You have no idea what you are talking about. This is a communist country, but usurping the means of production has simply been replaced with usurping control of the money supply.
You have no idea what you are talking about. This is a communist country, but usurping the means of production has simply been replaced with usurping control of the money supply.
I think there is a big terminological confusion here: when "Nick" writes "communist" he really means "soviet".
"The Economist" magazine, a neoliberal one, once defined "soviet" as "run for the benefit of management", that is what our Matt Taibbi calls a "Griftopia", and under that definition the higher levels of USA politics and business are soviet indeed. Even the "Financial Times" describes it this way:
What the fuck do you think a communist country looks like? Jesus Christ. Communist countries are literally the definition of oligarchical. Those who control the means of production always win. In this case its the financiers and the banksters. "The state" stakes this over and then it becomes a game of rent seeking and gaining power within that apparatus. We are living in the end result of Bernie Sanders utopia already. It just that "you people" seem to think you can get the right people in power to dole out the excess in exchange for your support.
The elite have always controlled the means of production and the government going back centuries. It's so funny how idiots like you think this is a recent development.
Capitalism is just modified feudalism which is just modified slavery.
You really have an issue with the term communism when it is meaningless in today's society.
Tell it to John Pierpont Morgan. You know who he is, right? The guy who bailed out the U.S. Treasury on two separate occasions, back in the era of gold-backed currency? JP got tired of being required to backstop a government that held fewer liquid assets than he and his fellow plutocrats, so they got together and drew up the plan for the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913.
I don't pretend to have a grasp on the pluses and minuses of reserve banking, but I do know enough about American history to realize that the country wasn't some free-enterprise paradise of general upward mobility perpetually booming commerce in the era that preceded reserve banking and FDR's deficit-financed social spending programs. And it does have to be said that FDR's national infrastructure programs took most of the American rural countryside out of the 3rd World.
Or maybe you imagine that private wealth would have financed programs like those out of their inborn benevolent wisdom, perhaps inspired by the blood ties of racial solidarity with their less fortunate white brethren, if only the damned socialists hadn't taken over and sideswiped their act.
Interesting point about JP Morgan bailing out the country. Sounds like we are "all in this together" after all and it took a greedy capitalist to once again make the socializaiton of imprudent decision making possible. I'm unsure if you believed that somehow this historical fact would make me more or less inclined to side with a government. Its clearly obvious this would make anyone realize that the government can't be trusted to run much of anything.
So the U.S. Federal government was too already big and powerful, even in the Gilded Age era of the 1890s- but it took FDR and the New Deal to really ruin the American future.
That's some historical narrative. Got a syllabus for it?
I said nothing of it being too big and powerful in the Gilded Age. I said it was irresponsible. JP Morgan enabled the moral hazard that led to the Federal Reserve less than two decades later. Which then led to FDR, which, well, then led to today, where the federal government is printing money to enrich the latest pluocrats while enslaving the rest of us.
I'm having trouble with the coherence of your comments, Nick.
Isn't "enslavement" a little strong, as descriptive of the conditions of American citizens?
If the Federal government actually is "printing money" "to enrich the latest plutocrats", how does that relate to your allegations of socialism and communism?
Money is the "means of production". It is being wielded in the same way. Money is used to pick winners and losers in the same way Commisars would dole out positions within The Party. The control of the money supply is being wielded to the same ends that the control of the means of production was wielded by the communist parties in the former USSR and Maoist China. It started with the use of Federal Funds to coerce states to comply with Federal law, and now we are in a position where some 25% of all US corporations are being run on debt, and debt alone. Using money is more insidious than traditional Communism simply because its hidden away behind excuse making like "we had no choice", but the end will be the same. The plutocrats will sit on their thrones while the serfs toil in their propped industry, unable to save as the constant inflationary pressure on the currency makes a dollar you made in the morning worth less than they one at the end of the same day. Meanwhile, those with assets are being propped up by the very inflation that destroys wage earners.
