates corruption and leads to totalitarianism.

<<And no one will disagree that it is unfeasible in the present. However, as a more or less apathetic person, I think that at some point far beyond our lifetimes it would be the natural course for humanity to shift to some variety of anti-authoritarian socialism.>>

This right here is why ALL education should be paid for by the state. This sends us down the right road, and it's the first step you can make towards actual, real, equality. More options in education, complete freedom. Oh, and philosophy classes start in Kindergarten. It's idiotic to ignore the ROOT of all of our wisdom and knowledge until you get to college.

<<In reality, communism and socialism are the same thing, but what that thing is is different based on who you ask.>>

I do have to disagree with you here. Not to say that particular people can't bend these definitions, but they ARE different things. Mainly, one is feasible, one is not.

<<It is also predicated on the assumption that you can take one such idiot(or a soviet of them) and put them in charge, and they will be able to run things effectively and with the people in mind at all times.>>

It's not so much incompetence as avarice, in my opinion, that leads to the Big Central in Marxism inevitably becoming a totalitarian figure.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Why do you guys even argue with Vlad? Haven't you realized by now that he's an insolent little retard that has only read about communism on paper and never experienced it in real life, where it doesn't work. There is no point in arguing with him because, until he realizes for himself that the very idea of communism violates the natural order of life--- simply, people are not equal, so the law should not work in a way that treats them as such without any sort of prejudice, and the impulse to achieve/rise above the majority cannot be exterminated by legislators, or revolutions for that matter, as it is so ingrained in our way of life and our natural instincts--- arguing with him will never change his opinion. If you want him to shut up about this crap, then stop arguing with him. easy.

[madscientist]

I jerk off to morality.

[Kakkaraun]

<<and the impulse to achieve/rise above the majority cannot be exterminated by legislators, or revolutions for that matter, as it is so ingrained in our way of life and our natural instincts--- arguing with him will never change his opinion.>>

This is not the problem with Communism, as it's not actually a part of Communism. It's only a part of the "Communism" that was created by HUAC and Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover and so forth.

Madscientist--last time I talked to you, didn't you believe that morality was, well, unimportant?

[ComfortablyNumb]

I was talking more of the brand of communism that vlad seems to favor, I'm well aware that communism in itself has nothing to do with depriving people of their impulses, just as capitalism is in no way related to enslaving people, as vlad also seems to believe, they are both just economic systems, not political ones such as a dictatorship or a democaracy, both totalitarian capitalist and democratic communist societies are possible.

[Unabomber]

Many would say the same of Marxism. And no one will disagree that it is unfeasible in the present. However, as a more or less apathetic person, I think that at some point far beyond our lifetimes it would be the natural course for humanity to shift to some variety of anti-authoritarian socialism. But I dont really care at this point in life. I used to be a vehement and politically active, spreading leaflets and zines and such to and ranting wildly to everyone with ears. I just can't seem to force myself to care anymore.

The difference is that there are currently Maoist/M-L revolutions happening in dozens of countries, in fact we are on the verge of victory in Nepal and India. On top of this there are socialist states active in the world today, such as the DPRK, Belarus, Venezuela, or Cuba .



This is a semantics debate that has been raging between Marxists and anarchists since the First International and its split. What gives your definition of socialism more credibility than mine? Because Lenin said so? This reveals a deeper problem with the attitude of Marxism. It's disturbing and reminiscent of churches and the manner in which religious doctines are codified. And that itself is evidence of an even DEEPER problem, rooted in the idea of the revolutionary vanguard. But I'll get to that later...you left plenty of opportunities for it. ^_^ In reality, communism and socialism are the same thing, but what that thing is is different based on who you ask. The term "communism" has fallen into disfavor for whatever reason. Just as HTML tags fall into disuse with every subsequent version of HTML.


The first person to discreetly talk about the revolutionary vanguard, the Central State, is Karl Marx. Karl Marx is the one who says Socialism is a statist ideology, not an anarchist one

Anarcho -communism is the correct term since Communism is stateless and anarchist wish to go from Capitalism directly to communism.


In almost every instance of socialist revolutionary struggle, anarchist and anarchism is involved, for instance, you might want to read up on the history of the revolution in Russia itself. The anarchist role has been pushed into obscurity, as the winners write the history, but its not hard to find mention of it.

You mean the Makhnovites and other assorted idealists? They eventually got in the way and were smashed completely within 5 years post-revolution. Their role was quite minimal really, because they were organized in a grossly inefficient manner, just like in the spanish civil war. It was the Red Army whom smashed the dozen or so western invaders, while defeating the white army and their lackeys. Anarchism is an infantile disorder.



