Millions of Americans are politically informed, smart, active and angry. They see many wrongs in our political and government system. They are fed up with politics as usual, meaning corrosive corruption of politicians by corporate and other special interests. They see little good in either the Democrat or Republican parties. And they almost always share a common bond: They love and honor the US Constitution, even though they may see some flaws in it. Yet they are also constitutional hypocrites.

Why do I say this? Because Americans are overwhelmingly ignorant or misinformed about the constitutional paths for amending the Constitution. Too many, in fact, seem to miss the profoundly important point that the Founders and Framers knew that they had not created a perfect document and blueprint for the US. That is why they placed two specific paths for amending the Constitution.

But very few Americans know that only one of these amendment mechanisms has been used in the entire history of the country. All the current amendments were proposed by Congress. This should raise this serious question today: Considering the very low regard for Congress by the overwhelming majority of Americans, which is richly deserved, why should we have any confidence that Congress would ever propose amendments that could kill so much of the corruption that plagues our system, especially corruption of members of Congress?

This situation was somehow anticipated by the Framers. They could see that there was a strong possibility that Americans would eventually lose confidence in the federal government. Which is why they put a second path to amending the Constitution into the document. A path that has never been used. This is the provision in Article V for a convention of state delegates that could propose amendments, which like the proposals from Congress would still have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

Being human, the Framers made a mistake. They gave Congress the sole power to call or convene an Article V convention. The single explicit requirement that was supposed to make Congress call a convention was that two-thirds of state legislatures had to request an Article V convention. The Framers did not, apparently, envision a future in which Congress would stubbornly ignore state applications for a convention and get away with it, despite language that demands that Congress “shall” call a convention when one simple requirement is met. How could they envision that Congress would blatantly disobey something so simply stated in the Constitution? How could they anticipate such weak states, unwilling to make Congress respect their constitutional right? The Framers clearly were not cynical enough.

The situation we face today is that all 50 states have submitted over 750 applications for a convention, considerably more than enough to trigger the constitutional mandate that Congress convene an Article V convention. How could Congress get away with this kind of unconstitutional behavior? Apparently, a combination of political corruption and public ignorance has allowed Congress to get away with this. Even among the millions of Americans that proudly declare their loyal allegiance to the Constitution, there is no recognition that unless they demand that Congress obey Article V, they are constitutional hypocrites. Congress has no right to unilaterally decide that it can ignore and disobey a part of the Constitution.

Note that Congress never even created a mechanism where they would collect in a public way the state applications for an Article V convention, which helped create public ignorance of this situation. Add to this that many, many organized vested interests on the left and right like their ability to corrupt Congress to get what they want from it. This is why they have frequently mounted campaigns to make the public fear a convention, because such a convention might actually propose reforms that would remove corruption of Congress by contributing money for campaigns and pursuing lobbying.

Ignorance and fear have combined to thwart public demands that Congress obey the Constitution and convene the first Article V convention. In fact, there is only one national, nonpartisan organization vainly attempting to educate the public so that Congress would be forced to finally give us the first Article V convention. Friends of the Article V Convention at foavc.org is also the only group that has collected state applications for a convention and made them publicly available.

Their efforts may be working. A new online survey asked this: Based on your assessment of American politics, would you support or oppose a call for a Constitutional Convention? Supporters won easily at 65 percent.

It comes down to this, unless you get informed and join the mission to make Congress obey the Constitution, you are a constitutional hypocrite, not what the nation needs.

[Contact Dr. Hirschhorn, a co-founder of FOAVC, through delusionaldemocracy.com]

of the proponents of the status quo and the "overclass", who consider themselves the elite and the real rulers of the USA and the leaders of the Repub and Democratic Parties, is that Americans will come to their senses and understand that this country is actually in the hands of 300 million of its citizens, and not in the hands of these few elite, the mega rich and the lobbyists of Washington DC.

The internet and our Constitution Article V have given we the people the tools and power to take back our government for the people and we need to use it. Currently there is no such thing as a government for the people. It is government by the rich, for the rich, powerful and the connected and we the people need to take it back. It is our country not theirs.

We do need an article V Constitutional Convention. Out of prudence and necessity it will be a slow and deliberate process but it needs to represent the people, not Wall Street, not Goldman Sachs, not the Chamber of Commerce and the other lobbyists who have obviously pillaged our nation.

