+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10413
Total Topics: 244
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 25 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 14, 2018, 12:33:00 pm »

The Thom Hartmann Program (Full Show) - 8/14/18


You've found the place where The Thom Hartmann Program is streamed live Monday-Friday,

Agelbert NOTE: In this show Thom discusses this excellent book filled with irrefutable historical truth:


Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat by J. Sakai

The authoritative attack on the idea that the American working class is primarily white, with Black, Asian and Indian labour being little more than special interest groups. This book presents US history from a working class, revolutionary and non-white perspective.

Paperback, 176 pages
Published 1989 by Morningstar Pres
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3184732-settlers



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 08:03:05 pm »

Its wrong to say Anarchists support socialism, just not soviet style. Capitalists are actually more supportive of Socialism than Anarchists. Anarchists do not want a govt at all, so they definitely don't want a govt to tax them to provide social services. Democratic Socialism actually depends on Capitalism. If they dont have capitalism to tax to provide healthcare, education and social security, it can only be done through communism, for a while. Theres a reason China didnt go down with the Soviet Union and Cuba is doing better without Castro calling the shots, pun intended. Pointing this out doesn't give me an affinity with Mitch Romny either.

Sir, you are splitting Socialist hairs. That part about Anarchists not agreeing to Soviet style Communism, which Anarchists NOW, AT PRESENT, label as "State Capitalism", is not relevant to Anarchist total solidarity with the Socialst movement in the USA, even before the 20th Century began. Had you watched the Columbia University video in my post, the  common ground between Anarchists and Socialists, due to the brutal, dangerous and deadly working conditions in the USA when the 20th Century began, would have been made clear to you.

Hoover was out to GIT the Anarchists BECAUSE they recognized, like the Communists/Socialists, the moral bankruptcy of Capitalism.

The attitude of Capitalists towards ANY economic sytem based on Liberty and Justice for ALL has always been negative, to put it mildly.

Your posts usually concentrate on the negative track record of Socialist/Communist governments while studiously ignoring the massive record of human rights abuse by Capitalist governments, especially our US Fascist Paradise Government. That is a sophistic debating technique. Yes, it is clever but it is fallacious. 

I suggest you try to be more even handed in your comparison of the two systems (yes, there are basically ONLY TWO systems in discussion here). All human run systems are flawed and it is easy to cherry pick the negative aspects of any one of them.

Nevertheless, it is incorrect to claim that Capitalism has the moral high ground over all things Socialist. The exact reverse is true.

The two comments in the following graphic provide Prima Facie evidence that Capitalists=War Loving, Greed Inspired, Conscience Free Predators are the sworn enemies of all things Socialist AND that Capitalism is morally bankrupt.


Sorry Agelbert, but if communism is the point being debated, I am not required to compare it to capitalism in every particular as that is a much larger undertaking and would leave the critical points i wished to make lost. I had hoped that "I dont believe in using money at all", should suffice to excuse me from that onerous task, but did suspect that an either with us or against us attitude would ignore all that. The main point re communism I made was the death toll. 100m in the 20th Century, that puts it in first place ahead of Christianity in 2nd and Islam in 3rd by my calculation.

 Its ridiculous to say that Socialism is pacifism because Marx SAID you only need to wait for capitalism to destroy itself. They didn't wait, they violently overthrew the monarchies and killed everyone as an ongoing process. Then communism ended up dying on its own, not capitalism. I have said the ongoing death toll is required, because communists never make everyone equal as promised, so need to keep killing anyone who mentions this or even might mention it.

Ill watch the vid now as I had planned last night, but couldnt keep awake after getting home after dark as usual. Overtime pays well, but money puts most people in a gold barred prison, either of the mind through materialism, or just practical survival. Either way, the pre-occupation and associated agitation is debasement of human nature. I believe native peoples figured this out already over 100k years. The concept of "mine" is foreign to them. If you tell a fijian you like his shirt, he will give it to you and you must take it. If you try using something like a musical instrument or weapon "belonging" to a Maori and are better with it than they are, they give it to you. I learned this when i picked up a pair of those chrome chinese balls that are meant to be spun around in your palm. Even when I said its only easy for me because my glove size is 2XL so an unfair advantage, they were very serious in insisting I take the balls. That relates directly to my point before about capitalism or any FINANCIAL system, that the most crude measure of a mans worth being money is the most important. Obviously for the native people the value is in the ability insteadand the ability benefits everyone. In fact the great Aboriginal boxer, Lionel Rose, made a joke that "blackfelllas are the original communists" when all his winning money was distributed to everyone else.

There's no reason the same principle can't be applied today if the overall culture, corrupted by the use of money, were different. There would not be endless growth, expansion, critical GDP, because there are industries where workers need money all year round to survive, then if they have excess that creates new industries whose workers also need work all year round, including even arms dealers in a vicious cycle. All things could be produced as needed. If an individuals worth without money is measured in their ability, and that ability benefits everyone, nobody will object to being asked by someone else for resources such as crude oil or iron ore. Uranium might get asked some questions. The scenes in movies where American Indian chiefs have given long consideration to what gift can match some piece of technology they do not have, such as a rifle, shows the principle. The one asking for the resource feels diminished until they can return the compliment, such as shipping back some finished goods when needed. Call this real anarchy or socialism, because with money involved there is only the real world results and the back and forth blame game, when there is no black and white between socialism and capitalism. They are the same system, with a distinction of degrees not difference.

You aren't required to compare the two systems even handedly, but I insist that is the only way to rationally compare them. We will have to agree to disagree on that.

And no, it is not "ridiculous" to claim Communism/Socialism is a pacifist ideology. As I said before, the application in practice may not be pacifist, but the ideology is. Capitalist ideology, on the other hand, considers war another tool of routine national politics.

On the other hand, it really IS ridiculous to claim Capitalism is "more pacifist" that Socialism/Communism. Yeah, there was blood spilled by all groups. So? After the Russian Revolution, WTF did you expect the Russians to think when they were being attacked from all sides by various covert and overt Capitalist methods to strangle their economy? In that death count you ascribe to Communism/Socialism, are yoy including the deliberate attempts to starve Russia by Capitalist countries? Of course NOT! How convenient is that, eh?

And while we are on the subject of Russia, let's talk about all those millions that died from Russian Communism, shall we? Russian Communism, for anyone that understands Capitalist Corporate structure, PERFECTLY MIRRORS a monopoly, over EVERYTHING, Capitalist Corporation. That is why the Anarchists call it "State Capitalism".
Premier = CEO
Politburo = Board of Directors
"Communist" Party = Stock Holders
Russian Igor and Sofia vodka sixpack = employees


Communism, MY ASS!

The ideology was just Socialist lipstick on Capitalist pig.

Now you can jump in (I will studiously avoid answering any spurious bullshit thown in here by the gun tottin' Texan who manages to look in a mirror every day without flinching even though he claims he doesn't suffer fools easily) and say that  IF what I say is true, then WHY did the USA (and other Capitalist countries) try to destroy Russia by any means possible? I mean, weren't they all a bunch of fascist crooks fighing over world domination, as all good Capitalist ideologues are?

NOPE.

Socialism, even the fake kind the USSR practiced, was still an ideological threat to Capitalism. Any threat to Capitalism MUST BE ATTACKED.

Your claim that what Marx said about Capitalism self-destructing was basically happy talk no person living in the real world of rough and tumble dog eat dog took seriously is more applicable to those who push "democracy=peace" in the name of Capitalism than in regard to Socialism.

But, again, you do not want to line up the two systems side by side, so you point at all the monarchs overthrown and so on, as if the overthrow of monarchs was something that discredits any claim to pacifism by Socialist ideology.

There is a vacuum in every discussion I encounter on this subject about the 24/7 paranoia that is absolutely CENTRAL to Capitalism. That paranoia fuels much of the murder and mayhem in this world. Do you want to go there? NO, you don't.

I'll tell you why that subject is routinely disparaged as conspiracy tin foil stuff, though massive paranoia is routinely, and spuriously, ascribed to the "dysfunctional" Socialst Governments.

Capitalism is pitched as a system where everybody competes in a democratic fashion. If people really did that, they would not be routinely spying on their competitor or/and trying to sabotage the competitor's business in order to get the edge on the other business and eventually bankrupt it.

You KNOW that is how Capitalism works in practice. Now how in God's good Earth people feel justified in making the TOTALLY ERRONEOUS claim that a Government run by Capitalist True Beleivers is not going be composed of the worst kind of paranoid bastards constantly attacking by any means available any real or imagined threat to their monopoly exploitation gravy train, is NOT a mystery to me.

They DON'T want people to know that, so they propagandize the public to claim the Socialists are the ones guilty of doing what is SINE QUA NON for Capitalist ideology. It's all part of the morally bankrupt PROFIT MOTIVE.

The USA got into WWI to make money for Capitalists, PERIOD. How many of those deaths do YOU blame Capitalism for? ZIP!

After WWI, if France, England and the USA had treated Germany, another Capitalist country, fairly, there would not have BEEN a NAZI Germany. But the demand to rake Germany over the coals for PROFIT so angered the Germans that they helped the rabid Hitler gang come to power.

How many of those Germans who starved to death during the Weimar Republic are in your count of deaths caused by Capitalism? ZIP!

Even worse, the USA ended up going into WWII because OUR CAPITALISTS built up those NAZI bastards. How many of the MILLIONS of people killed by the NAZIs do you blame Capitalism for? ZIP!

The indictment of Capitalism is, as if the above history wasn't enough, multiplied by the FACT that, despite the USA OWING RUSSIA BIG TIME for the defeat of NAZI Germany, the Capitalists, true to form, weren't having any of that "Socialist disease" business. The post WWII crowd, in the USA in particular, saw massive profits in MAINTAINING A WAR ECONOMY. They needed an enemy. So, they invented one. That's how we got the MIC that is eating this planet alive for CAPITALIST profit.

During all this period, the Russians were struggling to survive economically BECAUSE of trade barriers hither and yon by their "competitors" (i.e. other countries with the Capitalist system, but without the socialist lipstick). While all the evil stuff by Lenin and Stalin is well publicized, and used repeatedly in every debate about Communism versus Capitalism, the MASSIVE advances in all forms of technology in Russia from 1905 on, where they went from a nearly totally agrarian society to an industrial powerhouse, WHICH DEFEATED THE NAZIs, is always sort of left out of the discussion. The USA became an industrial powerhouse gradually from around 1840 on up to our massive war machine in 1940. That is about 100 years. The Russians did that MUCH Faster.

Count the years. That State Capitalist Country (i.e. the USSR) exploited their people ruthlessly for what Lenin and Stalin claimed was their own good. I am not convinced of that. Their blah, blah, blah about Socialist this and Socialist that, despite it being mostly happy talk lipstick, was like waving a red flag (pun intented ;D) at the Capitalist BULL on Wall Street.

Get this, pal! WE did everything we could to destroy Russia until we needed them. We WANTED the NAZIs to crush them! When the NAZIs were eating our lunch, then we became TOKEN MR. Nice Guy with Russia. Is that part of your historical narrative? If it isn't, you have a flawed view of most of the 20th Century's history.

All that said, there are so many different definitions for Communism, as well as Capitalism, that it is an unreal rabbit whole to go down. So, I look at the historical cause and effect of systems that had the name. 

Claiming that socialism and capitalism are the same system is incorrect. Regardless of the varying definitions, one is based on a hierarchcal unequal non-egalitarian social structure (Cappitlism) and the other on an   egalitarian social structure (Socialism).

I will agree that, if the people are of good will, just about any system can work fairly well. It all depends on whether morality is integral to the system or not. I maintain that morality is anathema to Capitalism.

You said:
Quote
money puts most people in a gold barred prison, either of the mind through materialism, or just practical survival. Either way, the pre-occupation and associated agitation is debasement of human nature. I believe native peoples figured this out already over 100k years.

Agreed. The problem we have today is that the overwhelming majority of humans now have too much of a Nietzche style Territorial Imperative, so to speak.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:48:07 pm »

Message to Eddie, who agrees I am a "good man" man as long as I don't call him out on his erroneous view of history, at which point he shows his coarse lack of compassion for me, an aged and infirm fellow American, by going partial, and then FULL Ad Hominem:

🕵️ ;D

This entire discussion began when YOU claimed that Communism wasn't a negative "buzzword" before 1947. While it is true that the expression, "negative buzzword", did not even exist in the English language back then  ;D, I jumped because Anti-Communist propaganda and skullduggery dates to the turn of the 20th Century and before. 

I showed you evidence that you were wrong about Communism not being a negative "buzzword" before 1947.

Also, I claimed that your view that the 1930's was a "friendly" period towards Communism was also wrong.

That got your Texas pride filled drawers in a bunch and you went on the attack, starting with trying to frame me as a "touchy", "Shrill", etc. you get the idea (SEE: attack the messenger fallacious debating technique). 