Paradise is a myth. There isn't a free market capitalist on this planet that believes in paradise or utopia, that is what separates them from the commies. You on the other hand insist that this is somehow the goal, and that because one system doesn't produce it naturally, we can manifest it through the centralization.
As for upward mobility, well, no system has produced more of that than laissez faire capitalism in spite of everything the central planners have attempted to do to stifle it. Hell, laissez faire capitalism has even propped up communist regimes around the globe and that is probably its biggest fault. It gives the communist fucktards an glimmer of hope. Even Marx knew that it would take a free market system to produce and develop enough resources and technology if Communism were to have any chance of succeeding. No one the likes of Sanders stands a chance in a country that doesnt have excess, and the 15% of people that produce more of it. After all, they need someone to steal from.
"Paradise is a myth. There isn't a free market capitalist on this planet that believes in paradise or utopia..."
Really? I've heard some of them talk.
"Free market" is a contradiction in terms, hiding in plain sight. A neat con.
And "laissez-faire" is better described with the model of Inertia, of the sort that leads ineluctably to monopolies, that nemesis of independent small businesses and entrepreneurs.
As for the rest of your observations on politics and economics- hey, I remember being eleven years old. If only it were that Simple.
Of right, because chanting "no justice no peace", and repeating "I believe in universal healthcare" is somehow a mature political statement. Bernie Sanders and the squad are the epitome of the dumbing down of politics. Slogans, jargon, and theft are what defines the left. Did you not see those mostly peaceful protests go forgiven by liberal democrats because "its just property"?
More Faux news revisionist history I see. Never heard of the robber barons who perpetuated the first stock market bubble and crash ? Are you so naive that you think the elite weren't buying elections before the 1900's ?
That's just hilarious you think capitalism ever really worked before FDR.
Capitalism has never stopped working, even in the USSR. Capitalism isnt a system. The free exchange of labor is ingrained in human nature. The scum at the bottom of the cesspool you occupy attempt to create systems around this freedom which produce negative outcomes you can then blame on something you dont understand. Emergent order is beyond your conceptual abilities.
The capitalist economy of the Soviet Union related to the capitalist economies of its neighbors in about the same way that the illicit drugs trade relates to a licensed, regulated liquor store. The black market comprised about 25% of the Soviet economy, and it made its own rules, from currency changing and hoarding rationed goods to the retail trade in smuggled import goods from the West. Unscrupulous business practice and organized crime were raised to a keen edge in that underground economy. What's especially interesting is that those unsavory skill sets have continued to demonstrate their utility in the modern globalized economy of the post-Soviet era. Including in the present-day U.S.
Of course Capitalism is a system: the more unchecked it is, the more the system partakes of inertial qualities. "A body at rest remains at rest": orphan drugs go unmanufactured, notwithstanding the severity of the afflictions of patients who might be aided or cured by the drugs, because the market is so small that the product will never yield a profit. Who's to say otherwise?
"A body in motion continues in motion": see every march toward monopoly ever. Consider globalization: that wasn't about "big government interference", it was about removing "big government interference." Enabling the path of least resistance for the inertial flow of capital to the territories with the cheapest labor, and lowest level of labor protections, product safety inspection, and environmental standards.
I mean, Nick, how would you fix that: more Capitalism?
If the number of patients that have a disease to low enough, the disease may even go un-diagnosed. Its such a small problem, it just doesnt actually matter. No system works on the margins. Even in a fully flushed out universal healthcare system, there are going to be people who die due to "lack of care" because they are too expensive to care for. The cost to society is simply to high to save a single person (or small number of people), this is a form of collectivism. Resources are always limited in every system.
"Every march TOWARD monopoly ever..." Oddly enough, this is never realized unless its been protected by the power of the state vis a vis licensing schemes or, in a case like the East India Tea Company, backed by the force of a government (in reality, licensing schemes are backed by the same authority the British Navy had, its merely exercised differently). Monopolies will never exist in a competitive system unless they are protected by force because all technology eventually becomes ubiquitous.