Those 65% of Americans who initially favor a convention must be converted into action. The 5% proponents of the status quo which have as much wealth as the bottom 90% will play every game possible to discredit the proponents.

BTW welcome back to the fold.

They see little good in either the Democrat or Republican parties. And they almost always share a common bond: They love and honor the US Constitution, even though they may see some flaws in it. Yet they are also constitutional hypocrites.

I don't love or honor the US Constitution. I honor the international working class.

Considering the very low regard for Congress by the overwhelming majority of Americans, which is richly deserved, why should we have any confidence that Congress would ever propose amendments that could kill so much of the corruption that plagues our system, especially corruption of members of Congress?

Amendments can't kill the corruption, the end of capitalism could.

Even among the millions of Americans that proudly declare their loyal allegiance to the Constitution, there is no recognition that unless they demand that Congress obey Article V, they are constitutional hypocrites.

Not a hypocrite here, merely one that doesn't proudly declare their loyal allegiance to the Constitution. If fact such a declaration is an murderous acceptance of US exceptionalism.

It comes down to this, unless you get informed and join the mission to make Congress obey the Constitution, you are a constitutional hypocrite, not what the nation needs.

Actually it comes down to this, the nation needs mass worker and social movements that have international class solidarity as their missions, not some whacky, Xenophobic constitutional reform.

Until we first establish a nation with a credo of ethics, regain our country and remove the over class financiers, the greedy aristocracy and lobbyists from control, you can forget the fantasies of expanding the mission to an Earth first global socialist utopia.

Write a book on it and in 200 years CSPAN will do a book review of the concept. All it will ever be is a concept. The reality is to divide and conquer and that must start with USA first and the organizing of USA workers and then move on to influencing US politics. That's 25 years minimum there.

Globalism is an unmanageable concept except by those who control the riches and that is their goal, and labor will never have any scope of global influence until it regains it country by country.

The constitution is not the solution it is part of the problem. The "founders", the "framers" were elites and do not deserve any great honors. International working class solidarity is what is needed, not more of this "America the beautiful" crap...

This system cannot be fixed, improved, or repaired. It must be eliminated. No one is speaking of "Globalism" and certainly not any kind of "utopia" except for you "America-firsters". This is a murderous system and it includes the Constitution. Class awareness, class consciousness, class movement is where we should be turning our efforts...

Never will.

Our problem is a lack of power, not a lack of bright ideas or utopian schemes. You are saying we need to put the fire out, and until we do that there is no sense talking about organizing the fire brigade.

Who is the "we" that you think should "regain the country?" How about the indigenous people, otherwise known as "illegal aliens?" This is a nation of immigrants, and it belongs to all of mankind. I think there was a Civil War over this issue. Douglass and the Democrats said that the founders obviously meant a select few when they said "we the people." Lincoln and the Republicans said the principles were meant to apply to all people everywhere, or they were meaningless.

With massive dislocations and resultant immigration all over the world, labor already is a global community.

No one - other than you - is talking about "utopia."

25 years minimum to "organize USA workers and then move on to influencing US politics???" Are you serious? Guess that would let us off the hook, and we can just "write a book on it and in 200 years CSPAN will do a book review of the concept. All it will ever be is a concept."

part of the bourgeois revolution, a point in history.

Their time has past.

The US constitution is a masterpiece which served to enshrine private property above all else. If one supports that then it follows that one would support the US constitution.

SQB won't discuss that though as he/she tends to leave a pile and move on.

The US constitution was never intended to bring about radical change that empowered the people. But the gentry sure liked it, then again they wrote it.

not the Constitution that endowed and enshrined so-called corporate personhood rights that eventually usurped the rights of citizens. That concept was singularly advantageous to the rich and very detrimental to the USA and most citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate

I see nothing wrong with capitalism and private property. What I see is a system not of capitalism but by the rich, for the rich and for the well connected to bend the rules in their favor. When money and lobbyists have the ability to bend and write laws and control Congress, those with less will always be stepped upon and sacrificed.

I'm for capitalism that encourages innovation and opportunity, but opportunity for all and not just for the already rich and connected. Free wheeling capitalism does not work because inevitably it benefits only the haves at the expense of those with less. Politically it takes organized labor to serve as the major political buffer.