Let us assume for the moment that my attitude towards Capitalism is as pedestrianly uneducated as my "simplistic irrationally positive" view of Communism/Socialism/Anarchism.

How did you put it? I think this thoroughly demeaning quote of yours pretty much covers it (I know, after this post you will Texas double down on your insults by claiming that I ain't seen nuttin' yet  ;)):

Quote
I really don't find anything in this long rant that I didn't know, at least in general terms...or anything in your broader assessment that I even disagree with that much. But like all your posts on this subject, it's the product of a very narrow view, and it's the equivalent of a five minute book report on an epic novel. It's very much the Readers Digest condensed version for rabid socialists. There's a whole lot left out.

The above quote is revealing. You do NOT, generally  ;), DISAGREE with my historical "rant", yet you are silent as death about the FACT that you previously erroneously claimed that Communism wasn't a negative "buzzword" before 1947.

Now, either you DID know that and you didn't want to talk about pre-1947 persecution of Communists, or you DIDN'T know about it. You cannot have it both ways. But, you are doing your best to do exactly that. ;D

As Eddie likes to say, "You are not going to get away with that attempt to question Eddie's vast knowledge and Eddie is not done by a Texas long shot" , RIGHT? 

So then, rather than admit your error, you procede to undermine the post that you (see your quote above) didn't seem to have issues with, by relegating it to the level of a five minute overly simplistic book report.

I wan't trying to right a comprehensive history, Tex. I was, as you KNOW, challenging your erroneous view that Communism wasn't a negative "buzzword" before 1947 (see the title of the post, please!).

OF COURSE there is a whole lot left out. And, it is clear that what was "left in" was, from your POV, suitable only for "rabid" Socialists.

 I guess you consider Surly, a man with three times the historically accurate knowledge of American History that you and I have, PUT TOGETHER,  a "rabid" Soclialist. He is a man of integrity and respect. You were attacking him as well as me. NO, Eddie, I am NOT "putting words in your mouth! You made that post after Surly praised my post as an accurate summary of the history. Try as you may to twist Surly's respect for my knowledge of history, nobody who is objective here is going to buy it, Tex.

YOU are the one going on a rampage of irrational insults and demeaning posts, trying to put words in MY mouth, making silly, childish, foolish, immature, shrill and thoroughly hateful broad statements about my accross the board "bullshit".

And, YEAH, I DO KNOW YOU! Unless there are TWO Eddies posting here where one Eddie, the mild mannered reporter from the Daily Planet who supports many Socialist programs in the US Government for the poor and disadvantaged, is the principled brother of his evil, uncaring twin who thinks the poor in America are just a bunch of lazy greedy riff raff waiting for the Loto to solve their economic problems. I certainly DO read and interpret correctly your point of view in regard to what you CARE about and what you DON'T CARE about.

The issues may be complex, but there is no justification for simultaneously holding two opposing views. 

As to the complexity of this issue of Communism versus Capitalism, yeah, it's VERY complex. I don't know WHO TF you are to think you are the only one that has come to that enlightened erudite conclusion, but the body of work in your posts, especially when you are in a good mood, evidences that you generally DO NOT DO NUANCE unless you are challenging somebody else's POV. Then you go into all sorts of, "not being sure of this or that" in regard to what the other poster stated, continually casting doubt on the validity of the post you are challenging.

However, when someone challenges YOUR overly simplistic acceptance of Capitalism as the "best system" despite it being a "mixed bag", the Texas Longhorn horns come out. What's good for Goose is SUPPOSED TO BE  good for the Gander, Tex! Holster your guns and start thinking with your mind instead of your pride! 

But let us assume for the moment that, as you have just repeatedly abused your Admin privilege to label me as such, I am just some "old crank/ass hole/rabid Socialist".

The fact remains that the following graphic (see upper right hand corner) has a DATE on it that proves your claims that "Communism wasn't a negative "buzzword" before 1947" AND that the 1930's was a "friendly"  period for Communists in the USA are both incorrect.


I am not the one speading inaccurate Historical narratives here, Tex.

YOU made a BROAD, OVERY SIMPLISTIC, HISTORICALLY INACCURATE STATEMENT when you claimed Communism wasn't a negative "buzzword" before 1947. So, for you to claim I am the one being overly simplistic in my subsequent posts is hypocritical in the extreme.

No matter how you try to spin it, Capitalism is morally bankrupt. As RE said, in so many words, if you cannot see that, you are wrong.

Go ahead Eddie, "fire up the drones". That's an old expression I heard often in the FAA, based on the exact same empathy deficit disordered "sense of humor". Back then it was from some "funny" Southern boys who thought it was great fun to say, "Fire up the Ovens" when discussing Jewish businesses.

Now, don't say I am calling you anti-Jew, I am certainly not doing that. I am NOT putting "words in your mouth".

What I am doing is making it crystal clear to you that your casual offhand coarse jokes and peculiar sense of humor offends all peace loving people, of whom you claim to be one.

If you wish to be given the benefit of the doubt about your allegedly objective views on Capitalism and Socialism, stop with the jokes about Capitalist murder and mayhem for Empire. Those coarse sarcastic jokes of yours are as funny as basket full of dead babies.

Yes, I am painfully aware of the fact that you don't care what I think. It appears, from the number of views I get, that you are in the minority in that respect. Also, you may wish to revise your post where you joined into the positive recognition of my contributions here after over a million views.

You need to be consistent if you want people to take you seriously. Now, if you don't care what anybody thinks, then, by all means, have a ball by continuing your Dr. Jekell and Mr. Hyde routine.

As for me, I will continue reading your posts when you are discussing medicine, technology and many other issues you are knowlegeable about and worthy to be listened to. Your biases on political issues and history don't interfere with your technical kowledge base.

However, though I will continue to vigorously disagree with your thoroughly biased view of American History, I will avoid discussing such with you because, quite frankly, you and I will never find common ground there.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:46:47 pm »

The issue here is that "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".  As long as you maintain the position the "Capitalism has some good points, it was just corrupted by a few Evil Men at the top", you are part of the problem.  This is the group of people who now try to make a distinction between "capitalism" and "corporatism". Trying to throw whitewash over a really bad system which has impoverished billions for the profit of 1%.  It's not the "few bad apples" that make Capitalism bad, the system itself is rotten to the core.

Will Socialism fix all the ills of resource depletion and population overshoot we have now?  Of course not, but it would provide a more equitable distribution of wealth during the spin down.  All the wealth of the top 10% should be stripped and used to fund the rebuilding of public infrastructure.  All excess housing besides the dwelling a person actually lives in should be converted to housing for the Homeless.  All excess vehicles besides the one the person needs for daily tasks should be converted to a fleet for pbulicly available rental cars at affordable prices.  All wages should come within 1 Standard Deviation of the mean, in our current economy around $70K household income.  Essentially this means nobody over $150K, nobody under $35K.  Medical care should be public and supported by taxation on profits and excess income above the $150K threshhold.

Most industries should be converted to Worker Cooperatives, run by the workers.  The main conduits in particular, Energy, Food, Housing, Medicine, Communications and Transportation.  Managers should be selected by the workers, not by the share holders in a corporation.  Banking and Money Creation should be done by Goobermint, not by a private cartel of International Banksters.

Many other changes are necessary of course, but this would be a good start towards managing the spin down we have ahead here.  Capitalism and its Apologists are the Enemy, they gotta go.
[/size]
There is one thing that virtually everyone is missing... that "golden age" of American capitalism, the 1950s and 1960s, the one when America was "great"?  Who owned the vast majority of corporate stocks back then?  Pension funds.  So, indirectly, the corporations, in being run for the shareholder's benefits, were being run for for the worker's benefit, when they retired, on their defined benefit plan.  But then, in the 1970s, the switch was made to defined contribution plans, and participation made optional, and ownership of corporations dwindled away from the workers.

Excellent, excellent point. The switch from defined benefit to defined contribution plans is a foundation stone of building a precariat, and impoverishing retirees.

True.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:44:25 pm »


Among the many targets of COINTELPRO, the most serious attention was paid to those movements that most threatened state interests. The most violent repression under COINTELPRO was used against the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, the American Indian Movement, and the Puerto Rican independence movement. It was fueled by the state's need to preserve the near total political and economic disenfranchisement of people of color in the face of the first serious threats to the racial status quo since post-Civil War Reconstruction. The need of the American empire to keep Puerto Rico in its colonial orbit, while it was losing the war in Southeast Asia, drove the violent repression there and against Puerto Rican immigrants in the United States.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/cointelpro.shtml

MLK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Harry and Harriette Moore, and worst of all, the state-ordered execution of Fred Hampton and mark Clark  in 1969. Chicago police formed a "select group" but his assassination was demonstrated a conspiracy between local law enforcement and the FBI. The cops claimed, of course, that they were involved in  “shootout.” A bald-faced lie: the physical evidence definitively established that the raiders fired nearly 100 shots at the Panthers while they were sleeping, while only one shot could be linked to a Panther weapon. Because ballistics.

After the raid the Minister of Defense for the Black Panther Party, Bobby Rush, declared that J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI were responsible. But there was no hard proof. The first documentation that supported Rush’s claim came in 1971 when activists broke into an FBI office in Media, PA, and liberated a trove of FBI documents. These outlined the FBI’s COINTELPRO program and its focus in the 1960s on the Black liberation movement and its leaders. As noted above, Hoover directed all of the Bureau’s offices to “disrupt, misdirect, and otherwise neutralize” African American organizations and leaders including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the Nation of Islam, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown.

You know the rest. Thus the wages of "revolution" here in this capitalist paradise.


Exactly correct!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:41:32 pm »


Do you mean some hypothetical socialist country where people in power DON'T feather their own nests because they can? Some perfect world socialist country. Yeah, I'll take that. But it'll only happen when flocks of flying monkeys erupt from my ass.

LOL.  I never said such a country or Goobermint currently exists, or in fact has ever existed.  But then again, no truly "Capitalist" country ever existed either.

My main goal is to provide a roadmap to a Better Tomorrow.  That is the goal of the SUN project.  I know the current system in the FSoA is FUBAR and will collapse of it's own accord.  So I present ideas on how to improve on things as the spin down progresses in terms of equity in collapse.  It won't take monkeys flying out of your ass either.  It will just take empty shelves at Walmart.

If you don't like the new system, feel free to hop on a sailboat and go...somewhere else.

RE
  ;D
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:39:13 pm »

The issue here is that "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".  As long as you maintain the position the "Capitalism has some good points, it was just corrupted by a few Evil Men at the top", you are part of the problem.  This is the group of people who now try to make a distinction between "capitalism" and "corporatism". Trying to throw whitewash over a really bad system which has impoverished billions for the profit of 1%.  It's not the "few bad apples" that make Capitalism bad, the system itself is rotten to the core.

Will Socialism fix all the ills of resource depletion and population overshoot we have now?  Of course not, but it would provide a more equitable distribution of wealth during the spin down.  All the wealth of the top 10% should be stripped and used to fund the rebuilding of public infrastructure.  All excess housing besides the dwelling a person actually lives in should be converted to housing for the Homeless.  All excess vehicles besides the one the person needs for daily tasks should be converted to a fleet for pbulicly available rental cars at affordable prices.  All wages should come within 1 Standard Deviation of the mean, in our current economy around $70K household income.  Essentially this means nobody over $150K, nobody under $35K.  Medical care should be public and supported by taxation on profits and excess income above the $150K threshhold.

Most industries should be converted to Worker Cooperatives, run by the workers.  The main conduits in particular, Energy, Food, Housing, Medicine, Communications and Transportation.  Managers should be selected by the workers, not by the share holders in a corporation.  Banking and Money Creation should be done by Goobermint, not by a private cartel of International Banksters.

Many other changes are necessary of course, but this would be a good start towards managing the spin down we have ahead here.  Capitalism and its Apologists are the Enemy, they gotta go.

RE

This is all so incredibly f u c k i n' silly.

It's ALL gonna go. Capitalist, socialist, monarchy, whatever.

What's a socialist country anyway?  Are there any in existence? Where?

I see some "social democracies". These are capitalist countries, because it's the capitalists paying the taxes that create the wealth to redistribute.

Sweden is the poster child.

Yesterday I got in trouble with Palloy because I said Russia was socialist, and he corrected me. They have rich oligarchs.

China has all kinds of rich oligarchs.

Viet Nam?

N Korea?

Cuba?

Are those your idea of a successful way to run a  country. No thanks. I'll pass. The Repressed Citizens of America are way better off than the people in any of those places. Even smack shootin' rednecks in the trailer park are better off. People in NK are HUNGRY. The poor people here are obese.

Do you mean some hypothetical socialist country where people in power DON'T feather their own nests because they can? Some perfect world socialist country. Yeah, I'll take that. But it'll only happen when flocks of flying monkeys erupt from my ass
.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:36:31 pm »

As I have previously posted, the historical narrative claims that Hoover used his COINTELPRO tools only AFTER 1947. That is a bold faced lie. Yes, they were more polished and high tech by the 1950's, but they were a rinse and repeat of what Hoover began doing as far back as the early 20th Century, when he fabricated evidence against Anarchists/Socialists/Communists, even before Hoover orchestrated the 1919 First Red Scare. By that time most, if not all of the following heinous tools of repression, were old hat for Hoover, who carefully developed ALL OF THEM.

