Why I think a communist revolution is a pipe dream in United States.

[Dis]

capitalism rawks!

[Ben Kenobi]

The most recent update to their projections (a word the UN is now de-emphasizing in favor of "scenario" or "working hypothesis")

Gee I wonder if that has anything to do with their most recent predictions.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber
4. the poorest of the poor are usually homeless, with health, alcohol or drug problems-- hardly fertile ground for energetic revolutionaries. Among those in the next economic strata there is usually enough of a social safety net to meet basic needs

Actually, this is where I would grant Che a point. I think he has said that things can change very fast. The 30's were a good example of that. Able bodied, working people suffered a great deal. Violent change was in the air, only to be repressed by force and or assuaged by social programs.

What does that have to do with now? I am led to believe that there are growing numbers of people who are fully capable of working and who do in fact work hard at one or more jobs, but what they earn in those jobs is not nearly enough to get ahead, or in some cases even to survive. Conditions are nowhere like they were in the 30's, but any time you get any great number of people who are active and productive, but who are not getting ahead you are asking for trouble.

I highly doubt that communist revolution is likely anywhere in the West, but something is going to have to change and/or adjust, or there is going to be some trouble.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dissident
capitalism rawks!

Idea for a movie sequel . . . .


"Dude, Where's my Credit Card?"

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Gee I wonder if that has anything to do with their most recent predictions.

Actually, the paper itself is little more than a plea for continued funding for they as much as admit that to be able to project a rising population (and therefore a need for a UN population division, as if the department would get axed if the population actually fell ) they have to forecast so far out in the future as to make all projections, a-hem!, "scenarios" useless.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Azazel

You've obviously ignored my point that this doesn't matter since the amount wealth the 5-25 percentiles is still low, in comparison to the upper 1 percentile, for example.

So? Take the aggregate $955 billion that the top 400 richest Americans own and divide it amongst the American population and you have destroyed a social order thousands of years in the making... for a mere $357.14 per person. Good going!

I already answered it. it seems that you're ignoring my points instead of adressing them.

No, you answered it assuming that I was just going to accept your implicit assumption that your University is not a consumable resource that benefits you to the tens of thousands of dollars a year, despite how much you pay in tuition. You could sacrifice your college education to help a scholarship winner from Mozambique - why not?

You are richer than you think. You are the Elite.

That's great! I have no problem of giving you a high salary, even a very high one, as long as:
a) you deserve it.
b) you'll be a wage earner, not a capitalist.
c) your power in influencing the economical future of society will be given to you by the people, and not something that is enherently yours ( going back to point b ).
d) Those amounts of money, though very large, are not astronomical.

a. Who determines that? You?
b. Mere definitions, words whose meaning change with the passage of time, words that even to millions are not contradictory. Remember it is the Left who must keep up their artificial distinction between "worker" and "manager", between "financier" and "operator." I don't mess with such silly distinctions because I understand that all peoples work, they are all necessary in todays world, and that they get paid according to the value of their product.
c. A fundamental misunderstanding of the use of power. Authority is taken and fought for... not given to. In my life, the very fact that I have told the world that I am in charge of my little part of it (by starting/taking over my companies) gives me the right to influence the economic future of the world in my own small way - it isn't something just granted somebody by some nebulous force, rather it is a responsibility assumed.

However, not very many people want that sort of authority and even of those who do, even fewer are good at it.

d. Define "astronomical." $100k? $500k? $3.2 mil. with stock options? $200 million? (George Lucas's take the year Phantom Menace came out) $550 million (Michael Milken, 1987. Damn that was a nice year. )

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

So this is wrong?

Yes, because then you can accumulate much more wealth than what you actually need to live even a luxurious life, wealth that could be spent on building roads, building optical cables, training teachers and scientists...

Notwithstanding the plentiful existance today of roads, optical cables, teachers and scientists.

[JohnT]

Souce for 400 richest Americans cite: http://www.forbes.com/richlist2003/rich400land.html

[Ned]

I am not so sure. Dean, after all, is leading in the polls for the Democrat nomination.

[JohnT]

Cross post, Ned?

[Ned]

No, Dean sounds just like all the commies here. The so-called "Democrat" wing of the Democrat party is its Marxist wing.

True, Dean is not calling now for total nationalization of business, but, is that a distinction worth a difference for what he is advocating?

By the way, I have seen it reported that Dean is getting millions in dollars from Arabs and Muslims since he came out for a "balanced" relationship in the ME. "Balanced" is a code word used by the UN and France, among others, for an anti-Israeli stance. The code word is not lost on the anti-Israelis and Jew-haters of America.

[Ned]

Btw, I have heard it agrued that Republican strategists are chomping on their bits to seen Dean nominated. The assumption is that a candidate so radical cannot be elected. However, I think this is wishful thinking at best, and very dangerous at its worst. After all, the German people voted the NAZI party into power, did they not? Now, that was a very bad decision in hindsight.

The radicals can win. The unthinkable can happen.

Communism is very close to victory in the US.

[MrFun]

Dean??

radical??

[Ned]

Mr Fun, the guy is a socialist, Jew hating bigot. In my book, he is a NAZI.

[MrFun]

What source did you get the FACTS from that Dean is anti-Semitic???

[JohnT]

Please don't hijack this thread, y'all.

[Ned]

Mr. Fun, he called for a "balanced" approach to the ME, a codeword used by the UN and all anti-Israeli types across the world. He is accepting large financial support from Muslims and other anti-Israeli groups.

Do you actually think he would say he is anti-Israel? No. But he certainly has adopted a clearly anti-Israel foreign policy.

Now, why would any American do that?