I support socialism in the sense that it can work with capitalism as a buffer to provide a more egalitarian system. Actually we have socialism working today along with capitalism but the rules are bent so that it only benefits the well connected.

Well that is where we part company! (I mean in addition to your antisemitism.) Capitalism is the reason for all of these issues. I think you are in the wrong place, Jacques...

ETA: As to the rest of your post, Jacques I don't think that you know what the hell you're talking about. Not in any way, period...

There is the confusion that is so common. People will say that they see nothing wrong with capitalism. Then they will say that they do see the need for regulating capitalism. That means that they must see something wrong with capitalism, does it not? Then they will admit the value of socialism and labor unions, and that those lead to this needed regulation. However, they are not going to actually advocate unionism and socialism, and will in fact fight against the Left. Why? Because they see nothing wrong with capitalism.

So, they see things wrong with capitalism but they will not be the ones speaking about those things, and they see a need to fight against capitalism, but they will not be the ones doing that fighting. Instead, they will fight the Jews (the Israel secret string pullers controlling the media and the government), the homosexuals and deviants and decadent ones (Hollywood), and the elite banking conspiracy (Wall Street), and the Bolsheviks (you rigid and doctrinaire fanatics and Stalin lovers.)

All the while they are promoting an America as it once was and could be were it only purified of these dark elements, and made legitimate once again, if only the criminals could be brought to justice, if only the shady cabals robbing us of our precious national energy and spirit could be ferreted out and destroyed by "we the people."

Dhalgren, there is no utopia. I see a lot less wrong with capitalism and private property when it is based upon the use of 100% private funding, than the crony capitalism that we currently have in the USA. Crony socialism could be just as unfair and corrupt.

What we have in the USA in essence is private property paid for by public funds. We have risk taking investors being made whole with public funds. We have bank holding companies such as Goldman that would have gone under last year, except for the bailout obligations placed upon US taxpayers. We've enriched the rich with public funds but the public rarely shares in the gains. The losses are socialized and the gains privatized.

Any economic political system requires offsetting political forces to serve as checks and balances. When organized labor lost its clout the Democrats became the DNC. The current Democratic (DNC - Repub lite) and Republican Party serves only their masters which are either financiers or captains of industry. We the people are left to be used. Socialism is not the answer except to serve as a modulator of capitalism where the public good is served. I favor nationalizing certain functions such as health care and those services that provide for the welfare of a nation and remove these services from the hands of profiteers.

Socialism and corruption go hand in hand as does capitalism. It was rampant in the former Soviet Union and China.

I would suggest that implementing 100% public funding of elections and the elimination of special interest political ads as well as reversing the USSC corporate personhood decision of 1886, would go a long way towards restoring power and equality to the people.

Of course there is "no utopia?" So what? No one is advocating utopia. Asserting without evidence that leftists are promoting utopia is just regurgitating reactionary tripe.

If it ever was possible that time has long past. Capitalism is past the stage where it might stand on it's own, the demands of accumulation have far outstripped the ability of capital to produce without a shitload of help, thus the melding of government and business, monopoly as the standard business model.

So even if you're Ok with a gang of parasites robbing everyone else of a portion of their lives that they might run society for their sole benefit if only would keep their hands out of the public cookie jar, you're shit out of luck.

The obsession with the decadent elite in the arts community, the shadowy cabals, the people secretly controlling "our" media and government, the bankers and AIPAC (international Jewish conspiracy), as well as the nationalism, the "we the people" national character ideas, and the "stab in the back" betrayal conspiracy theories are all reminiscent of National Socialism.

http://lonestartimes.com/images/2007/10/white_world_news_2.jpg

Screenshot from a nazi website.

With all due respect to a respected and honored poster this shit goes way over the top. What I'm reading above is that discussing the following should be avoided otherwise it can be considered as an obsession or pro-Nazism.

1. Hollywood criticized because of support for Polanski,
2. Hollywood being criticized because of the predominance of worthless trash that profit from, while keeping Americans illiterate, brain dead and uninformed
3. A news media that often does the same as #2
4. Wall Street bankers that robbed and raped our treasury criticized
5. Criticizing Israel lobby
6. Use of the terminology "We the people" - too American
7. Criticism of Israel such as war crimes

BTW was Michael Moore's - Capitalism - A Love Story a positive or negative for you?

Please confirm or deny.