Hoover was engaged in Eavesdropping, Bogus mail, Black propaganda, Disinformation, Harassment arrests, Infiltrators or agent provocateurs, Bad-jacketing, Fabrication of evidence and Assassinations.

Here's an explanation of each morally bankrupt technique plus some true US history NOT taught in the USA:

Quote
The FBI, in close collaboration with local police units (sometimes called Red Squads ), used a number of techniques in its efforts to disrupt and destroy leftist groups, the most important of which are enumerated here.5

Eavesdropping: This involved not only electronic surveillance, but also putting “tails” on people and breaking into offices and homes, as well as tampering with mail. The FBI's intention was not simply to gather intelligence, but, by making their presence known in various ways, create paranoia among activists.

Bogus mail: FBI agents would fabricate letters, ostensibly written by movement activists, which spread lies and disinformation. The Bureau sent many fake letters to American Indian Movement (AIM) and Black Panther Party (BPP) leaders and activists that were designed to sow confusion and division in the ranks. The Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver wings of the BPP, for example, were split after the FBI sent a number of manufactured letters from disgruntled party members to Cleaver, then in exile in Algeria, criticizing Huey Newton's leadership.

Black propaganda: The distribution of fabricated articles, leaflets, etc., that misrepresented the politics and objectives of an organization or leader, in order to discredit the group or individual and to pit people and organizations against each other.

Disinformation: The FBI often released false or misleading information to the press to discredit groups or individuals and to foster tension.

Harassment arrests: The police or FBI often arrested leaders and activists on trumped up charges in order to tie up activists in legal and court proceedings, drain their financial resources, and heighten their sense of fear and paranoia.

Infiltrators or agent provocateurs: The infiltration of organizations by police agents served two purposes. One was to gather intelligence on the group. Provocateurs were used to try and encourage individuals to engage in illegal activity that could then be attributed to the group as a whole; to disrupt the internal functioning of organizations; and to assist in spreading of disinformation inside and outside the group.

Bad-jacketing: This “refers to the practice of creating suspicion-through the spread of rumors, manufacture of evidence, etc.-that bonafide organizational members, usually in key positions, are FBI/police informers.”6 The technique was used to particularly deadly effect inside the American Indian Movement. Talented AIM activist Anna Mae Aquash, for example, who was murdered on Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota in February 1976, was first subject to a successful whispering campaign, initiated against her by FBI informant Doug Durham, who had joined the AIM chapter in Des Moines, Iowa. Durham's role in AIM also seems to have been to encourage AIM members to engage in “rash, inflammatory acts,” according to author Peter Mathiessen.7 Durham, for example, released “several unauthorized memos, disseminated on organizational letterhead, indicating that AIM was preparing to launch a campaign of 'systematic violence.'”8

Fabrication of evidence: FBI agents, police, and prosecutors routinely fabricated evidence in order to obtain convictions in criminal cases against activists. A number of AIM and BPP activists, including BPP leader Geronimo Pratt and AIM leader Leonard Peltier, who has been in prison for three decades for a crime he did not commit, were convicted on such trumped-up evidence.9

Assassinations: There is ample evidence that FBI and related agencies played a direct role in the assassination of a number of key radical leaders.

Who did COINTELPRO target?

While COINTELPRO was initiated against the Communist Party (CP) in 1956, the program expanded to include civil rights groups and the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP) by the time Kennedy became president in 1961 and his brother, Robert, served as attorney general. In fact, Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous “I Have a Dream” speech at the 1963 March on Washington, months before Kennedy's assassination, won him the FBI designation as “the most dangerous Negro in the future of this Nation.”10 President Johnson, while expanding the war in Vietnam and rhetorically battling the war on poverty at home, used the Black inner-city rebellions of the mid-sixties from Watts to Detroit as a pretext to issue “'standing instructions' that the Bureau should bring the 'instigators' of such 'riots' to heel, by any means at its disposal.”11

Among the many targets of COINTELPRO, the most serious attention was paid to those movements that most threatened state interests. The most violent repression under COINTELPRO was used against the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, the American Indian Movement, and the Puerto Rican independence movement. It was fueled by the state's need to preserve the near total political and economic disenfranchisement of people of color in the face of the first serious threats to the racial status quo since post-Civil War Reconstruction. The need of the American empire to keep Puerto Rico in its colonial orbit, while it was losing the war in Southeast Asia, drove the violent repression there and against Puerto Rican immigrants in the United States.


http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/cointelpro.shtml





Read more: https://www.noi.org/cointelpro/

It is also germaine to this discussion of WHO gets marginalized and WHY in our Capitalist "Paradise" to remember that the "right" to VOTE for women, Native Americans. African Americans AND Puerto Ricans (1916 Jones Act made them citizens so they could be Cannon fodder for WWI), as long as they moved to the continental USA, if they moved to the USA was obtained until IT DID NOT MATTER. That is, the CORK on the maximum number of Representatives in Congress was (illegally -it was NEVER ratified by the required numberof States!) was rammed though in 1911. So, any semblance of a "Democratic" Republic that USA had disappeared into the Capitalist Boardrooms who buy our politiicians to make "laws" for them.

Quote
In addition to setting the number of U.S. Representatives at 435 😈 💵 🎩 🍌[ img]http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif[/img]  , the Apportionment Act of 1911 returned to the Webster method of apportionment of U.S. Representatives. Adopted in 1868, Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had already removed the three-fifths method of counting slaves, and instead required "counting the whole number of all persons in each State."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911


This is an old graphic. A Capitalist RAT has been replaced. But they are still a bunch Capitalist TOADY RATS!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:29:44 pm »

Eddie, the reason I have engaged your erroneous view of Capitalism and american Anti-Socialist skullduggery before 1947 is not to actually convine you of anything. I just wanted to make it clear to everyone reading here that, as you said, you do not care. I wish you did care. Nevertheless it is refreshing to hear you admit you do not.

Once again you are trying to twist my words. I leave it to any readers who might have a shred of intelligence to figure that out. I expect there are some, but they probably can see that you're a crank too, and won't waste time responding.

That my view is or was erroneous is your take. And I have taken the time to try to explain why I disagree, which is way more than I should have done.

What I don't care about is what silly old cranks think, you included. I do care about the subject material, which should be obvious to anyone who took the time to read what I wrote. It's not hard to follow unless you have real tunnel vision.

That's Ad hom.    I thought you weren't going  to "waste your time". Have a nice day.

Oh, I'm ad hom now am I? 

What I am is tired of people putting words in my mouth. I don't suffer fools gladly. Your bullshit about my "erroneous" views is worse than ad hom. It's a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my POV, which you are never going to get away with.

Erroneous views....f u ck you, a s s h o l e.

Now THAT is ad hom. Just so you know.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:21:53 pm »


All this stuff about brainwashed capitalist ideologues believing this thing that's wrong or that thing....it's so obvious that you have this construct in your mind about what "other" people (like me in particular)  believe. I'll tell you just like I told Palloy. You really don't have much of a clue what I believe. And it's because you don't pay much attention to what I write here, since you have so many pre-conceived erroneous notions.

And you thought it was about the "Evil Red Russians", didn't you?

Uh, no. Actually, I didn't think that.

Durng the 1930's there was a LULL in Capitalist anti-Communist activity, NOT a "friendly to Communists/Socialists" activity. 


Actually, in the 1930's there were millions of people with no money, no food, and no prospects. This created a powerful impetus for change. Change did occur.

As recently as the 1920's we had people like Scott Nearing being fired from his faculty position at the Wharton School of Business because he wrote articles criticizing child labor in NYC sweat shops. We don't have sweat shops now, and that's because, between the labor unions and the New Deal, which instituted America's version of what you could call Social Democracy Lite, the plight of working people in this country improved a lot. My opinion is that the success of what real socialists would consider very minor improvements were enough keep working people from fomenting revolution.

POLITICS IN THE GREAT DEPRESSION
 BACK NEXT
Radical Alternatives to a Collapsing System
In retrospect, we know that during the Great Depression the American people never rose up en masse to demand the overhaul—much less overthrow—of their long-established system of democratic capitalism, even though that system largely failed to relieve the miseries of the Depression for more than a decade.

In retrospect, we know that most meaningful long-lasting reform that emerged from the crisis of the Great Depression came from Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which permanently enlarged the role of the federal government in American society and tempered, for half a century, the volatility of the free market.

At the time, however, it wasn't at all clear that the New Deal marked the outer limit of possible sociopolitical change. The structural breakdown of the American system led many Americans to embrace much more radical alternatives to the status quo. And while none of those radical alternatives were ever fully realized (and many of them seem downright quixotic in hindsight), they did profoundly alter the boundaries of political possibility while influencing the direction of the New Deal.

American Communists: From Sectarianism to Popular Front
For communists, the Great Crash of 1929 and its bleak aftermath seemed definitive proof of Karl Marx's assertion that capitalism contained within itself the seeds of its own destruction. While communists hoped—and most everyone else feared—that the Great Depression would lead to a proletarian uprising, the revolution never materialized.

Always a tiny minority in American society, the communists weakened their position further through their own rigid adherence to counterproductive doctrine. Until 1935, the Communist Party U.S.A. (CPUSA), following the direction of the Communist International in Moscow, insisted that the greatest threat to worldwide workers' revolution came from the false promise of other liberal and left-wing groups. So, throughout the early years of the Depression, American communists devoted an inordinate amount of their time and resources to attacking New Dealers, socialists, Wobblies, American Federation of Labor trade unionists, Lovestonites, Musteites, and other obscure groups of non-communist left-wingers as "social fascists."

The average American worker—who surely couldn't distinguish a Musteite from a Muscovite if his life depended on it—found nothing appealing in the communists' extreme sectarianism. By 1934, despite the seemingly favorable circumstances for recruitment created by the Depression, the CPUSA still had fewer than 30,000 members nationwide.26

After 1935, however, international communist doctrine changed. Rather than denouncing non-communist liberals as "social fascists," communists would seek to make common cause with them under the banner of the "Popular Front." The new strategy freed American communists to work with New Dealers and trade unionists, which allowed the CPUSA to achieve the widest influence in its history. Communist activists took up leading roles in organizations defending civil rights and civil liberties, advocating friendship with the Soviet Union, representing the unemployed, and—especially—organizing the huge new unions of the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations).

While the Communist Party never gained a mass following in the United States, and Americans never came anywhere close to a Red Revolution, the Popular Front did allow the communists to achieve a wider influence in American society than ever before or since.

"Bring Back Some of That Grub!"
In the 1930s, the communists were far from alone in advocating the redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots. Bombastic Louisiana Democratic Senator Huey P. Long shot to national prominence by promising to "Share Our Wealth." Long sold his simple vision—which called for limiting wealthy individuals' fortunes to a few million dollars and redistributing the "excess" to the masses—with a uniquely folksy, if demagogic, personal style.

Long memorably likened the Depression-era economy to a Louisiana barbecue.

"How many men ever went to a barbecue and would let one man take off the table what's intended for nine-tenths of the people to eat? The only way you'll ever be able to feed the balance of the people is to make that man come back and bring back some of that grub that he ain't got no business with!

Now we got a barbecue. We have been praying to the Almighty to send us a feast. We have knelt on our knees morning and nighttime. The Lord has answered the prayer. He has called the barbecue. 'Come to my feast,' He said to 125 million American people. But Morgan and Rockefeller and Mellon and Baruch have walked up and took 85 percent of the victuals off the table!

Now, how are you going to feed the balance of the people? What's Morgan and Baruch and Rockefeller and Mellon going to do with all that grub? They can't eat it, they can't wear the clothes, they can't live in the houses... when they've got everything on God's loving earth that they can eat and they can wear and they can live in, and all that their children can live in and wear and eat, and all of their children's children can use, then we've got to call Mr. Morgan and Mr. Mellon and Mr. Rockefeller back and say, come back here, put that stuff back on this table here that you took away from here that you don't need. Leave something else for the American people to consume. And that's the program."27

The program, crude as it was, may have been entirely unrealistic, but that didn't stop it from becoming wildly popular. By 1935, Long claimed that more than 7.5 million Americans subscribed to the mailing lists of the 27,000 Share Our Wealth clubs scattered throughout the country.28

Long, who criticized the New Deal as too conservative, pondered an independent run for the White House in 1936—and Democratic polls indicated he might win as many as three or four million votes, potentially costing President Roosevelt his re-election. Some even feared that Huey Long's populism and personality cult made him a likely candidate to become an American fascist dictator; Roosevelt called him one of the two most dangerous men in the country.