Are they still living under a Soviet-style government?

The idea of anarchism being a fantasy can easily be compared to the idea of Marxism being held out as a fantasy. Both viewpoints are wildly popular. The same thing is done to all dissident ideas.

Many of them, are more or less adhering to Soviet-style economics. Even in China where there is currently a capitalist retreat (ala N.E.P. in the USSR to try and build up the base for a socialist economy) many aspects of the country are totally planned. In DPRK and Cuba we have pure, self-determined socialism which proves Socialism's invincibility, that even isolated small countries like DPRK and Cuba can survive the globalizer's assault.


I don't see where this really fits in. BTW, YOU are a western socialist. And the idea of the CP being post-leftist is ridiculous. Post-leftism is a way of seperating anarchism and Marxism.


I come from a family of immigrants so I am not a western socialist.


Their are NUMEROUS instances of these ideas becoming reality throughout history, even in pre-capitalist times. Ever heard of Zeno and the Stoics? The Paris Commune? The Spanish Civil War? Of course, they are all on a small scale, and tragically short lived. The fact that such communites are small scale is no problem really, as this is often a part of anarchist ideas. But the fact that anarchistic communities spring up spontaneously in far removed locales and times in the absense of a politicising party or vanguard says something in itself, don't you think?

All of those were relatively small-scale collectives and who did not have large responsibilities such as....running a country and keeping it in order. The Paris Commune was not Anarcho-anything either, it was a small-scale republic, which the USSR was modeled after BTW.

And the Spanish Civil war only showed the true futility of anarchists. The bulk of the fighting was commanded and led by professional soldiers of the communist armies, with state of the art weaponry and tanks (provided by an "authoritarian socialist state"), what were the anarchists? A militia with no disciplinarians or hierarchy or generals where everyone voted for everything. Guess what happened? The professional fascist armies came in and smashed the Anarchists because of their insolance.


<gospel singing voice>DON'T ASK, NO QUESTIONS, I SAID, DON'T ASK, NO QUESTIONS, ABOUT HOW COME PREACHER GOTTA HAVE A NICE CAR, AND LIVE INA BIG HOUSE, AND FLY TO PARIS EVERY WEEKEND, I SAID, DON'T ASK NO QUESTIONS, JUST GIVE TO THE LOOOOORDDDD!!!!</gospel singing voice>

And here we come to the revolutionary vanguard. It is based on the idea that people are basically stupid and cannot comprehend their own needs. It is also predicated on the assumption that you can take one such idiot(or a soviet of them) and put them in charge, and they will be able to run things effectively and with the people in mind at all times. In fact, replacing one ruling class with a slightly different one is no revolution at all.


That's the thing, most people ARE idiots. How do you explain Bush, Blair, ETC winning again in the western deMOCKracies?

I am not saying people shouldn't have labour rights, they obviously should. I believe Soviets (workers run councils) should control what is produced, what is not produced, what to invest money in, etc. I believe in the Soviet government system which you should read up on (something that wasn't written by the bourgeoisie) it was FAR more democratic than anything you'll ever see in the west.

Why do you guys even argue with Vlad? Haven't you realized by now that he's an insolent little retard that has only read about communism on paper and never experienced it in real life, where it doesn't work. There is no point in arguing with him because, until he realizes for himself that the very idea of communism violates the natural order of life--- simply, people are not equal, so the law should not work in a way that treats them as such without any sort of prejudice, and the impulse to achieve/rise above the majority cannot be exterminated by legislators, or revolutions for that matter, as it is so ingrained in our way of life and our natural instincts--- arguing with him will never change his opinion. If you want him to shut up about this crap, then stop arguing with him. easy.

Have you experienced "communism" (Socialism)?

Let's say, hypothetically that the west is a democracy as it says it is, f people had such a great impulse to be above everything wouldn't everyone want to be a dictator or autocrat?

Your way of life is totally different from human instinct. Humanity's civilizations like the Inca's and Aztecs lived in extremely prosperous and advanced Socialist-style systems, they didn't have any problem with it.

I am not some whiney liberal who is arguing for humanism, I am arguing for socialism because I believe socialism is by far the most efficient economic system as we saw with Stalin (turned the USSR from a backwards agrarian state into a superpower in 15 years).

The reason China and Russia have seats on the UN security council is because of Stalin and Mao! Because of socialism!