I am a long-time lurker but very recently "joiner", and I too am finding the rigidity here on PI far closer to what many here claim to oppose than the other way around.

Why is there so little room for discussion here, unless of course what you mean by discussion is an analysis of Capital, which as the poster says is like pissing into the wind - it feels good to get it out, but not so good when you realize all you did was get yourself wet.

I would like the rigid ideologues here to discuss the issues of capitalism vs. socialism in an honest fashion, rather than acting like they are running downwind from a foul smell.

They may very well be part of the stink.

of capitalism and socialism here is dishonest.

I challenge you to substantiate that opinion.

Rigid?

When it comes to fucking racists, yessiree.

With no remorse.

When it comes to rigid liberal apologists for capitalism (*ALWAYS accompanied by an utter lack of what it in fact is), yessiree.

Why did you log on?

Are you here to talk or stir shit?

If by rigidity you mean that we are intolerant of anti-Semitism, libertarianism, and New Age/self help mumbo jumbo masquerading as left politics, you're damn skippy.

Your opinion of our reading of Capital reflects either a lack of reading comprehension or flat out opposition to the principles revealed by said reading.

So please tell me, how would you discuss 'the issues of capitalism vs socialism in an honest fashion'? But please come to the point, cause life is too short.

You answer with questions, for it seems you are unable to discuss matters unless they are confined within your own very small fishbowl.

You then pat yourselves on your own backs by reassuring us that you are intolerant of intolerance, which of course you define in your own terms (which should be easy, since many of you could write the book on intolerance).

New Age/self-help mumbo jumbo - what's that?

Socialism can and should be part of a viable alternative, but you seem unwilling to let anyone eat at your table unless they agree with all your food choices. That's a recipe for a circle jerk, and unless you are willing/able to broaden your horizons and think outside your self-made box your movement is going to be confined to a website.

Which is maybe all you want, because tilting at windmills is easier than building them.

Stop fighting your friends. Better yet, start looking for them.

It's like this: this is a left political site. Capitalism or Socialism, those are the only choices available in this day and age. Any attempt at 'third way' or 'mixed economy' is fatally compromised, it is still capitalism. Intolerant of capitalism, you bet. There is no appeal to 'fairness' in this, this is no longer a place where any kind of crap can be passed off as left wing politics, we are returning to the basics.

Ya'll come off as though we've made this stuff up out of whole cloth, whereas there is a long history of genuine left political thought which we have been exploring for the past few years, starting at this very place. Ya got to know where you've been before you can know where you're going, so that's what we're doing. If you don't like that, tough shit.

As far as 'friends' go, our friends are those who reject capitalism, that is the bottom line.

It is bullshit and we have heard this bullshit our whole lives.

We want to end capitalism, period. If you want to contribute, jump in; if all you want to do is disrupt, throw out roadblocks and tell us all how stupid we are and how enlightened you and your neoliberal/progressive-libertarian friends are, take a hike.

If you want to contribute do it; if not, leave us to our "circle-jerk" - I mean, what is it to you? If we are "tilting at windmills" and wasting time, why are you wasting yours?

And just as a last stab at this - how can you claim to want to "discuss" capitalism and socialism and in the same breath denigrate the reading of Capital? If you do not understand capitalism, you can not discuss it, if you haven't read Capital, you can't understand capitalism. It is just that plain. People who belittle the reading and study of Capital, have never read it...

First off, I'm almost 60 years old.

I've read Capital more than once. I spent years believing it. I spent years trying to live it.

It doesn't work. There is no accounting for human behavior - that is the fatal flaw that anyone who has OBJECTIVELY studied it knows.

It is a wonderful belief system to wrap oneself in if one totally discounts the fact that it is 100% unworkable in its purest Marxian form.

You have chosen to turn a blind eye to the flaw - that is your prerogative.

Please, however, stop acting like an 800 lb. gorilla and throwing out pseudo-machismo bullshit like "we want to end capitalism".

No you don't - you want to rant on how you want to end it.

You give me your attack plan for doing so, and Ill listen. I know what Ill get though - something along the lines of "plan - we don't need no stinkin' plan."

I've seen it a hundred times before - you guys are no different.

You could, however, prove me wrong - but I think you're more focused on demonizing than listening.