Huey Long's left-populist challenge to Roosevelt ended on September 8th, 1935, when he was assassinated inside the Louisiana state capitol by the son-in-law of a local political enemy. A faint echo of Long's Share the Wealth program survived, however, in Roosevelt's "Wealth Tax" of 1935, which boosted the highest tax rate for the richest Americans to a nearly confiscatory 79%.

EPIC Threat In California

In 1934, the New Deal received another major challenge from the left—this time in California. Upton Sinclair—a writer remembered today mainly as the author of The Jungle, the classic 1906 muckraking exposé of the meatpacking industry—was a lifelong socialist who became frustrated with the New Deal's inability to end the Depression and founded EPIC (End Poverty in California) to pursue more radical solutions.

Rather than putting the unemployed on relief, Sinclair proposed to put them to work within a state-organized "production-for-use" economy totally independent from the capitalist marketplace. Under Sinclair's communitarian scheme, the state would take over idle farms and factories, allowing the jobless to grow their own food or produce their own clothing and other goods. Any surplus could be traded, through a system of barter, only for other goods produced within the system.

It was a shocking commentary on the state of the capitalist economy that Sinclair's scheme—which wasn't really much different from a pre-modern barter system—was seen by many Californians as a visionary solution to modern America's problems.

Registering as a Democrat, Sinclair ran for Governor on the EPIC platform in 1934, and pulled off a huge, surprising victory in the primary election. Considered the front-runner in the general election, Sinclair was subjected to intense attacks from both Republicans and Democrats who feared that his victory would effectively remove California from the capitalist orbit and pave the way for communism.

Meanwhile, Sinclair was also attacked by the communists themselves, who stuck to their sectarian policy by attacking EPIC as "social fascism.") Opponents of EPIC—including many New Dealers who reluctantly backed arch-conservative Republican Frank Merriam over the old muckraker—claimed that if Sinclair were elected, California would be overrun by millions of hoboes looking for a free lunch and that Sinclair "concealed the communistic wolf in the dried skin of the Democratic donkey."29

Sinclair lost the general election, drawing almost 880,000 votes to Merriam's 1.13 million. Still, considering the radicalism (and even utopianism) of the EPIC platform, Sinclair's vote tally was remarkably high; if 260,000 Californians had switched their votes in Sinclair's favor, California would have embarked upon a socio-economic experiment unlike anything in American history.

Pensioners to the Rescue: The Townsend Plan
California was also the origin of another radical scheme that swept the nation toward the latter end of President Roosevelt's first term: the Townsend Plan.

Francis Townsend, 66 years old, was a retired country doctor. Believing that the two fundamental problems underlying the Depression were too little consumer spending and too many workers seeking too few jobs, Townsend proposed a national sales tax to fund a $200 monthly pension for all Americans over age 60 who pledged not to work and to spend the full amount within the month. The scheme would remove the elderly from the work force, opening up jobs for younger workers, while the seniors' mandatory spending of $200 a month each would create the demand for consumer goods needed to get the economy going again.

Like Huey Long's Share the Wealth program, the Townsend Plan was politically appealing but economically preposterous. Funding Townsend's generous pensions for the aged would have absorbed fully half the national income.30

Still, like Share the Wealth, the Townsend movement attracted millions of boosters throughout the country. As many as 25 million Americans signed petitions demanding that their representatives pass the Townsend Plan as a federal law.

In the end, the Townsend Plan was pre-empted by FDR's own Social Security legislation, which passed in 1935 and provided federal pensions to the elderly, at least in part to head off Townsend's momentum. However, Social Security benefits initially were only about one-tenth of those called for by Dr. Townsend, and Townsend Clubs remained active in demanding more generous old-age pensions well into the 1950s.



https://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/politics.html


You're making me into some kind of cut-out enemy in your mind. It isn't your portrayal of the facts that I take issue with, it's your venomous anger at what you perceive as capitalism being the personification of evil, and the way you make it into this black and white issue, whereby anyone who questions your assumptions sends you off to write the definitive opus on the history of capitalism...in order to set me straight on the facts. Dude, I have some slight comprehension of the facts. I just don't agree with you completely.

I really don't find anything in this long rant that I didn't know, at least in general terms...or anything in your broader assessment that I even disagree with that much. But like all your posts on this subject, it's the product of a very narrow view, and it's the equivalent of a five minute book report on an epic novel. It's very much the Readers Digest condensed version for rabid socialists. There's a whole lot left out.


Since the 1930's, this country has been a very weak social democracy, no matter what you choose to call it. Marx was right. Pure capitalism did run into big problems. But it wasn't overthrown or eliminated. It was slightly modified, out of sheer necessity, at a time when the capitalists were running scared. This proved to be enough to keep the wheels from coming off.

Marx never anticipated the information age, nor did any other economic theorists. Just when capitalism started to hit the wall again, the age of computers changed everything again, providing a new economic engine from digital technology. At the same time, the shift of manufacturing to China started making consumer goods really comparatively cheap by historical standards.

Too many people got fat and happy, and the foxes took over the henhouse. There's more to it. At this same time Wall Street predators like Carl Icahn learned to destroy US companies for fun and profit.

Maybe blame some of what's happened to the successful Bernaysian brainwashing Palloy likes to talk about. I blame a lot of it on schools that dumb kids down instead of making them into critical thinkers.

But now, most people just can't connect the dots. It's beyond their limited ability to comprehend....it's a complex system with lots of nuances. Not one person in 1000 has the least clue what's going on.


The 1970's was a time of great hope. But the public got really complacent. The pendulum was allowed to swing very hard to the right in the 1980's, and it hasn't quite even started to swing back. It will, I believe. But I expect it will be a case of "too little too late".

I do agree with Palloy that media brainwashing played a roll in creating the public attitudes that brought us the Reagans and all that's followed. I just don't want him or you to think that my POV comes from a lifetime of Bernaysian programming. If I weren't capable of critical thinking, I probably wouldn't hang out on a site populated by folks waiting for the end of Life As We Know It.

As I've said before, and I will repeat one more time, I'm not a Reaganite or a Trumpite. I come from a working class background, and I've  never been any kind of apologist whatsoever for the evils of capitalism. I'm an armchair student of human social interactions, of which politics is a part. I'm just as much as perplexed and upset about the failures of human civilization as you are. I just don't worship socialism like you do. I'd be happy, though, with a more equitable arrangement than what we have now.

But we aren't headed for a successful socialist revolution. Even if we have one, it won't help much. Our birthright has already been spent, and we can't get it back. We are primed for a new socialist  movement. But it won't be driven by a sensible desire to share the wealth. It will be driven by the coming collapse, which will push the have-nots to insist that the state needs to save them from homelessness and starvation.

If resources were plentiful, something good might come of that. As it is, it will be a useless, last minute attempt to stop the Titanic from going down, and it won't work.

I take a critical view of most ideologies, including capitalism, but also socialism. My objections to socialism as a panacea have a lot to do with the nuts and bolts of how it works, and not the broader ideas.

We no longer have the same situation that we had in 1877 or even in 1919.

Taxation of workers, for instance. In 1900 there was no income tax and no sales tax. Now those two consume as much as half of what a worker makes.

Taxation is the engine that's supposed to provide the cash for the programs that a social democracy provides. I consider myself a worker. I derive my income from highly skilled labor. The investments I make come from the surplus I create. I don't steal it from anybody, RE's rants to the contrary not withstanding. This makes me fundamentally different from the people you refer to as capitalists, who really are CORPORATISTS.

If the transfer of wealth from overtaxation was passed through to give benefits for the truly needy that'd be one thing. Or if it went to good causes like university education. But the truth is that taxation is a way of bleeding the poor and he middle class, so that the rich can build these conduit schemes in the course of administering the benefits.....that accrues even more wealth to them and their infernal corporations.

And it creates the system for deficit financing for a permanent state of war, instead of creating the decent social programs we should be paying for.

We could fix all this pretty easily. But we don't. We haven't. I have to assume we will not.

So pardon me, but I object to wealth transfers that lead to massive wasted resources and misappropriations. Especially when it involves me writing six figure checks to the IRS, which I do every year.

If we could just:

Limit terms for politicians.

Limit the accumulation of massive intergenerational wealth.

Take corporate money out of the election process.

Three simple steps....this would change everything. But people ARE too programmed and/or too dumb to figure it out. So everybody loses. None of those obvious simple things can even be accomplished.

Your depiction of "capitalists" as if they were some nameless, faceless group of evil smokestack era industrialists who all eat dinner at the same club together and plot to keep the masses of working stiffs in line? That might have made sense in 1920. But it isn't an accurate depiction of where we are, and sadly, it can't be fixed by the few well-meaning, ethical politicians who are left. All three of them. (Maybe fewer, that's an optimistic estimate.) Bernie can't fix it. I'd vote for him if I could, but he still couldn't fix our predicament.

So all this sturm and drang about the Workers Struggle and the Evil Elites is just a lot of farting in the breeze now. It's all over......all but the part where the anvil lands on Wylie Coyote's head and squashes him flat.

I'm not sure, but I suspect you probably were one of the air traffic controllers that got **** over by Reagan, which was kind of a watershed event, whereby the capitalists were finally able to start taking things back off the table that workers of previous generations worked so hard to get.

I can understand that you might have a very personal reason to be invested in your personal POV, which I consider completely legitimate, btw. I'm not even arguing with you. I'm trying to make you understand my points, which often get ignored, as you folks with such strong belief systems want to put me in a box that isn't even my box.

I hated Reagan and the reactionaries who put him in charge. Believe me when I tell you that I view Ronald Reagan's presidency as The Beginning Of The End of America. I hated that prick and everything he stood for.

And just a couple more things. Just an aside, really. When I mentioned Hoover, I wasn't talking about J. Edgar Hoover. I know what a tool he was. I'm old enough to actually remember him.

I was talking about ex-president Herbert Hoover, who headed the Hoover Commission, the erroneous findings of which landed us in Viet Nam for all the wrong reasons (among other negative consequences).

And that part about all anarchists being socialists? Not sure if that was ever true, but it certainly is not true now. And they aren't all pacifists either. Not Ted K.

But this rant is over for me, and your follow-up, now doubt delivered in a tone even more shrill, must remain unanswered by me. I just don't care enough about what you believe to even waste my time.

The gentlleman Eddie doth protest too much!

Eddie said, after a long post where in which he assumes my post is directed exclusively at him. That's rather arrogant of you, Eddie.


Quote
But this rant is over for me, and your follow-up, now doubt delivered in a tone even more shrill, must remain unanswered by me. I just don't care enough about what you believe to even waste my time.

Eddie, the reason I have engaged your erroneous view of Capitalism and American Anti-Socialist skullduggery before 1947 is not to actually convince you of anything. I just wanted to make it clear to everyone reading here that, as you said, you do not care. I wish you did care. Nevertheless it is refreshing to hear you admit you do not.

I had other reasons. Many here don't know the history and I wanted to help them understand it. Capitalism is morally bankrupt. It really bends you out of shape for me to say that and you take it personally while trying to frame me as the "touchy" hysteric. You shouldn't. You then ascribe all sorts of hatefilled hysteria to me. You shouldn't. I'm for peace, not hate. Capitalism is for hate, division, poverty and war for profit. If you don't believe that, you are wrong.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:14:51 pm »

FWIW, my reading of history agrees. Few people know and NONE are told we sent troops to Russia in 1919. I once did a documentary of Armand Hammer's art collection,  which he amassed during that time. The Russian government in the early 20s was being economically strangled (sound familiar?) and had no access to forex. Supposedly (this is what the curator told me) Hammer brought in shipments of food and medicine to Russia and took artwork as payment. Which was the start of a collection to which he added for the rest of his life.

A lot of nineteenth-century French art, with significant examples of different schools represented.  Plenty of portraiture and landscape. There are some surprises as well: Gustave Moreau’s  King David and evocative Salomé Dancing before Herod are really first rate and are two of the artist’s most renowned works, while masters like Rembrandt, van Gogh, degas, renoir, Durer,  Mary Cassatt, Thomas Eakins, John Singer Sargent, and Gilbert Stuart are also in the collection.

Sorry, took a trip down memory lane there.

The point of the reply was to affirm the historical antipathy that TPTB have had for ANY sort of collective action. And that screaming crimson line shrieks out from the pages of labor history, traced from Homestead to Haymarket to Ludlow to Blair Mountain. And it continues today, but just like colonial exploitation, it shows up in more civilized drag, for appearances' sake.


 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:12:00 pm »

Its wrong to say Anarchists support socialism, just not soviet style. Capitalists are actually more supportive of Socialism than Anarchists. Anarchists do not want a govt at all, so they definitely don't want a govt to tax them to provide social services. Democratic Socialism actually depends on Capitalism. If they dont have capitalism to tax to provide healthcare, education and social security, it can only be done through communism, for a while. Theres a reason China didnt go down with the Soviet Union and Cuba is doing better without Castro calling the shots, pun intended. Pointing this out doesn't give me an affinity with Mitch Romny either.