That lack of standards you cite as problematic is actually a boon for the societies that have them, they are their competitive advantage, their ticket out of subsistence. It moves the little girl from prostitution into a "dangerous" factory. Simply because this doesnt meet your standard of care doesnt mean its not an improvement. Sweat shop labor is indeed a good thing in context.
You ask me how we fix "that". What is "that"? These things you deem problematic? The only way "we" can fix that is if you change your perspective. You are the exception to the rule, the world doesnt operate the way you have experienced. Attempting to force your morality unto the rest of the globe is itself immoral. In your attempt to be ethical, you are oppressing the very people you believe are oppressed. Ironic isnt it?
Capitalism has move billions out of poverty, and you fault it because someone might have to work in a dirty factory? Because people die? As if somehow you can control for these things and "fix" them with the proper "rules"? Its a borderline religious perspective on the power of government.
No, you're the person with the theological perspective here: you evidently believe that human beings were ordained to serve the needs of the Market, and I think that markets are intended to serve the purposes of human beings.
For example, I don't think that any human being should be put in the position of having to die from a curable or controllable disease on account of the fact that the Market demand of the afflicted population is too small for anyone to earn a monetary profit from manufacturing the medicine required to save them.
"Attempting to force your morality unto the rest of the globe is itself immoral."
Taken literally, for the vague, sweeping, general pronouncement that your statement presents itself as, it amounts to a condemnation of the rule of law. A serial killer could justify his acts with that logic (such as it is), and some of them probably have.
You're plainly inordinately fond of such sweeping general pronouncements, as with all adherents to one Unified Field Theory or another.
This also explains your reliance on the Hypothetical Example to support your theory:
"That lack of standards you cite as problematic is actually a boon for the societies that have them, they are their competitive advantage, their ticket out of subsistence. It moves the little girl from prostitution into a "dangerous" factory."
Yes, and children being trafficked for sex are probably better off than if they were kidnapped, murdered, and butchered in order to supply the Free Market in organs for transplant recipients.
For that matter, why bother with the pretense of implying that you deplore the business enterprise of child prostitution? It's just another example of the workings of the Market, isn't it? Isn't it just another Market business transaction that deserves to be Free from the immorality of government interference?
"Simply because this doesnt meet your standard of care doesnt mean its not an improvement. Sweat shop labor is indeed a good thing in context."
A sample of documented examples of the Capitalist Mode of Production that you're defending as a "good thing in context"- real, not hypothetical. Practice, not Theory:
"Those who control the means of production always win. In this case its the financiers and the banksters."
Speaking of "communism", that statement might as well be a verbatim quote from Karl Marx. Although you'd have to have read some of his works in order to realize that.
I'm not dismissing the observation, just calling out Nick's idiocratic ideological spin on the situation, with his fantasy that the disproportionate power of private finance wealth in the modern era is the result of a communist plot.
I don't even slightly resemble a Marxist ideologue, but Marx was in fact a scathingly insightful critic of the inertial weaknesses of unfettered capitalism.
The precise spot where communism and fascism become indistinguishable. Oh, is that a "horseshoe"? My bad. But fusing government and corporations, from either direction, leads to the same authoritarianism.
Its vastly important because the Sanders wing wants to extend even more control to the Federal government. Its a problem because the ideology is one of "Well, so long as we vote for MY candidate the symptoms will disappear". These folks want to replace communism with communism.
You morons think your revolution is going to happen through the vote. You're mistaken. When your ilk come through the suburbs, there will be blood, and you dont have the guns to win this war.
By "right" I was referring to his predictions, not his methods. I took the time to read the "Manifesto" in the NYT back in the day because I knew the dude was serious about getting people to read it. Him being a homicidal maniac doesn't necessarily disqualify his social analysis.