It is not something that you "believe" - it is an analysis of the development and concept of capitalism. You cannot "live it" any more than you could "live" a biology book. There is nothing in Capital that is something that could "work". It is not even remotely a "belief system"! Jesus, dude, you just proved that you have never read it, at all!

Oh, here we go again - "Show me your plan" - fuck you. Every word you write shows that you have no understanding of what is going on, what has gone on, or what is possible - and you have no desire to learn. Even at 60, you ain't too old to learn. And don't talk about "listening" until you have something to say worth listening to. You have in this one post completely discredited yourself. It is easy to spout bullshit to other liberals who know no more than you do, but if you are going to come on a board like this one, with the number of learned and studied (not me)members that we have and spout total crap, then this should be fun to watch - hard to watch, but fun...

"As far as 'friends' go, our friends are those who reject capitalism, that is the bottom line." True d'at...

THINK man.

We don't have a plan to "end" capitalism. You've read Capital (and presumably the Manifesto). So you know that the Communists do not set themselves apart from the working class (paraphrase).

You know that the history of all heretofore society is the history of CLASS struggle.

We are trying to place the germ of class struggle -- and it is perhaps only a germ right now -- front in center. In some ways we are just trying to keep the flame alive.

The things you attribute to us, we're not. You haven't a clue what we're trying to do here.

If you honestly think there is no accounting for human behavior then you have basically rejected socialism out of hand and from there you are incapable of constructing any view point that is not stridently on the right wing.

Thats cool, I don't begrudge you your stance in the least, but you probably need to go hang with your fellow "Human Nature" toadies and sycophants. Depending on taste you might try sites ranging from Democratic Undeground to Rigorous Intution.

See part of the benefit of reading Marx is that you are forced to really come grips with your own condition (again, the Manifesto) and to analyze the world around you as it really is. In place of that, you want to substitute bald assertion about fatal flaws, onjective study, wrong behavior, and accounting problems.

Again, thats cool. But we know that behind the curtain lies the ideological equivalent of a meek shriveled up pruney old man.

You got nothing. You know it, we know it.

How do you “live out” Capital?

It would be like trying to "live" an algebra book.
I have heard this kind of shit before, from right-wing reactionaries who always say things like "Marx's Capital is impractical. It could never work." And similar shit. When you ask them what the hell they are talking about, they generally get all pissy about "windmills" and "plans" and crap like that...


:rofl:

I would not say that certain ideas should not be expressed because they are "pro-Nazism."

I am saying that those ideas should be understood and countered regardless of what they are associated with historically or what we call them. The historical reference is merely for the sake of clarity. Nationalism + anti-Semitism + railing about the banking elite + railing against the arts community as symbolized by "Hollywood" is a mixture of prejudices that does have a history as an "ideology."

I posted what I did for the benefit of other readers, full well knowing that I ran the risk of getting this reply - "they are calling me a Nazi for criticizing Hollywood and Israel." I am not calling you a Nazi. I am saying that the opinions you are expressing bear a striking resemblance to those held by people in the 30's in Germany who promoted National Socialism. Those ideas are not new, and not unique to National Socialism or Germany or the 30's.

So, those ideas are not bad because they are Nazi ideas, rather Nazi-ism was bad because it was based on those ideas. See the difference?

If you've really been lurking for a long time, then you know damn well there have been many conversations about the direction and focus of this site in the last several months.

Interesting that you lurked through all that and now your first posts are filled with with all sorts of opinions about what this site 'should be'. How bout I peek in your windows for a few months while you are redecorating and then barge in and tell you how crappy and uninviting it is? What the hell, dude?

Read the "About PI" page. It's very straightforward. Does it make sense to you? Are you posting in good faith? Or are you just here to start shit?

Boilerplate, rigid, intolerant, circle jerk, echo chamber, you are alienating liberal and progressive friends, it won't work, I have seen it all before, you are all the same...

In other words, "keep this up and no one will like you, you will be socially ostracized and ridiculed and attacked and will have no friends. You will be thrown out of polite company." Of course, that is best seen as a threat you are expressing, not an observation.

Saying "I read Marx and it won't work" is not much different than saying "I read Newton and it won't work" or "I read Darwin and it won't work" and then going on to promote flat earth theories and creationism.

Have you read the 'About PI' thread? Here's the latest version of the OP:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=102058&mesg_id=102082

I would point your attention towards the 'Fake Left' section. If you can't hang with that then you are wasting your, and our time.