Don't give me the standard jargon that being anti-Israel is not equivalent to being anti-Jew. Today, anti-Israelism is closely linked to anti-Semitism. Just witness the recent remarks of Mahathir.

[Ned]

Originally posted by JohnT
Please don't hijack this thread, y'all.

I think you are ignoring the threat that Dean represents.

[Ramo]

You're totally delusion Ned. Dean is a marginally center-left American politician, not a commie. The only radical thing about Dean's agenda is the way he's running his campaign - democratically (which is why I'm supporting him).

And he is certainly not an anti-Semite. This "codeword" business you're bringing up is nothing less than some combination of ignorance and paranoia. As for accepting contributions from Moslems making a politician an anti-Semite, does accepting contributions from Christians and Jews make a politician bigotted towards Islam? No, Dean's not a bigot, you are.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ned


I think you are ignoring the threat that Dean represents.

I meant hijacking with an argument about his "anti-semitism" - talking about his economic views are totally within the purview of this thread.

Dean doesn't seem to be any more Left than, say, George McGovern. And you know what happened to him.

[Ned]

OK. As I said, what Dean has not done yet is call for nationalization of US business and suspension of the Republican party. But, short of that, he advocates every position that any commie would. He is anti-business, anti-trade, anti-globilization, anti-religion, pro-environmental extremism, favors class warfare, is unwilling to use force to confront socialist governments (read Saddam). He is anti-Israel.

He represents a major step toward communism.

[Spiffor]

Any sane policy for the US would represent a step toward communism anyway

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Any sane policy for the US would represent a step toward communism anyway

Of course.

I am trying to remember all the things McGovern stood for. But I have a hard time agreeing that McGovern was a far to the left as Dean. I do not remember McGovern being anti-Israel, anti-trade, and anti-globalization.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ned
OK. As I said, what Dean has not done yet is call for nationalization of US business and suspension of the Republican party. But, short of that, he advocates every position that any commie would. He is anti-business, anti-trade, anti-globilization, anti-religion, pro-environmental extremism, favors class warfare, is unwilling to use force to confront socialist governments (read Saddam). He is anti-Israel.

He represents a major step toward communism.

really.... his calls for deregulation of the prescription drug industry anti-business... hmm. Anti-trade? Who could be more anti-trade than the trade war master himself Dubya? (Note steel and timber) Dean just wants labor laws in parity with the U.S.'s if we are to trade with them.... Anti-globalization..... "the U.N. is irrelevant" was not Dean's assertion. Pro-environmental extremism how? Favors class warfare? Unwilling to use force to confront Socialist governments.... rich.... so now the Iraq War was to stop Socialism anti_israel..... no... he is just not pro-Israel. There is a position that could be taken called "neutral", and the peace process might be able to succeed if the U.S. were to take that stance.

[Ned]

NeOmega, maybe I have been listening too much to Lieberman. Maybe Dean is not so far left after all!

Fat chance.

Of course, I also condemn Bush when he is wrong. Bush was wrong on "steal" tarriffs.

But the bit on "fair trade" is straight out of the anti-globalist handbook.

And, if Dean's position is that we should be less pro-Israel (and how does one quantify this?), why did he use the Kofi-Annan code word? Clearly a great deal of his entusiatic Muslim supporters believe he used the code word purposefully. And if he did not use it purposefully, but merely negligently, what does this show us about Dean?

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ned
And, if Dean's position is that we should be less pro-Israel (and how does one quantify this?), why did he use the Kofi-Annan code word? Clearly a great deal of his entusiatic Muslim supporters believe he used the code word purposefully. And if he did not use it purposefully, but merely negligently, what does this show us about Dean?

Kofi Annan code word? Balanced? You have a problem with a "balanced" solution to the middle east? Less pro-Israel? Where to start. How about stop handing cash over to them.... (you know, foreign aid, yuck!) hand over fist for starters. So dean is a commie because he thinks Israel shouldn't be trying to fence in more West Bank land and build more settlements on the disputed territories? I never read Stalin or Lenin or Trotsky say anything about that!

[Kuciwalker]

Stop threadjacking.

This is a capitalism/communism thread. NOT a Dean/Bush thread.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by JohnT

So? Take the aggregate $955 billion that the top 400 richest Americans own and divide it amongst the American population and you have destroyed a social order thousands of years in the making... for a mere $357.14 per person. Good going!

There is 2.6 billion people in the US now

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned
Mr. Fun, he called for a "balanced" approach to the ME, a codeword used by the UN and all anti-Israeli types across the world. He is accepting large financial support from Muslims and other anti-Israeli groups.

Do you actually think he would say he is anti-Israel? No. But he certainly has adopted a clearly anti-Israel foreign policy.

Now, why would any American do that?

Don't give me the standard jargon that being anti-Israel is not equivalent to being anti-Jew. Today, anti-Israelism is closely linked to anti-Semitism. Just witness the recent remarks of Mahathir.

Wonderful -- so you presume that just because he sympathizes more with Palestinians than Israelies, that he HAS to be anti-Semitic.

Look, I sympathize more with Israelies than with the Palestinians, but I certainly do not call those who sympathize with Palestinians and disagree with my viewpoint, anti-Semitic.

Dean still looks like a good candidate in my book.

[Ned]

Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism appear to have merged in the Muslim world, particularly in the Arab portion. There is not an Arab country where a Jew can safely live. Anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism is merging in Europe. Here in the US, the anti-Israeli crowd have openingly attacked Jews and threatened their lives. I have seen it on TV, and in the streets marked with NAZI swastikas and where synagogues are smeared with hate symbols every time the crisis in the mid East grows hot.

Anyone, in my book, who throws in his allegience with these people has shown his true colors.