Sir, you are splitting Socialist hairs. That part about Anarchists not agreeing to Soviet style Communism, which Anarchists NOW, AT PRESENT, label as "State Capitalism", is not relevant to Anarchist total solidarity with the Socialst movement in the USA, even before the 20th Century began. Had you watched the Columbia University video in my post, the  common ground between Anarchists and Socialists, due to the brutal, dangerous and deadly working conditions in the USA when the 20th Century began, would have been made clear to you.

Hoover was out to GIT the Anarchists BECAUSE they recognized, like the Communists/Socialists, the moral bankruptcy of Capitalism.

The attitude of Capitalists towards ANY economic sytem based on Liberty and Justice for ALL has always been negative, to put it mildly.

Your posts usually concentrate on the negative track record of Socialist/Communist governments while studiously ignoring the massive record of human rights abuse by Capitalist governments, especially our US Fascist Paradise Government. That is a sophistic debating technique. Yes, it is clever but it is fallacious. 

I suggest you try to be more even handed in your comparison of the two systems (yes, there are basically ONLY TWO systems in discussion here). All human run systems are flawed and it is easy to cherry pick the negative aspects of any one of them.

Nevertheless, it is incorrect to claim that Capitalism has the moral high ground over all things Socialist. The exact reverse is true.

The two comments in the following graphic provide Prima Facie evidence that Capitalists=War Loving, Greed Inspired, Conscience Free Predators are the sworn enemies of all things Socialist AND that Capitalism is morally bankrupt.


The only solution is to LEAVE NOW, before the next and final financial crash.

I have considered it. Being in the belly of the beast is no fun at all. But, as many have accurately posted here in regard to said Imperial Capitalist Beast, it's better to hide behnd the spear than to be target practice for it.

I am old. I am weak. My orthostatic hypotension is getting worse, despite the fact that I have a pacemaker for Bradycardia. Ive got to be careful when I lean over for any reason to straighten up slowly to avoid a dizzy spell.

All I can do is live frugally, as an example to others, and expose injustice and inequality based on profit over people and planet with posts here and on my forum while I still have the ability to do so. The Moral Bankruptcy of the Capitalist Powers That Be who presently Dominate the World Economy = Inevitable Collapse FOLLOWED BY a thousand years or so of an overheated planet that humans are NOT adapted to surviving in.

I know, Palloy, it IS a tough world. But, there is no planet B.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:09:44 pm »

Capitalist Demonization and Violent Abuse of Communists/Socialists/Anarchists in the US before 1947

A spectacular summary. What an amazing thing to find after a week away.

Thank you, Surly. I'm glad to be of service.

The genesis of that post where I put my knowledge of this particular bit of American History together was a discussion between Eddie and I. Since you were gone for a while, here's the back and forth from a few days ago:

Communism wasn't a negative buzzword here before the war. It all changed in about '47.  The exact circumstances of how that changed are of interest to me. I think it was the deliberate work of people like the Dulles brothers and Wild Bill Donovan, the guys who gave us the real Deep State.

In spite of Palloy's assertions that the story is well understood in "other countries", I don't really think that's true, beyond the superficial stuff.

There was a conspiracy at the highest levels. It involved lots of people who probably went to their graves with secrets they never told. Now we'll never know.

I thought it was interesting that Trump backed off on declassifying all the JFK files. There are threads there that somebody might unravel.

Yeah the one group its okay for any American to hate is the communists. We learned that sh it. When the Soviet Union fell, it left a big gap in our "hated enemy" category. So lucky we found al Quaeda and ISIS  before it was too late.


I totally disagree that Communism was not a negative "buzzword" before WWII. You are right about the history after 1947. You are wrong about it before. I know that history well. Palloy's views have nothing to do with my extensive knowledge of American History, sir.

We had troops in Russia after the Communist Revolution. They were not there to provide good will. There is a lot more. If you want chapter and verse about Hoover's activities, I will dig them up. If you want to know what went down right around the the turn of the century (19th to 20th) that was RABIDLY anti-Socialist in this country, I'll dig it up. Remember the "anarchists"? They just wanted to get paid properly for their labor. Their polices were socialist to the core. They were demonized and crushed because they saw through the Capitalist bullshit. The "bombings" attributed to the anarchists was part of that demonization. The real violence was that of our government against them!


Hoover was very busy in the early 20th century MANUFACTURING the First Red Scare on behalf Capitalists who DID NOT want to pay people fair wages. It's too long to quote here, but I learned much about Hoover's skullduggery from reading about Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who is famous for all his principled dissents on the Child Labor and Capitalist Cruelty defending Supreme Court (1902-1932). That is NOT taught in American History courses, even in college. You've got to DIG to find the truth. And that truth is the US Government (spare me the FDR talk. He could just barely control the Capitalist Crazies) AND the police were, and still are, anti-Communist/Socialist to the core!

Here are some quotes that somewhat address the issue:

Quote
Capitalist Propaganda BEFORE Bernays!

The First Red Scare was a period during the early 20th-century history of the United States marked by a widespread fear of Bolshevism and anarchism, due to real and imagined events; real events included those such as the Russian Revolution and anarchist bombings. At its height in 1919–1920, concerns over the effects of radical political agitation in American society and the alleged spread of communism and anarchism in the American labor movement fueled a general sense of concern ;).

Now just WHO 💵 🎩do you think was "concerned", if not the Capitalist Business Community🐉🦕 🦖 that OWNED Hoover?

Quote
J. Edgar Hoover, then director of the FBI, was an ardent anti-communist whose influence had perpetuated the first Red Scare. 
 
Hoover and his investigators used espionage tactics of their own to locate potential communists, including wiretaps, surveillance, and infiltrating leftist organizations. The efficiency of the FBI ;) was critical in many high-profile cases.

The following exercise in US Propaganda happy talk totally conveniently misses the FACT that many Americans believed all this hysterical scaremongering because they were lied to about the "Communist threat" by our government, which manufactured it out of thin air.

There WAS NO Communist threat in regard to WAR. The REVERSE was true. Russia wanted to work with us avoid an arms race and nuclear proliferation. Truman knew that and did not give a rat's ass about it. Yeah, there was money to be made by our Capitalist MIC pretending Russia was gonna git us. But, that was just a BAU benefit of our
mens rea modus operandi.

The actual rationale behind BOTH Red Scares was that Socialism threatens Greed Based Capiitalist BAU and therefore must be demonized, period. If you believe otherwise, I must vigorously disagree with you.

Quote
Second Red Scare

The Second Red Scare (1947-1957) was a fear-driven phenomenon brought on by the growing power of communist countries in the wake of the Second World War, particularly the Soviet Union. Many in the U.S. feared that the Soviet Union and its allies were planning to forcefully spread communism around the globe, overthrowing both democratic and capitalist institutions as it went. With the Soviet Union occupying much of Eastern and Central Europe, many in the U.S. perceived their fears of communist expansionism as confirmed. The U.S. also feared that communist agents had infiltrated the federal government. A massive witch hunt to root out communist sympathizers ensued.

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Second_Red_Scare

Unions and the robber baron capitalists certainly had some major clashes. But the unions ultimately won a lot...for a while. My father walked the picket lines. I remember his union was on strike for months when I was about 10 years old. It was a tough time.  When I was young I was actually a shop steward in the plant where my Dad worked. I paid union dues. So long ago now, nearly 40 years. Seems like another life.

I'm not questioning your history knowledge. Don't be so touchy.

I'm not saying that the capitalists with their private cops and strike breakers weren't bad guys. I know about Joe Hill and Sacco and Vanzetti, and the IWW and all that. The Haymarket Riots. I took American History too, although none of that stuff was stressed in the curriculum where  I went to school, as you can imagine.

I even read some of Steinbeck's book In Dubious Battle, which is very dark and so sad it made me cry. I never could finish it.

But in the 30's it was cool to be communist if your were an intellectual in say, NYC. That's why the stupid McCarthy hearings were so damaging. There were plenty of people to accuse, and they were guilty, if going to a meeting once or twice made you guilty of something. There was a time during the Depression when socialism looked pretty good to a lot of out-of-work Americans.

But something did change materially around the time of Churchill's famous speech. From that time, there was an intense campaign by the Bernaysians to make sure every American hated communism. It certainly was intentional, and in my view, was the brainchild of someone. And that someone was probably more like one or more of the people Carroll Quigley wrote about. The powers behind the throne. And the guys who started the CIA and founded the USMIC.

If you can point me to a book that covers that part of it, I'd like to see it. I don't think the story has been told, but I could certainly be in error.

A very interesting character in the Red Scare was a well-known radio personality who grew up and lived here. His name was John Henry Falk. He's dead now. There isn't much left of his work, but there are a few bits. This utoob is him going off on Reagan in the late 80's.

He sued the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and finally won, although it was a pyrrhic victory. One of my heroes.



Touchy" has nothing to do with the fact that you have an incorrect view of anti-communist activity in the USA before 1947. You are wrong about that. I have just posted the correct history to prove you are wrong. Yet, you want to discuss my "touchyness", followed by a lot of info that is frankly not relevent to the FIRST RED SCARE, which is the subject you do not want admit you were mistaken about.

Eddie, I know you. You will NOT back down.

I won't waste any more time explaining to you why you are wrong about the "fact" that anti-Communist/Socialist sentiment in the USA "only began after 1947".  Capitalism is the reason for ALL anti-Communist/Socialist sentiment in the USA, even before "Socialism" actually had a NAME! ANY attempt to defend the workers and give them a fair shake after the Industrial Revolution began was BRUTALLY CRUSHED by the Capitalists, period.

The Haymarket Affair is probably the first exposure of an in-your-face Capitalist attack on Socialists. The enmity of Capitalists for employee rights has never abated. I know you don't think so. Therefore, I respectfully must claim that you are wrong. Have a nice day.

I'll dig up some quotes from historical documents tomorrow. You are free to believe what you wish.


Furthermore, the above discussion was an extension of the following discussion:


I think capitalism is a very mixed bag (some very, very bad issues, I do admit) , but people should be allowed to be communist if they want to be. Including West Point cadets.

Including anybody.

What I find abhorrent is the lack of tolerance. Kicking this young man out over his political beliefs is very obviously a clear violation of his rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution. But who cares, right? He's a communist.



First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

------------ Martin Niemoller


Capitalism US Style 🦍 has always been totally intolerant of Communism and any of its Socialist iterations here and abroad. There never has been any freedom in this country to be a Communist/Socialist, unless you plan to live in poverty with your Socialist principles. That is NOT "freedom". Yeah, you are "free" to believe any old thing you want and embrace any "ism" you want, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T CRITICIZE DA PROFITS OF DA BIDNESS.


The hysteria over the "Communist threat to our freedoms" goes all the way back to Hoover, even before that Capitalist Crook became he head of the FBI.

And even decades before that, the tyranny against the Socialists in Chicago (Haymarket arrests and Kangarro Court trials) evidenced the deep hatred and brutal intolerance for Socialism in this country by the business people who NEVER want to be on an equal footing with their employees in regard to pay, no matter how valuable the employee.

The Capitalist DISEASE forces people with high work skills to start their own business, thereby perpetrating the disease. It pits all against all in an insane race to see who pays their employees LESS, rather than motivate people to build a better, more caring society where people look to help each other, rather than stomp each other into the ground for profit.

The reason Italy did not go Socialist after WWII is because our CIA KILLED all the leaders of the movement there. Now Italy is going full fascist AGAIN, thanks to OUR Capitalist Skullduggery.

After WWII, the CIA sent a nice message to France, as well. France was leaning towards Socialst egalitarian policies and our CIA massively overdosed a WHOLE TOWN in France with LSD.
It wasn't to "try the drug out".


There are around ten or more other countries where other anti-socialst murder and mayhem Capitalist skullduggery was practiced. It continues to this day.

The Black Panthers, a NON-VIOLENT (though the propaganda BULLSHIT claimed otherwise) Socialst group were ruthllessly gunned down in various cities in the USA.

The McCarthy era witch hunts against Socialsts/Communists has never really gone away for a Capitalist reason.

Equality of opportunity and payment for work done, the basic idea behind Socialism, is a threat to any greed based system in general, and Capitalism in particular.

Capitalists don't give a rats ass about anybody's "rights". All that lip service about "freedom" is fine and dandy as long as the Socialist doesn't try to unionize da bidness. It's okay in the USA for Socialists to be "noble = poor", but the moment they actively question the bankrupt ethics of Capitalists, they get
Capitalist Police State Crushed.


THAT is the REAL history of Capitalism and Capitalists in the USA.  


Donald Trump is, and always has been, a TRUE REPRESENTATIVE of what Capitalism (which is nothing but dressed up Fascism) is.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:07:49 pm »

Thank you agelbert for all that.  Tactics used by DHS are rooted in J Edgar's legacy.  I'm sure we only know a few of the dirty tricks that were pulled back then and that is too bad, because some of the despicable tricks from back then continue to be used and not enough people know.