So the great awakening is really no such thing? All the space you take up blathering on and on is exactly what again? I recall in my younger days conversing for hours on what I thought was The Saving Grace - of course I was wasted on windowpane acid at the time but I can understand how a single thought can be seen as gospel.

An "analysis of the development and concept of capitalism." Big whoop. After you've analyzed it to death, then what? Do you start over? Is it like a giant never-ending loop?

Now, if nothing in Capital can work, then does it not follow that socialism in a pure form can not work? Please explain to these tired old eyes and ears how your bible says no but your words say yes.

Oh, and can you "live" capitalism?

You see, what I am trying to do is point out that these "learned" members, as you so kindly put it, are nothing more than propagandists. Anyone can be an "expert" on anything, but these folks are asking us all to believe that their knowledge of the subject actually can at some point be put to use.

It can't - they're just talking to make themselves heard. You yourself have proved the point, and when called on it you do what everyone else here so far has done (in response to me) - you name call, you insult, you call into question my ability to reason, etc.

How sad for you that this is all you have. It's why, I reckon, that your field of followers is so very small. You behave like disrespectful kids and expect the grown-ups to think you have something to offer. So while you think you're having fun watching me I in turn am having fun watching you, because your responses can be scripted a day ahead of time.

Perhaps more time listening and less time shouting slogans would be of help to you.

Just sayin'.

(P.S. not how I managed an entire response without resorting to "fuck you?" This is how adults talk)

(P.P.S. I FORGOT more Marx than you'll ever know in your lifetime)

You need to calm down a bit.

I know being taken to school is rough, but it's all for the best. Trust me.

You're much smarter than I am.

You've said so yourself.

I sit at the feet of the master.

That said, you do lay down a damn fine persecution rap, and your "inversion response" posting style is a hoot as well.

I do think, however, that actually answering a question or two at some point down the line would enhance your credibility.

If I'm "all the same", and you all agree with that sentiment, aren't you "all the same" as well?

Which "same" is better?

I didn't say anything about you being the same, whatever that means. I didn't say anything about anyone being smart, nor about persecution, either.

I have no idea what "inversion response" means.

What questions would you like answered?

Really, how can I take you seriously when you can't even admit to what you said 10 minutes ago!

You'd be funny if you weren't so sad.

Or perhaps you are playing your own game.

Child-like as it may be.

Bed-time for old people now.

G'night.

And you're it!

In your dreams.

Let me know which phone booth you choose for your next meeting.

I'd hate to miss meeting the "real left" up close and personal.

Does your ego have its own room?

Total waste

:ciao:

Total waste

:ciao:

You know shit is what you know and every post reveals that fact more than the last. I am as old as you are, the difference is that you are an idiot and I feel sorry for you that you have to come onto a leftist website and lie in order to feel...what?...equal?

You ain't gonna' make it, dubs, you ain't gonna make it. Now run along and take your fiber and try not to soil yourself before morning.

:ciao:

You know shit is what you know and every post reveals that fact more than the last. I am as old as you are, the difference is that you are an idiot and I feel sorry for you that you have to come onto a leftist website and lie in order to feel...what?...equal?

You ain't gonna' make it, dubs, you ain't gonna make it. Now run along and take your fiber and try not to soil yourself before morning.

:ciao:

TA IS much smarter than you! But don't get too near his feet (we don't know where you've been)...

TA IS much smarter than you! But don't get too near his feet (we don't know where you've been)...

First off ace this ain't no leftist web site. It's a bunch of know-it-all wanna-bees pretending their pseudo-leftist bullshit doesn't stink. As for frauds, you wrote the book, edited the book, published the book, and are now passing it out on street corners as The Gospel According To Us And Nobody Else.

All I wanted when I registered here was for someone who PRETENDS to have an inkling of what is wrong to show me another path. We ALL know this system benefits no one but the top "X" percent, we all KNOW it is corrupt beyond all bounds, and we ALL know looking for answers within the conventional voting means is hopelessly futile.

So I came here, and what do I find but the exact same methodology used by the extreme right, draped in revolutionary garb. "We are planting the seeds of class consciousness", "we are making workers aware", etc. etc. Seriously, you don't think the working class KNOWS whose jackboots on on their throats? What they want are answers, and what you give back is vapid rhetoric and "How to read Capital" training wheel lessons. Who's zoomin' who???