You have no idea what you are talking about. This is a communist country, but usurping the means of production has simply been replaced with usurping control of the money supply.
There's nothing communist about this country. It's an oligarchy and always has been. Read a book please and stop watching faux.
I think there is a big terminological confusion here: when "Nick" writes "communist" he really means "soviet".
"The Economist" magazine, a neoliberal one, once defined "soviet" as "run for the benefit of management", that is what our Matt Taibbi calls a "Griftopia", and under that definition the higher levels of USA politics and business are soviet indeed. Even the "Financial Times" describes it this way:
https://www.ft.com/content/a2ea734a-2e7f-11e2-9b98-00144feabdc0
https://www.ft.com/content/abc02fd5-2549-3b3e-a8ba-bcc3eef9c07e
What the fuck do you think a communist country looks like? Jesus Christ. Communist countries are literally the definition of oligarchical. Those who control the means of production always win. In this case its the financiers and the banksters. "The state" stakes this over and then it becomes a game of rent seeking and gaining power within that apparatus. We are living in the end result of Bernie Sanders utopia already. It just that "you people" seem to think you can get the right people in power to dole out the excess in exchange for your support.
The elite have always controlled the means of production and the government going back centuries. It's so funny how idiots like you think this is a recent development.
Capitalism is just modified feudalism which is just modified slavery.
You really have an issue with the term communism when it is meaningless in today's society.
Ahh...feudalism. Takes me back to that scene in The Holy Grail:
https://youtu.be/ZtYU87QNjPw
"Who's that then?"
"I don't know."
"Must be a king."
"Why?"
"He hasn't got shit all over him."
Its not recent. Your messiah, FDR, started it all.
Tell it to John Pierpont Morgan. You know who he is, right? The guy who bailed out the U.S. Treasury on two separate occasions, back in the era of gold-backed currency? JP got tired of being required to backstop a government that held fewer liquid assets than he and his fellow plutocrats, so they got together and drew up the plan for the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913.
I don't pretend to have a grasp on the pluses and minuses of reserve banking, but I do know enough about American history to realize that the country wasn't some free-enterprise paradise of general upward mobility perpetually booming commerce in the era that preceded reserve banking and FDR's deficit-financed social spending programs. And it does have to be said that FDR's national infrastructure programs took most of the American rural countryside out of the 3rd World.
Or maybe you imagine that private wealth would have financed programs like those out of their inborn benevolent wisdom, perhaps inspired by the blood ties of racial solidarity with their less fortunate white brethren, if only the damned socialists hadn't taken over and sideswiped their act.
Interesting point about JP Morgan bailing out the country. Sounds like we are "all in this together" after all and it took a greedy capitalist to once again make the socializaiton of imprudent decision making possible. I'm unsure if you believed that somehow this historical fact would make me more or less inclined to side with a government. Its clearly obvious this would make anyone realize that the government can't be trusted to run much of anything.
So the U.S. Federal government was too already big and powerful, even in the Gilded Age era of the 1890s- but it took FDR and the New Deal to really ruin the American future.
That's some historical narrative. Got a syllabus for it?
I said nothing of it being too big and powerful in the Gilded Age. I said it was irresponsible. JP Morgan enabled the moral hazard that led to the Federal Reserve less than two decades later. Which then led to FDR, which, well, then led to today, where the federal government is printing money to enrich the latest pluocrats while enslaving the rest of us.
I'm having trouble with the coherence of your comments, Nick.
Isn't "enslavement" a little strong, as descriptive of the conditions of American citizens?
If the Federal government actually is "printing money" "to enrich the latest plutocrats", how does that relate to your allegations of socialism and communism?