The master of frame narration did no write this because it was a fairy tale he thought up.



Something like the Boston Bombing was pulled off and he was writing about it.  Not directly related to American repressions but skulduggery was well developed back in the day.  Those repressing now are students of the past who fill the jobs created way back then.  They are getting paid to continue the project.  They turn a well worn crank.  Sometimes they activate a crank, or make a new one.

You are welcome, K-Dog. and thank you for your many posts with graphics that shed light on this and other issues people have been brainwashed to think wrongly about. 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 21, 2018, 10:40:48 pm »

Capitalist Demonization and Violent Abuse of Communists/Socialists/Anarchists in the US before 1947

Capitalist Demonization and Violent Abuse of Communists/Socialists/Anarchists in the US began in earnest, not after 1947, but in the 1880's. The post WWII Red Scare was a more polished repeat of past nefarious activities against labor for the purpose of destroying labor's ability to successfully demand decent wages and safe working conditions.   

Quote
The US labor movement had emerged as a national force in 1877, the same year Reconstruction came to its anti-climactic end. That year, more than one hundred thousand workers went out on strike in the Great Uprising. Spurred by wage cuts for railroad workers, the wildcat strike announced the working class’ presence as a force in American society.

For capital, it brought flashbacks to the Paris Commune, which had briefly terrorized the entire Atlantic ruling class. In St. Louis, the uprising developed into a general strike that united black and white workers.

The wealthy moved quickly to protect 🦍 their privileges. Militias and private armies battled with strikers across the country, and eventually the National Guard was deployed to put down the strike city by city. Over one hundred workers ultimately died in the fighting, and the strike was crushed.

The Uprising of 1877 set the general pattern for American labor history for much of the rest of the century
. Compared with the rest of the capitalist world, the American union movement remained small and defensive, constantly subject to the threat of violence both legal and extralegal.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/rise-and-fall-socialist-party-of-america


The other general pattern set from that crushed strike was the use of Capitalist owned newspapers to demonize Socialists. Xenophobia was stoked then, as it was in the Haymarket Affair and the First Red Scare and the Second Red Scare by demonizing "foreigner"Socialists/Anarchists/Reds/Communists. Before the infamous McCarthy (the post 1947 Anti-Socialist tool of J. Edgar Hoover) was even born, Anti-Socialst Newspaper Propaganda and the use of the police and the government to physically attack socialists was common.

The Haymarket Affair established the Capitalist PATTERN for the Red Scare, as an excuse to destroy the Socialist inspired labor movement that threatened Capitalist Routine Cruelty.

As the Industrial Revolution's horrendous working conditions and massive accident and death rate increased, labor fought harder to be treated with dignity.

The Capitalist elite in the USA already had the police harassing or even killing who they identified as leaders, but that was not effective enough. They needed a sort of "9/11" to demonize the Socialst movement. The Haymarket Affair began as a protest of the killing and wounding of several workers by the Chicago police the day before. The very LAST THING the workers wanted was to kill police! They were protesting wanton killing by the police!

The Capitalists saw this protest as an opportunity to demonize the Socialist protesters while portraying the police as "martyrs".

For those who think this is a conspiracy theory without merit, ask yourself HOW a person who HAD to have been known, either by the police or by the protesters in order be able to walk casually among them just before he threw the bomb, could NEVER be identified. TPTB DID NOT want that person to EVER be identified because he was an agent provocateur working FOR TPTB, PERIOD.

Quote

 
U.S. LABOR IN THE 1800S

Strikes by industrial workers were increasingly common in the United States in the 1880s, a time when working conditions often were dismal and dangerous, and wages were low.

The American labor movement during this time also included a radical faction of socialists, communists and anarchists who believed the capitalist system should be dismantled because it exploited workers. A number of these labor radicals were immigrants, many of them from Germany.

HAYMARKET RIOT BEGINS

The May 4, 1886, rally at Haymarket Square was organized by labor radicals to protest the killing and wounding of several workers by the Chicago police during a strike the day before at the McCormick Reaper Works.



Toward the end of the Haymarket Square rally, a group of policemen arrived to disperse the crowd. As the police advanced, an individual who was never identified threw a bomb 💣 at them. The police and possibly some members of the crowd opened fire and chaos ensued. Seven police officers and at least one civilian died as a result of the violence that day, and an untold number of other people were injured.


AFTERMATH OF THE HAYMARKET RIOT

The Haymarket Riot set off a national wave of xenophobia, as scores of foreign-born radicals and labor organizers were rounded up by the police in Chicago and elsewhere. In August 1886, eight men, labeled as anarchists, were convicted in a sensational and controversial trial in which the jury was considered to be biased and no solid evidence was presented linking the defendants to the bombing.

Judge Joseph E. Gary imposed the death sentence on seven of the men, and the eighth was sentenced to 15 years in prison. On November 11, 1887, four of the men were hanged.

Of the additional three who were sentenced to death, one committed suicide on the eve of his execution and the other two had their death sentences commuted to life in prison by Illinois Governor Richard J. Oglesby. The governor was reacting to widespread public questioning of their guilt, which later led his successor, Governor John P. Altgeld, to pardon the three activists still living in 1893.

In the aftermath of the Haymarket Riot and subsequent trial and executions, public opinion was divided. For some people, the events led to a heightened anti-labor sentiment, while others (including labor organizers around the world) believed the men had been convicted unfairly and viewed them as martyrs.

https://www.history.com/topics/haymarket-riot


Quote
The Contested Haymarket Affair: 130 Years Later

Chicago in the post-Civil War decades became a major railroad hub, center of industrial production and heartland engine of unrestrained capitalist development. That rapid expansion was built on the exploitation of a primarily immigrant working class subjected to incredibly long hours, poor pay, and horrific working and living conditions.

The city, through the mid-1870s, was convulsed by a severe economic depression resulting in mass unemployment and wage cuts, working class upheaval and attempts to organize that were met, in turn, with “industrial titan” countermeasures often involving violence and state repression.

By the early 1880s, a loose coalition of local labor organizations led by the reformist Knights of Labor but including the forerunner of the American Federation of Labor and more radical anarcho-communists joined in a call for a nationwide general strike on May 1, 1886 to demand an eight hour day.

Some 80,000 Chicago workers marched through the downtown that day and strikes continued afterward. On May 3rd, police fired upon strikers killing three at the city’s McCormick Reaper Plant. In response, local anarchist federation leaders called for the emergency protest at the Haymarket, at which the bombing occurred.

The “Haymarket Affair” — the bombing, subsequent repression, trial and execution of the “Haymarket martyrs” — had huge ramifications. It influenced the thinking of generations of labor and left activists of every persuasion, and directly shaped the contours of radical and reform strategy and tactics in regard to political action and labor organization for decades.

https://solidarity-us.org/atc/182/p4654/

Capitalism and socialism were sworn enemies WAY BEFORE the 20th century began. The newspapers were almost totally owned by the Capitalists, so they provided the demonizing propaganda against the "evil foreigner" Socialists/Anarchist/Communists. 


The anti-Socialst attacks in England were based on exactly the same Capitalist ideology as they were, and still are, in the USA.

Quote
The thesis, "Anti-Socialism in British Politics, 1900-1922," is an attempt to combine the approaches of intellectual and political history in explaining the development of Conservative Party politics at a crucial period of social and political change.

It pays particular attention to the relationship between political thought and action through the
medium of 'ideology.' It attempts to illuminate this process with an extended case-study of the ideological opposition to 'Socialism' between 1880s and 1920s; it then traces the impact of these ideas to the strategic calculations and policy programmes of the Conservative party.

It concludes by arguing that the ideological character of inter-war Conservatism can be best understood by reference to its resistance to Socialism, and it is through this doctrinal prism that the transformation of the Party into one dedicated to protecting the interests of industrialists and the middle-class, suburban salariat can be best understood.

The thesis examines the processes of ideological innovation and operationalisation by which these interests were appealed to, and also reveals the political constraints which prevented Conservatives making too overt an appeal to the propertyowning classes.

The first half of the thesis is concerned with various intellectual and ideological responses to 'Socialism'; the contents of these critiques are treated as interesting in their own right, but are also related to the demands of a wider political culture, particularly as they were constructed with political needs in mind.

The second half examines the political impact of Anti-Socialism in British politics at local and national level after 1906. It concludes by arguing that the relationship between Conservatism and the free market, limited government ideal of 'liberal' Individualism was closer than sometimes argued, that 'Anti-Socialism' brought the two creeds together, but in the end it was the 'common sense' Conservative modification of the Individualist creed which dominated political rhetoric and helped overcome many of the hidden tensions present in creating a Party for the 'property-owning democracy.

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:9c80bc93-3fe6-4fa8-a43c-2536084f48f4/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=602325174.pdf&type_of_work=Thesis

Socialism was NEVER about "revolution". In fact, Marx himself claimed they did not have to DO anything to destroy Capitalism, because Capitalist was self-destructive. Marx made it clear (see video at the end of this post) that the actual Revolutionary Force was, and still is, Capitalism, which requires constant upheaval to profit from worker insecurity through unbridled exploitation. Most reading this, like myself, were brainwashed to think that Capitalism wants peace and Socialism/Communism wants war. The exact reverse is true.

The Capitalists Newspapers in the USA had to portray Socialists as evil bomb throwing, violence loving goons in order to successfully demonize them in the eyes of the American public. That massive propaganda effort, laced with Red Scares, began in the 1880's and has not stopped to this day.


Quote
Socialism in the United States began with utopian communities in the early 19th century such as the Shakers, the activist visionary Josiah Warren and intentional communities inspired by Charles Fourier.

Labor activists—usually British, German, or Jewish immigrants—founded the Socialist Labor Party in 1877. The Socialist Party of America was established in 1901.

By that time, anarchism also established itself around the country while socialists of different tendencies were involved in early American labor organizations and struggles which reached a high point in the Haymarket affair in Chicago which started International Workers' Day as the main workers holiday around the world (except in the United States, which celebrates Labor Day on the first Monday of September) and making the 8-hour day a worldwide objective by workers organizations and socialist parties worldwide.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States

Newspapers wasted no time jacking up their negative propaganda effots shortly after the 20th Century began.


J. Edgar Hoover came into the picture after the turn of the century. He was actively fabricating trumped up charges against Socialists/Anarchists on behalf of Capitalists. J. Edgar Hoover's skills reached a fever pitch when Woodrow Wilson needed to demonize as "un-patriotic and treasonous" the principled Socialist resistance to the US entering WWI.



This factoid misses the fact that Hoover was rabidly Anti-Socialist well over a decade before 1917.   

Quote
Shaped by the anticommunist hysteria in the aftermath of the successful Russian Revolution of 1917, Hoover took part in the Palmer Raids against radicals and spent the rest of his life in the service of espionage and undermining suspected “subversives” of every sort.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/cointelpro.shtml

Hoover's carefullly developed malevolent plethora of tools to attack "subversives", which later provided the COINTELPRO mens rea modus operandi pattern had EVERYTHING to do with defending Capitalism and ZIP to do with his homosexuality and racism, despite the rather convenient historical narrative about Hoover's "motives".

Quote
Contemporary histories tend to focus on Hoover's maniacal egotism and closeted homosexuality to explain his lifelong fixation on repressing minorities who fought discrimination and reds who challenged the status quo.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/cointelpro.shtml

The "status quo" Hoover was actually tasked to defend was the Capitalist System, PERIOD.

Hoover was up to his eyeballs in skullduggery for at least a decade before the First Red Scare in 1919. He was routinely fabricating evidence to bring trumped up charges against Anarchists and other Socialists during this period.

When the military draft was instituted by Woodrow wilson Hoover helped round up Pacifists, most of whom were Socialists or Anarchists who, true to Socialist ideology did NOT want war. The Capitalists WANTED the US to enter that war. Do you see how upside down the propagnda against socialists is? THEY are PACIFISTS by ideology. Capitalist are violent warmongers by ideology. Hoover continued to serve loyally the Capitalist System.

The common thread from the 1880's to the present running through ALL this brutallity and mendacious demonizing propaganda against workers who strike and/or are pacifists that did not want to go to war is the Capitalist PROFIT motive.

In 1919, Hoover officially begins practicing this (later called COINTELPRO) style of heinous skullduggery on "subversives", trotting out the First Red Scare for Woodrow Wilson.

What was REALLY behind this Red Scare was the fact that the business community DID NOT want to pay decent wages in the slow period after WWI. The workers weren't having any of that. So, the Capitalists had to divide and conquer them with some hysterical scaremongering pretext. Again, continuing the war against Socialst Ideology while keeping the workers harassed was killing two birds with one Hoover stone for the Capitalists 😈. They laughed all the way to the bank.

And you thought it was about the "Evil Red Russians", didn't you?