Could you folks POSSIBLY be more exclusionary to those you profess to want to "enlighten?" I mean, it is amazing the lengths you will go to demonize people in you efforts to "save" them. As for raising awareness, well let's just say if awareness was your ass you couldn't find it with both hands.

You're the hopeless fraud, old-timer, a hopeless fraud and a poseur of the highest order. Keep shouting "I am the Way!" in that empty theater if you'd like - the rest of us will close the doors and search out folks who can actually help us.

P.S. When you post, do you wear a beret and have a wine bottle with dripped candle wax on it by your side?

You know what they say - live your dreams! :)

First off ace this ain't no leftist web site. It's a bunch of know-it-all wanna-bees pretending their pseudo-leftist bullshit doesn't stink. As for frauds, you wrote the book, edited the book, published the book, and are now passing it out on street corners as The Gospel According To Us And Nobody Else.

All I wanted when I registered here was for someone who PRETENDS to have an inkling of what is wrong to show me another path. We ALL know this system benefits no one but the top "X" percent, we all KNOW it is corrupt beyond all bounds, and we ALL know looking for answers within the conventional voting means is hopelessly futile.

So I came here, and what do I find but the exact same methodology used by the extreme right, draped in revolutionary garb. "We are planting the seeds of class consciousness", "we are making workers aware", etc. etc. Seriously, you don't think the working class KNOWS whose jackboots on on their throats? What they want are answers, and what you give back is vapid rhetoric and "How to read Capital" training wheel lessons. Who's zoomin' who???

Could you folks POSSIBLY be more exclusionary to those you profess to want to "enlighten?" I mean, it is amazing the lengths you will go to demonize people in you efforts to "save" them. As for raising awareness, well let's just say if awareness was your ass you couldn't find it with both hands.

You're the hopeless fraud, old-timer, a hopeless fraud and a poseur of the highest order. Keep shouting "I am the Way!" in that empty theater if you'd like - the rest of us will close the doors and search out folks who can actually help us.

P.S. When you post, do you wear a beret and have a wine bottle with dripped candle wax on it by your side?

You know what they say - live your dreams! :)

Coming from you that means a lot.

Really.

Coming from you that means a lot.

Really.

That makes one of us. :)

That makes one of us. :)

I listed off some of the cliches used against the Left which were being dragged out, many by you.

I listed off some of the cliches used against the Left which were being dragged out, many by you.

Against you and yours perhaps, but not against the left.

BTW, I think it's cute that you've decided that you are now The One True Left.

Are you planning to trademark that?

I'd never alienate true leftists and progressives - they are the folks who move the dirt.

Democrats complain that we need kinder gentler dirt, Republicans claim you can leave dirt any damn place you want, and you just bitch about how it's so unfair that someone left the pile in front of your house, then form a study group on the origins of silica.


P.S. You'll need to make your points in a much clearer fashion from now on.

Against you and yours perhaps, but not against the left.

BTW, I think it's cute that you've decided that you are now The One True Left.

Are you planning to trademark that?

I'd never alienate true leftists and progressives - they are the folks who move the dirt.

Democrats complain that we need kinder gentler dirt, Republicans claim you can leave dirt any damn place you want, and you just bitch about how it's so unfair that someone left the pile in front of your house, then form a study group on the origins of silica.


P.S. You'll need to make your points in a much clearer fashion from now on.

because what you have written bears no relation to the link I provided. Or do you just make shit up?

I guess you don't or can't bear to look at history. What the left is is opposition to capitalism, reformism and accommodation result in assimilation. The Social Democrats of 1914, the emasculation of US unions by Taft Hartley and the resultant 'lunch-pail' unionism, the recent demise of German Greens are all fine examples of this. You want to call yourself a leftists, fine, that might work elsewhere but it won't fly here.

Btw, do I know you? The crap you spew is drearily familiar.

because what you have written bears no relation to the link I provided. Or do you just make shit up?

I guess you don't or can't bear to look at history. What the left is is opposition to capitalism, reformism and accommodation result in assimilation. The Social Democrats of 1914, the emasculation of US unions by Taft Hartley and the resultant 'lunch-pail' unionism, the recent demise of German Greens are all fine examples of this. You want to call yourself a leftists, fine, that might work elsewhere but it won't fly here.