Money is the "means of production". It is being wielded in the same way. Money is used to pick winners and losers in the same way Commisars would dole out positions within The Party. The control of the money supply is being wielded to the same ends that the control of the means of production was wielded by the communist parties in the former USSR and Maoist China. It started with the use of Federal Funds to coerce states to comply with Federal law, and now we are in a position where some 25% of all US corporations are being run on debt, and debt alone. Using money is more insidious than traditional Communism simply because its hidden away behind excuse making like "we had no choice", but the end will be the same. The plutocrats will sit on their thrones while the serfs toil in their propped industry, unable to save as the constant inflationary pressure on the currency makes a dollar you made in the morning worth less than they one at the end of the same day. Meanwhile, those with assets are being propped up by the very inflation that destroys wage earners.
Funny how you just said JP Morgan had to save the US government and then say the government was too powerful.
The elite are too powerful which is how they are able to own the government.
I was parsing Nick's opinion in that post, not my own.
I do get that it's tough to follow reply threads, once they grow too many tentacles.
Paradise is a myth. There isn't a free market capitalist on this planet that believes in paradise or utopia, that is what separates them from the commies. You on the other hand insist that this is somehow the goal, and that because one system doesn't produce it naturally, we can manifest it through the centralization.
As for upward mobility, well, no system has produced more of that than laissez faire capitalism in spite of everything the central planners have attempted to do to stifle it. Hell, laissez faire capitalism has even propped up communist regimes around the globe and that is probably its biggest fault. It gives the communist fucktards an glimmer of hope. Even Marx knew that it would take a free market system to produce and develop enough resources and technology if Communism were to have any chance of succeeding. No one the likes of Sanders stands a chance in a country that doesnt have excess, and the 15% of people that produce more of it. After all, they need someone to steal from.
"Paradise is a myth. There isn't a free market capitalist on this planet that believes in paradise or utopia..."
Really? I've heard some of them talk.
"Free market" is a contradiction in terms, hiding in plain sight. A neat con.
And "laissez-faire" is better described with the model of Inertia, of the sort that leads ineluctably to monopolies, that nemesis of independent small businesses and entrepreneurs.
As for the rest of your observations on politics and economics- hey, I remember being eleven years old. If only it were that Simple.
Of right, because chanting "no justice no peace", and repeating "I believe in universal healthcare" is somehow a mature political statement. Bernie Sanders and the squad are the epitome of the dumbing down of politics. Slogans, jargon, and theft are what defines the left. Did you not see those mostly peaceful protests go forgiven by liberal democrats because "its just property"?
excuse me, was that comment directed at my posts? I don't notice that I've said anything to you to prompt a reply of that sort.
"hey, I remember being eleven years old."
More Faux news revisionist history I see. Never heard of the robber barons who perpetuated the first stock market bubble and crash ? Are you so naive that you think the elite weren't buying elections before the 1900's ?
That's just hilarious you think capitalism ever really worked before FDR.
Capitalism has never stopped working, even in the USSR. Capitalism isnt a system. The free exchange of labor is ingrained in human nature. The scum at the bottom of the cesspool you occupy attempt to create systems around this freedom which produce negative outcomes you can then blame on something you dont understand. Emergent order is beyond your conceptual abilities.
The capitalist economy of the Soviet Union related to the capitalist economies of its neighbors in about the same way that the illicit drugs trade relates to a licensed, regulated liquor store. The black market comprised about 25% of the Soviet economy, and it made its own rules, from currency changing and hoarding rationed goods to the retail trade in smuggled import goods from the West. Unscrupulous business practice and organized crime were raised to a keen edge in that underground economy. What's especially interesting is that those unsavory skill sets have continued to demonstrate their utility in the modern globalized economy of the post-Soviet era. Including in the present-day U.S.
Of course Capitalism is a system: the more unchecked it is, the more the system partakes of inertial qualities. "A body at rest remains at rest": orphan drugs go unmanufactured, notwithstanding the severity of the afflictions of patients who might be aided or cured by the drugs, because the market is so small that the product will never yield a profit. Who's to say otherwise?