Here's one of these to remind you of what Capitalists think of you:

J. Edgar Hoover engaged in Eavesdropping, Bogus mail, Black propaganda, Disinformation, Harassment arrests, Infiltrators or agent provocateurs, Bad-jacketing, Fabrication of evidence and Assassinations. Hoover was a career destroyer, jailer, and when he thought it expedient, a killer for Capitalism.

But Hoover's agenda was embraced by every president he served, including Democrats Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson.

Here is the sanitized version of history:

Quote
A special division of the Bureau of Investigation—precursor to the FBI—charged with collating all information on leftist radicals was created by Palmer in 1919 in response to the bombs.

J. Edgar Hoover, a Justice Department lawyer at the time, was put in charge of the group. Hoover coordinated intelligence from various sources to identify those radicals believed most prone to violence.

https://www.history.com/topics/palmer-raids

Hello? Socialists and Anarchists were, and still are, PACIFISTS! Hoover invented that "various sources to identify radicals believed most prone to violence" BULLSHIT out of thin air, with no legal grounds whatsoever!

The Capitalist owned newspapers, of course, did their, by now well polished, demonization of all things Communist/Socalist.




Those bombs were NOT the work of pacifists! Hoover was up to his eyeballs in that agent provocateur/fabrication of evidence for at least a decade BEFORE the 1919 Palmer "response" to the bombs.

Quote


Are anarchists socialists?

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the “notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product” and think that in an anarchist society “the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done.” By so doing workers would free themselves “from the terrible bondage of capitalism.” [Voltairine de Cleyre, “Anarchism”, Exquisite Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]

(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style “socialism” — better called “state capitalism” — , slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now).

Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves “socialists.” They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay “Modern Science and Anarchism,” “{s})o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense — as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital — the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time.” [Evolution and Environment, p. 81] Or, in Tucker’s words, “the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession of its own,” a claim that both “the two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism” agreed upon. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 144] Hence the word “socialist” was originally defined to include “all those who believed in the individual’s right to possess what he or she produced.” [Lance Klafta, “Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism,” in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 34] This opposition to exploitation (or usury) is shared by all true anarchists and places them under the socialist banner.

For most socialists, “the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour.” [Pyotr Kropotkin , The Conquest of Bread, p. 145] For this reason Proudhon, for example, supported workers’ co-operatives, where “every individual employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company” because by “participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all workers.” [General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223] Thus, in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by capital, true socialists also desire a society within which the producers own and control the means of production (including, it should be stressed, those workplaces which supply services). The means by which the producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist and other socialist circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists favour direct workers’ control and either ownership by workers’ associations or by the commune (see section A.3 on the different types of anarchists).

Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian as well as exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern themselves during the production process nor have control over the product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon’s (who inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see “[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished” for “either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate . . . In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two. . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society.” [Op. Cit., p. 233 and pp. 215–216]

Therefore all anarchists are anti-capitalist (“If labour owned the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism” [Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 44]). Benjamin Tucker, for example — the anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss later) — called his ideas “Anarchistic-Socialism” and denounced capitalism as a system based upon “the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit.” Tucker held that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, free-market society, capitalists will become redundant and exploitation of labour by capital would cease, since “labour. . . will. . . secure its natural wage, its entire product.” [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 82 and p. 85] Such an economy will be based on mutual banking and the free exchange of products between co-operatives, artisans and peasants. For Tucker, and other Individualist anarchists, capitalism is not a true free market, being marked by various laws and monopolies which ensure that capitalists have the advantage over working people, so ensuring the latter’s exploitation via profit, interest and rent (see section G for a fuller discussion). Even Max Stirner, the arch-egoist, had nothing but scorn for capitalist society and its various “spooks,” which for him meant ideas that are treated as sacred or religious, such as private property, competition, division of labour, and so forth.

https://medium.com/anarchist-faq/a-1-4-83ba7fe75e15

One must never forget that, as the 20th Century begins, the efforts of the Capitalists to keep Socialism weak and defeated intensify.

Quote
The United States thus emerged as a world power with the dynamism of England, the most advanced capitalist power, and the labor relations of Russia, the historical laggard in the economic race.

This combination goes a long way to explaining the supine position of American labor. While theories of “American exceptionalism” often focus on the working class, a more profitable route is to look at the power of the US ruling class, and to look at labor’s various strategies as attempts to deal with it. In this light, the history of the American working class looks a good deal less exceptional.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/rise-and-fall-socialist-party-of-america


Quote
Red Scare and Anti-Radical Violence

One important aftermath of the failed strike wave of 1919, however, was a powerful reaction by government and business against radicals in labor and politics.



Quote
Ascribing the unions' postwar militancy to communist intrigue, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer encouraged J. Edgar Hoover, an aggressive young agent of the Bureau of Investigation (today's FBI), to arrest thousands of radicals around the country.


These police actions, combined with private vigilante attacks such as the deadly 1919 raid of American Legionnaires against the Industrial Workers of the World hall in Centralia, Washington, decimated America's radical groups and made the decade safe for free-market capitalism.

https://www.shmoop.com/1920s/economy.html

Socialists were being ACTIVELY and CONTINUOUSLY attacked by Capitalist Oligarchs at the turn of the 20th Century.

Marx put out his Communist Manifesto in 1848. The Capitalists began planning  their attack against all things Socialist in the USA (and England and France and Germany, etc) THEN. The appeal of Socialism is ethical, as Columbia University history professor Eric Foner makes clear in the Video at the end of this post.

Capitalists do not DO "ethical". The only "ethics" that Capitalists practice are "situational ethics", otherwise known as Orwellian ethics. An economic system based on ethical behavior is a threat to Capitalism, which is based on greed, euphemistically defined as "enlightened self interest" 

Consequently, Capitalists have pulled every murderous dirty trick they could think of, from the start, to demonize Socialism. It has never stopped.

The so-called "friendly period" towards Communism and Socialism during the 1930's where many small Socialist and Communist newspapers did okay, though they never came close the New York Time level of circulation, was a lull caused by Capitalists having their Fascist hands full trying to keep FDR from exposing their dirty tricks. Capitalists cause "things to hapen" by BUYING people to commit crimes. Money was very tight during the 1930's, though they did manage to demonize Cannabis for the paper oligarchs and burn down a Chermurgy refinery that made all sorts of things from plant fiber, including plastics. The Big Oil Capitalists did their thing to crush that.

But yeah, the money was too tight go around jailing or shooting Socialists then. Socialists did have a sort of friend in the White House, after all. That probably made anti-Communist routine skullduggery less cost effective. However, it is just wrong to categorize the 1930's as a period "friendly" to Communism. A J. Edgar Hoover Bulldog on a leash might not bite you, but it is a stretch to claim that bulldog is friendly. And YES, friends, Hoover had his finger in every pie you can imagine DURING the 1930's. The Supreme Court loved that bastard.

Had a group of Socialists/Communists entered into a conspiracy to overthrow the US Government, as Campbell's Soup Capitalist Oligarch and a few others DID, said Socialists would have been shot on sight! NONE of those CAPITALIST TRAITORS even went to jail! Hoover didn't do ZIP about it BECAUSE he was ALWAYS a murderous TOOL of Capitalism, PERIOD.

The Depression temporarily weakened the brutal power of Capitalists to wreak havoc with working people who wanted a Socialist System, but Capitalists NEVER respected Communists/Socialists.

The Capitalists, and Hoover right there with them, bided their time to return to the Business as Usual of Demonizing Reds after FDR was out of the picture.

Durng the 1930's there was a LULL in Capitalist anti-Communist activity, NOT a "friendly to Communists/Socialists" activity. 

After WWII, a similar "few jobs and angry workers wanting decent pay" situation, like that which existed after WWI, materialized. So, the Busness Community remembered exactly what good old Hoover did for them back in 1919. It was rinse and repeat time.

In 1947, with 100% approval from Truman, they turned Hoover loose to provide McCarthy with all the fabricated evidence he needed to, once again, keep labor at bay.

McCarthy was not stupid. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing and who (i.e. the business community) he was doing it for . It's ALWAYS BEEN about protecting Capitalist Business profits by Hook AND by Crook.

The following video is innocuous and not inflammatory in the least. Nevertheless, the Erudite Prof says some important things that Brainwashed Capitalist Ideologues do not get about Socialism in general and Marx in particular.

Too bad they won't watch it.

Quote
FEBRUARY 29, 2012

Socialism in Early 20th Century America

Columbia University history professor Eric Foner examines the rise of socialism in America in the early 20th century. He talks about the Socialist Party in New York City and Milwaukee, and looks at the Socialist Party of America presidential campaigns of Eugene Debs ( VIDEO).
https://www.c-span.org/video/?304569-1/discussion-socialism-early-20th-century-america

Have a nice day.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 20, 2018, 09:05:40 pm »

Unions and the robber baron capitalists certainly had some major clashes. But the unions ultimately won a lot...for a while. My father walked the picket lines. I remember his union was on strike for months when I was about 10 years old. It was a tough time.  When I was young I was actually a shop steward in the plant where my Dad worked. I paid union dues. So long ago now, nearly 40 years. Seems like another life.

I'm not questioning your history knowledge. Don't be so touchy.

I'm not saying that the capitalists with their private cops and strike breakers weren't bad guys. I know about Joe Hill and Sacco and Vanzetti, and the IWW and all that. The Haymarket Riots. I took American History too, although none of that stuff was stressed in the curriculum where  I went to school, as you can imagine.

I even read some of Steinbeck's book In Dubious Battle, which is very dark and so sad it made me cry. I never could finish it.

But in the 30's it was cool to be communist if your were an intellectual in say, NYC. That's why the stupid McCarthy hearings were so damaging. There were plenty of people to accuse, and they were guilty, if going to a meeting once or twice made you guilty of something. There was a time during the Depression when socialism looked pretty good to a lot of out-of-work Americans.

But something did change materially around the time of Churchill's famous speech. From that time, there was an intense campaign by the Bernaysians to make sure every American hated communism. It certainly was intentional, and in my view, was the brainchild of someone. And that someone was probably more like one or more of the people Carroll Quigley wrote about. The powers behind the throne. And the guys who started the CIA and founded the USMIC.

If you can point me to a book that covers that part of it, I'd like to see it. I don't think the story has been told, but I could certainly be in error.

A very interesting character in the Red Scare was a well-known radio personality who grew up and lived here. His name was John Henry Falk. He's dead now. There isn't much left of his work, but there are a few bits. This utoob is him going off on Reagan in the late 80's.

He sued the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and finally won, although it was a pyrrhic victory. One of my heroes.



Touchy" has nothing to do with the fact that you have an incorrect view of anti-communist activity in the USA before 1947. You are wrong about that. I have just posted the correct history to prove you are wrong. Yet, you want to discuss my "touchyness", followed by a lot of info that is frankly not relevent to the FIRST RED SCARE, which is the subject you do not want admit you were mistaken about.

Eddie, I know you. You will NOT back down.

I won't waste any more time explaining to you why you are wrong about the "fact" that anti-Communist/Socialist sentiment in the USA "only began after 1947".  Capitalism is the reason for ALL anti-Communist/Socialist sentiment in the USA, even before "Socialism" actually had a NAME! ANY attempt to defend the workers and give them a fair shake after the Industrial Revolution began was BRUTALLY CRUSHED by the Capitalists, period.

The Haymarket Affair is probably the first exposure of an in-your-face Capitalist attack on Socialists. The enmity of Capitalists for employee rights has never abated. I know you don't think so. Therefore, I respectfully must claim that you are wrong. Have a nice day.

I'll dig up some quotes from historical documents tomorrow. You are free to believe what you wish.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 20, 2018, 08:39:30 pm »

Communism wasn't a negative buzzword here before the war. It all changed in about '47.  The exact circumstances of how that changed are of interest to me. I think it was the deliberate work of people like the Dulles brothers and Wild Bill Donovan, the guys who gave us the real Deep State.

In spite of Palloy's assertions that the story is well understood in "other countries", I don't really think that's true, beyond the superficial stuff.

There was a conspiracy at the highest levels. It involved lots of people who probably went to their graves with secrets they never told. Now we'll never know.

I thought it was interesting that Trump backed off on declassifying all the JFK files. There are threads there that somebody might unravel.

Yeah the one group its okay for any American to hate is the communists. We learned that sh it. When the Soviet Union fell, it left a big gap in our "hated enemy" category. So lucky we found al Quaeda and ISIS  before it was too late.


I totally disagree that Communism was not a negative "buzzword" before WWII. You are right about the history after 1947. You are wrong about it before. I know that history well. Palloy's views have nothing to do with my extensive knowledge of American History, sir.

We had troops in Russia after the Communist Revolution. They were not there to provide good will. There is a lot more. If you want chapter and verse about Hoover's activities, I will dig them up. If you want to know what went down right around the the turn of the century (19th to 20th) that was RABIDLY anti-Socialist in this country, I'll dig it up. Remember the "anarchists"? They just wanted to get paid properly for their labor. Their polices were socialist to the core. They were demonized and crushed because they saw through the Capitalist bullshit. The "bombings" attributed to the anarchists was part of that demonization. The real violence was that of our government against them!