I was talking more of the brand of communism that vlad seems to favor, I'm well aware that communism in itself has nothing to do with depriving people of their impulses, just as capitalism is in no way related to enslaving people, as vlad also seems to believe, they are both just economic systems, not political ones such as a dictatorship or a democaracy, both totalitarian capitalist and democratic communist societies are possible.

What impulses does socialism interfere with? The impulse to live in huge debt without any security about your future? The impulse to work like a dog to make some fat jew wealthier?The impulse to be powerless against every thing and have no control over the development of your homeland?

Capitalism is slavery in every form. You work and you work to make someone else who does nothing a fucking profit. Under socialism its different, there is more justice. All of the wealth working people produce, all the profits they produce, goes right back to them via health care, pensions, etc etc, and they do this in socialist states by working 5-6 hours a day, with long vacations and workers rights!

If people knew what socialism was they would all fight for it. But the yankees have done a good job suppressing the meaning of socialism.

[madscientist]

I come from a family of immigrants so I am not a western socialist.

You were an immigrant too?

[Kakkaraun]

<<On top of this there are socialist states active in the world today, such as the DPRK, Belarus, Venezuela, or Cuba .>>

If Cuba is proper Socialist then America is a proper Democracy. Dig?

<<In DPRK and Cuba we have pure, self-determined socialism which proves Socialism's invincibility, that even isolated small countries like DPRK and Cuba can survive the globalizer's assault.>>

Yeah! And they also get to rule their people with an iron, totalitarian fist!

Basic rule of thumb--if a country can be identified by one constant, total leader (like Castro), it ain't a fuckin' socialist or communist state. The whole idea of these philosophies is a focus on equalization of the rights of social determination--ie, everyone gets a say in where the state's going. That's really the point. If everyone DOESN'T get a say, and if one person is calling most of the shots, that's what we call totalitarianism (or maybe aristocracy--I sure bet Castro doesn't like in a hovel like most of the people in his country).

<<I come from a family of immigrants so I am not a western socialist.>>

That's so much fucking bullshit. First of all, whether or not you're a "western socialist" has jack-shit to do with where you're from, it's how you act, and you certainly act like a western socialist--going on about class rights while you post on your computer and buy your ten dollar packs of cigarettes. Furthermore, if we DO base it on your background rather than your behavior, your parents have a lot less impact on your life than the environment you grew up in. So when did you move here? Or were you born here? Or are you just spewing bullshit?

<<Have you experienced "communism" (Socialism)?>>

Just like everyone else on the planet, no. Also, I've never eaten a schnozberry, never met a hobbit, never jacked into the matrix to rip off Sense/Net, never played a hand of Sabaac...you get where I'm headed with this. Perhaps a more exact analogy would be to say that I've never lived in a society resembling that in Plato's "Republic" and never been privy to an educational system like the one explained by Rousseau's (uber-sucky) Emile.

<<I am not some whiney liberal who is arguing for humanism, I am arguing for socialism because I believe socialism is by far the most efficient economic system as we saw with Stalin (turned the USSR from a backwards agrarian state into a superpower in 15 years).>>

In other words you support the system for all the wrong reasons. If being "efficient" and being a "superpower" are automatically good things, then, well, shouldn't you be an Objectivist rather than a communist?

<<The impulse to be powerless against every thing and have no control over the development of your homeland?>>

Because some dude in Castro's Cuba totally has a say in the government.

<<Capitalism is slavery in every form. You work and you work to make someone else who does nothing a fucking profit.>>

Not quite, because you can leave and walk off and et cetera. It's almost slavery, but if you call it slavery, you're just making other people unreceptive to your philosophy by straw-manning theirs. Which is actually pretty much the only thing you're good at.

In short, yes, socialism and communism would be great ideas, if they ever worked. The problem is they don't, because people like Stalin and Mao and Castro turn them into authoritarian states.

[ComfortablyNumb]

blah blah blah

thats all i can make out of your nonsense.

[Clit Crusader]

I know I should not of done this but this was the last thread I remember when I was at rorta... it just seems so nostalgic

[ComfortablyNumb]

hmmm, I hope someone finally gave that little commie a good kick in the head.

[Clit Crusader]

I talked to him on aim a few months back and he is a Jew hating Facist now, I kid you not.

[AnotherDamnNewbie]

I talked to him on aim a few months back and he is a Jew hating Facist now, I kid you not.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That shit does NOT suprise me at all. At least he's among intellectual equals now. :)