"A body in motion continues in motion": see every march toward monopoly ever. Consider globalization: that wasn't about "big government interference", it was about removing "big government interference." Enabling the path of least resistance for the inertial flow of capital to the territories with the cheapest labor, and lowest level of labor protections, product safety inspection, and environmental standards.
I mean, Nick, how would you fix that: more Capitalism?
If the number of patients that have a disease to low enough, the disease may even go un-diagnosed. Its such a small problem, it just doesnt actually matter. No system works on the margins. Even in a fully flushed out universal healthcare system, there are going to be people who die due to "lack of care" because they are too expensive to care for. The cost to society is simply to high to save a single person (or small number of people), this is a form of collectivism. Resources are always limited in every system.
"Every march TOWARD monopoly ever..." Oddly enough, this is never realized unless its been protected by the power of the state vis a vis licensing schemes or, in a case like the East India Tea Company, backed by the force of a government (in reality, licensing schemes are backed by the same authority the British Navy had, its merely exercised differently). Monopolies will never exist in a competitive system unless they are protected by force because all technology eventually becomes ubiquitous.
That lack of standards you cite as problematic is actually a boon for the societies that have them, they are their competitive advantage, their ticket out of subsistence. It moves the little girl from prostitution into a "dangerous" factory. Simply because this doesnt meet your standard of care doesnt mean its not an improvement. Sweat shop labor is indeed a good thing in context.
You ask me how we fix "that". What is "that"? These things you deem problematic? The only way "we" can fix that is if you change your perspective. You are the exception to the rule, the world doesnt operate the way you have experienced. Attempting to force your morality unto the rest of the globe is itself immoral. In your attempt to be ethical, you are oppressing the very people you believe are oppressed. Ironic isnt it?
Capitalism has move billions out of poverty, and you fault it because someone might have to work in a dirty factory? Because people die? As if somehow you can control for these things and "fix" them with the proper "rules"? Its a borderline religious perspective on the power of government.
Capitalism is still putting people into poverty to this day. Thanks for the bankster talking points, but I'm not stupid enough to believe any of them.
No, you're the person with the theological perspective here: you evidently believe that human beings were ordained to serve the needs of the Market, and I think that markets are intended to serve the purposes of human beings.
For example, I don't think that any human being should be put in the position of having to die from a curable or controllable disease on account of the fact that the Market demand of the afflicted population is too small for anyone to earn a monetary profit from manufacturing the medicine required to save them.
"Attempting to force your morality unto the rest of the globe is itself immoral."
Taken literally, for the vague, sweeping, general pronouncement that your statement presents itself as, it amounts to a condemnation of the rule of law. A serial killer could justify his acts with that logic (such as it is), and some of them probably have.
You're plainly inordinately fond of such sweeping general pronouncements, as with all adherents to one Unified Field Theory or another.
This also explains your reliance on the Hypothetical Example to support your theory:
"That lack of standards you cite as problematic is actually a boon for the societies that have them, they are their competitive advantage, their ticket out of subsistence. It moves the little girl from prostitution into a "dangerous" factory."
Yes, and children being trafficked for sex are probably better off than if they were kidnapped, murdered, and butchered in order to supply the Free Market in organs for transplant recipients.
For that matter, why bother with the pretense of implying that you deplore the business enterprise of child prostitution? It's just another example of the workings of the Market, isn't it? Isn't it just another Market business transaction that deserves to be Free from the immorality of government interference?
"Simply because this doesnt meet your standard of care doesnt mean its not an improvement. Sweat shop labor is indeed a good thing in context."
A sample of documented examples of the Capitalist Mode of Production that you're defending as a "good thing in context"- real, not hypothetical. Practice, not Theory:
https://globalpressjournal.com/americas/argentina/traumatized-in-sweatshops-trafficking-victims-often-find-little-help-after-rescue-or-escape/
http://faculty.webster.edu/woolflm/sweatshops.html
http://www.ceprovidersnetwork.com/admin/uploaded/OHIO/OHIO%202015/The%20Emergence%20of%20Human%20Trafficking%20in%20the%20Beauty%20Industry-1%20HR.pdf
I didn't even bother to look for the worst examples I could turn up.