Hoover was very busy in the early 20th century MANUFACTURING the First Red Scare on behalf Capitalists who DID NOT want to pay people fair wages. It's too long to quote here, but I learned much about Hoover's skullduggery from reading about Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who is famous for all his principled dissents on the Child Labor and Capitalist Cruelty defending Supreme Court (1902-1932). That is NOT taught in American History courses, even in college. You've got to DIG to find the truth. And that truth is the US Government (spare me the FDR talk. He could just barely control the Capitalist Crazies) AND the police were, and still are, anti-Communist/Socialist to the core!

Here are some quotes that somewhat address the issue:

Quote
Capitalist Propaganda BEFORE Bernays!

The First Red Scare was a period during the early 20th-century history of the United States marked by a widespread fear of Bolshevism and anarchism, due to real and imagined events; real events included those such as the Russian Revolution and anarchist bombings. At its height in 1919–1920, concerns over the effects of radical political agitation in American society and the alleged spread of communism and anarchism in the American labor movement fueled a general sense of concern ;).

Now just WHO 💵 🎩do you think was "concerned", if not the Capitalist Business Community🐉🦕 🦖 that OWNED Hoover?

Quote
J. Edgar Hoover, then director of the FBI, was an ardent anti-communist whose influence had perpetuated the first Red Scare. 
 
Hoover and his investigators used espionage tactics of their own to locate potential communists, including wiretaps, surveillance, and infiltrating leftist organizations. The efficiency of the FBI ;) was critical in many high-profile cases.

The following exercise in US Propaganda happy talk totally conveniently misses the FACT that many Americans believed all this hysterical scaremongering because they were lied to about the "Communist threat" by our government, which manufactured it out of thin air.

There WAS NO Communist threat in regard to WAR. The REVERSE was true. Russia wanted to work with us avoid an arms race and nuclear proliferation. Truman knew that and did not give a rat's ass about it. Yeah, there was money to be made by our Capitalist MIC pretending Russia was gonna git us. But, that was just a BAU benefit of our mens rea modus operandi.

The actual rationale behind BOTH Red Scares was that Socialism threatens Greed Based Capiitalist BAU and therefore must be demonized, period. If you believe otherwise, I must vigorously disagree with you.

Quote
Second Red Scare

The Second Red Scare (1947-1957) was a fear-driven phenomenon brought on by the growing power of communist countries in the wake of the Second World War, particularly the Soviet Union. Many in the U.S. feared that the Soviet Union and its allies were planning to forcefully spread communism around the globe, overthrowing both democratic and capitalist institutions as it went. With the Soviet Union occupying much of Eastern and Central Europe, many in the U.S. perceived their fears of communist expansionism as confirmed. The U.S. also feared that communist agents had infiltrated the federal government. A massive witch hunt to root out communist sympathizers ensued.

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Second_Red_Scare
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 25, 2018, 08:54:50 pm »

 

February 23, 2018

Former CIA Director 🐲 Admits to US Foreign Meddling, Laughs About It

The U.S. government has overthrown dozens of governments and rigged numerous foreign elections, and former CIA Director James Woolsey finds this funny - Ben Norton reports

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 25, 2018, 08:40:59 pm »

 

January 13, 2016

The History of the 2nd Amendment

TRNN Replay: Historian Gerald Horne tracks the evolution of the gun debate starting from slavery during the country's founding, the post-Civil War reconstruction in the south, and through today's era of mass incarceration


http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15410

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 22, 2018, 09:24:32 pm »

Peter Kuznick: Three False Myths Americans Believe
141,882 views


Regis Tremblay

Published on May 22, 2016

American University professor, Peter Kuznick, destroys the WWII myths that have underscored US foreign policy since 1945. Peter co-authored The Untold History of the United States with Oliver Stone. The book and a ten part film series are available from Amazon.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 21, 2018, 06:43:35 pm »

Learn about NRA Hypocrisy and also the REAL HISTORY of How and Why the Second Amendment was Added to the Constitution

Feb. 20, 2018 3:30 pm

By Thom Hartmann

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 20, 2018, 08:35:08 pm »

Chris Hedges and Sheldon Wolin: Can Capitalism and Democracy Coexist?
 Full Version

84,173 views


Peter Shev

Published on Nov 20, 2014

Journalist Chris Hedges interviews political philosopher Sheldon Wolin, who says democracy requires continuous opposition and vigilance by the citizenry.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 19, 2018, 10:42:56 pm »

Do you know who Judith Miller is? You should. She helped Bush steal 3 Trillion Dollars from we-the-people (US War Crime in Iraq) with daily LIES in the New York Times. Learn more about how you are being lied to for cruelty 🐉 and exploitation 🦖 for Empire 🦀 in this talk by Chris Hedges.

Shutdown Your Electronic Hallucinations, Chris Hedges Empire Of Illusion

18,086 views


MultiOmzz

Published on Nov 1, 2017
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 05, 2018, 12:00:54 am »

FEB 03, 2018 TD ORIGINALS

American History for Truthdiggers: Original Sin

The swampy environs of Jamestown, Virginia, claim the life of another 17th-century English settler in this painting by National Park Service artist Sydney King. (National Park Service / Public Domain) (at artcile link)

Truthdig editor’s note: The past is prologue. The stories we tell about ourselves and our forebears inform the sort of country we think we are and help determine public policy. As our current president promises to “Make America great again,” this moment is an appropriate time to reconsider our past, look back at various eras of United States history and re-evaluate America’s origins. When, exactly, were we “great”?

The “American History for Truthdiggers” series, which begins with the installment below, is a pull-no-punches appraisal of our shared, if flawed, past. The author of the series, Danny Sjursen, an active-duty major in the U.S. Army, served military tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and taught the nation’s checkered, often inspiring past when he was an assistant professor of history at West Point. His wartime experiences, his scholarship, his skill as a writer and his patriotism illuminate these Truthdig posts.


American Slavery, American Freedom (Colonial Virginia 1607-1676)

Origins matter. Every nation-state has an origin myth, a comforting tale of trials, tribulations and triumphs that form the foundation of “imagined communities.” The United States of America—a self-proclaimed “indispensable nation”—is as prone to exaggerated origin myths as any society in human history. Most of us are familiar with the popular American origin story: Our forefathers, a collection of hardy, pious pioneers, escaped religious persecution in England and founded a “new world”—a shining beacon in a virgin land. Of course, that story, however flawed, refers to the Pilgrims, and Massachusetts, circa 1620. But that’s not the true starting point for English-speaking society in North America.

The first permanent colony was in Virginia, at Jamestown, beginning in 1607. Why, then, do our young students dress in black buckle-top hats and re-create Thanksgiving each year? Where is the commemoration of Jamestown and our earliest American forebears? The omission itself tells a story, that of a chosen, comforting narrative (the legend of the Pilgrims), and the whitewashing of a murkier past along the James River.

The truth is, the United States descends from both origins—Massachusetts and Virginia—and carries the legacy of each into the 21st century. So why do we focus on the Pilgrims and sideline Virginia? A fresh look may help explain.

The Age of ‘Discovery’

When it comes to history—like any story—the starting point is itself informative. I taught freshman history at West Point, a far more progressive and thoughtful school than many readers probably imagine. Nonetheless, with cadets required to take only one semester of U.S. history, we had just 40 lessons to illuminate the American past. So where to start? The official answer—as in so many standard history courses—was Jamestown, Virginia, 1607.

Read more:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/american-history-truthdiggers-original-sin/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 31, 2018, 08:20:59 pm »



January 29, 2018

Undoing the New Deal: Eisenhower Builds an Arsenal of Nuclear Weapons and a Cabinet of Millionaires 🐉 🦕 🦖 (pt7)

Historian Peter Kuznick says that in spite of his famous warning, Eisenhower can be called the father of the industrial-military complex; when he takes office, the U.S. has a 1,000 nuclear weapons, when he leaves, it's 22,000 - with host Paul Jay

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20753:Undoing-the-New-Deal%3A--Eisenhower-Builds-an-Arsenal-of-Nuclear-Weapons-and-a-%0D%0ACabinet-of-Millionair
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 05, 2018, 10:52:30 pm »

The Truth Of The Wounded Knee Massacre Of December 29th 1890

Interesting. In a parallel universe, I am re-reading Evan Connell's masterful "Son of the Morning Star," a biographer of Custer and many of his contemporaries, including Sitting Bull. The proximate cause of Little Bighorn was the discovery of gold in the Black Hills, so, of course, the Sioux had to go. As well as the buffalo, for the railroads. Reading excerpts from newspapers of that time calling for a war of extermination on "Lo" (as in "Lo, the noble savage...") is eerily familiar.
Remember how while Americans were horrified when Rap Brown said, "Violence is as American as cherry pie?"

I didn't know about the discovery of gold in the Black Hills triggering the Little Bighorn, but I am not surprised. Americans were, and still are, quite willing to wipe an entire people or culture out, if they are told said culture or people is in the way of "progress". Many will claim that is not so. They are deluding themselves.

Over the years I have tried to figure out how and when this happened, beyond the normal tendency of the average human being to engage in murder and mayhem if the the government backs it, of course. For example, Americans were quite willing to slaughter each other during the Civil War. Who were these people? They were mostly peaceful farmers who used rifles to to protect their property and to occasionally hunt.

After the Civil War, the NEXT big war changed the American soldier's character for good (i.e. for REALLY BAD!). The Spanish American War, though small and insignificant compared with WWI, played a singular role in brutalizing the averge male American far beyond the experience of warring Native Americans or fellow Americans in the Civil War.

In the Philippines, the concentration camp slow torture and deliberate selective murder of unarmed relatives (women and children) was perfected for the purpose of getting the "insurgents" to surrender, at which time they were double crossed and mostly killed too. The "patriotic" murder of people outside our country, who looked a little different, then became part of the mindset of the average male American. If the soldier wasn't racist before he went into the military, he became a racist while there.

By the time the really big wars came along, even the "Geneva Convention", that happened somewhere along the way to our present murdering madness, did little or nothing to stop routine massacres and torture and murder of unarmed prisoners just for the hell of it.

Remember the Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan around 2003 that, after they had murdered women "accidentally", went through the "trouble" of extracting the bullets from the bodies so that American ordnance would not be found in the victims? You know, you have to have sunk to a completely monstrous level of empathy deficit disordered cold logic to even contemplate such a monstrous act. Yet these well trained elite American forces did it without batting an eye. I will never thank them for that "service".

Several generations of war and media approved racism of the "other" have made most American males into the most bellicose, morally depraved, unrepentant, history challenged, might is right believing killing machines in the history of the world. The rest of the nations of the world are well advised to fear us. Trump or no Trump, this country's soldiers are second only to Catastrophic Climate Change as an extinction threat to humanity.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 05, 2018, 09:16:02 pm »

The Truth Of The Wounded Knee Massacre Of December 29th 1890


Thom tells us the story of Wounded Knee on it's anniversary, what really happened over 126 years ago.

Thom Hartmann Dec. 29, 2017 3:00 pm
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 29, 2017, 07:41:17 pm »

Historian Peter Kuznick: Three False Myths Americans Believe


72,579 views

Regis Tremblay

Published on May 22, 2016

American University professor, Peter Kuznick, destroys the WWII myths that have underscored US foreign policy since 1945. Peter co-authored The Untold History of the United States with Oliver Stone. The book and a ten part film series are available from Amazon.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 20, 2017, 09:12:35 pm »

 


December 20, 2017

Undoing the New Deal: Clinton Rolled Back the Deal, Obama Blew a FDR Moment (pt6)

Historian Gerald Horne says that President Clinton's "reforms" were a staggering blow to the social safety net; President Obama had a rare political moment where he could have created a modern New Deal, but he wouldn't do it


http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20689

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 20, 2017, 08:30:33 pm »

  December 18, 2017

Undoing the New Deal: African-Americans, Racism and the FDR/Johnson Reforms (Pt5)

Historian Gerald Horne says that to pass the New Deal legislation, FDR allowed discriminatory practices to appease the racist Dixiecrat section of the Democratic Party; the reforms of the 60's that responded to the upsurge of the civil rights movement helped Black Americans, but have been undone by Democratic and Repubican administratons since - with host Paul Jay


http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20708:Undoing-the-New-Deal%3A-African-Americans%2C-Racism-and-the-FDRJohnson-Reforms-%28Pt5%29


+-Recent Topics

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
August 15, 2018, 07:54:26 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
August 15, 2018, 05:31:39 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
August 15, 2018, 03:19:09 pm

Genocide by AGelbert
August 15, 2018, 12:43:04 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
August 15, 2018, 12:21:45 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
August 15, 2018, 11:55:23 am

Pollution by AGelbert
August 14, 2018, 10:37:03 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
August 14, 2018, 07:11:38 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
August 14, 2018, 06:22:50 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
August 14, 2018, 12:33:00 pm