I doubt too many have drilled this far into this thread, but it's brilliant.
Because the poor people have all the power and make all the decisions. Holy crap, you're delusional.
STOP WATCHING FAUX
And I don't watch any media on television, so pull your head out of your ass and quit parroting what the lefitsts on reddit have taught you to parrot.
What the fuck are you blabbering about?
"Those who control the means of production always win. In this case its the financiers and the banksters."
Speaking of "communism", that statement might as well be a verbatim quote from Karl Marx. Although you'd have to have read some of his works in order to realize that.
It's the same thing no matter what economic "title" you want to apply to it. Marx gets a bad rap for calling out capitalism's BS.
I'm not dismissing the observation, just calling out Nick's idiocratic ideological spin on the situation, with his fantasy that the disproportionate power of private finance wealth in the modern era is the result of a communist plot.
I don't even slightly resemble a Marxist ideologue, but Marx was in fact a scathingly insightful critic of the inertial weaknesses of unfettered capitalism.
"his fantasy that the disproportionate power of private finance wealth in the modern era is the result of a communist plot"
These people are running around loose in the world. I don't have anything insightful to say about it. It's just kind of wild.
"Jeff Bezos is a Socialist", lol
having been before merely a Socialist caterpillar, Bezos bursts out of his cocoon as a COMMUNIST butterfly, an unholy sight to behold
The precise spot where communism and fascism become indistinguishable. Oh, is that a "horseshoe"? My bad. But fusing government and corporations, from either direction, leads to the same authoritarianism.
All the "isms" lead to authoritarianism because all the isms were designed and perpetuated by the elite.
Authoritarianism is far older than any and all of the isms.
The isms are only wedge issues to keep the plebs divided and fighting each other so the elite can continue their parasitic behavior.
Who cares what you call it if you agree on what it is doing?
Its vastly important because the Sanders wing wants to extend even more control to the Federal government. Its a problem because the ideology is one of "Well, so long as we vote for MY candidate the symptoms will disappear". These folks want to replace communism with communism.
There is no Sanders wing. He's a sheep dog and has been since the early 90's when he cut a deal with the DNC so they wouldn't run dem's against him.
Perhaps you shouldn't buy so heavily into the McCarthy ideology.
There's a top and a bottom, that's all there's ever been and all that will ever be until people unite against the so called "elite".
Getting lost in meaningless labels is helping the elite, not us.
Stop with the communism crap it's exactly the same as the capitalism crap.
Then explain how capitalism will save us now that the elite have all the capital.
Matt's gonna grade em an F and hold em after class, Cletus
lmao. thanks for sharing. :p
You morons think your revolution is going to happen through the vote. You're mistaken. When your ilk come through the suburbs, there will be blood, and you dont have the guns to win this war.
Ouch. Truth from the strangest places.
You're the next unibomber and are too stupid to know it. Shut off that device and go outside before you hurt yourself or someone else.
If only we had listened to the Unabomer. He predicted that the devices would ruin us and he was right.
Being right about something doesn't give you the right to kill other folks.
By "right" I was referring to his predictions, not his methods. I took the time to read the "Manifesto" in the NYT back in the day because I knew the dude was serious about getting people to read it. Him being a homicidal maniac doesn't necessarily disqualify his social analysis.
The disconnect between his ideas and his actions was the best evidence that he really was insane.
Yet here we are, staring at our screens all day. WHO IS THE REAL MADMAN?!
Well, I'm about to go for a walk with my family; then there's gardening to do, and a job for the Oregon Green Party.
You 100% misunderstand what it means to be free. This explains everything about you.
It sure does when someone attempts to use the power of the State to take what they produce.