Btw, do I know you? The crap you spew is drearily familiar.

Politics is not about "beliefs," pure or otherwise. I assume that is what you are talking about with your "real Left" remarks - accusing others of trying to have the one true belief or pure doctrine. All of that is from the realm of religion, not politics. You are projecting your own confusion about the subject onto others.

Others are going to argue for banning you, since you are not contributing much and are mostly insulting and attacking people. However, I think that we need to understand the red-baiting you are doing here, how it has come to permeate liberalism and "progressive" politics, and I think that observers and lurkers need to see it for what it is. I suspect that you will just wander off soon, and will never actually formulate an intelligent argument.

This "real Left" thinking, which must be important to you, is interesting I think. You are imagining that - you have been told this your whole life - that there is such a thing as a doctrinaire Left, that is dangerous and unpopular, and that people indulge in as a function of their "egos" or for some other personal psychological reasons. That tells us that this must have been an internal debate, an internal conflict for you at some point in your life. No need to rail against the "purists" unless that is important for you, to be used for establishing a rationale for your own thinking. This also tells us that you are from, or strongly identify with, the dominant culture. Only there are "beliefs" so important, and only there is social conformity so highly prized. Lacking cultural moorings - the dominant culture is not seen as a culture, it is seen as "standard normal" as opposed to those other weirdos - everything becomes a matter of personal beliefs, and you see everyone else through that biased lens.

The "phone booth" remark is telling, as well. It is an admission that you are going along with the crowd, content to be in the herd. Why would that be a bragging point for you? I don't think that it is. You would not come out and say overtly "I check to see what is the general opinion, what is the most popular view, what are the socially acceptable ideas, what thoughts are in the mainstream, and then adopt that rather than thinking for myself."

All politics is driven by small groups vying for the attention of the general public. That means that your veiled phone booth attack applies to all political groups. You are admitting that you have no political philosophy, or rather that you lack the courage to state it and defend it is probably closer to the truth.

The "ego" remark must be projection. Were you able to make a persuasive argument and defend and support it successfully, that would feed your ego, I would guess. Therefore, you assume that since others are making arguments that you are unable to refute - or perhaps even comprehend - they must be doing that to feed their egos.

By the way, since you are not being honest and do not have the courage to state and defend your views in the light of day and instead lurk and snipe and smear people, analyzing what you said - guesswork mostly - is the only alternative to either banning you or ignoring you. If you don't like this, then it is easily solved by you. Simply make an honest argument and have the guts to take a stand and defend your opinions.

Who would "dream" of being the "true Left" and why would that feed their "ego?" You could only be talking about yourself and projecting that onto others.

Who cares if the number of people agreeing with or understanding what you say would only fill a phone booth? Are we supposed to formulate our opinions according to what will be agreed upon by the largest number of people rather than thinking things through for ourselves? Again, you could only be talking about yourself.

I would guess that you imagine that you are hitting some mark, doing some damage, wounding and damaging others. You are not. Your remarks only have power when they are backed up by the jeering mob egging you on and...wait for it - feeding your ego. "Boy he sure told those commies off." But even if your remarks were telling blows, what does that say about you? Why would you want to do that? What motivates you? Your posts tell us much more about you then they do about anyone else.

Politics is not about "beliefs," pure or otherwise. I assume that is what you are talking about with your "real Left" remarks - accusing others of trying to have the one true belief or pure doctrine. All of that is from the realm of religion, not politics. You are projecting your own confusion about the subject onto others.

Others are going to argue for banning you, since you are not contributing much and are mostly insulting and attacking people. However, I think that we need to understand the red-baiting you are doing here, how it has come to permeate liberalism and "progressive" politics, and I think that observers and lurkers need to see it for what it is. I suspect that you will just wander off soon, and will never actually formulate an intelligent argument.

This "real Left" thinking, which must be important to you, is interesting I think. You are imagining that - you have been told this your whole life - that there is such a thing as a doctrinaire Left, that is dangerous and unpopular, and that people indulge in as a function of their "egos" or for some other personal psychological reasons. That tells us that this must have been an internal debate, an internal conflict for you at some point in your life. No need to rail against the "purists" unless that is important for you, to be used for establishing a rationale for your own thinking. This also tells us that you are from, or strongly identify with, the dominant culture. Only there are "beliefs" so important, and only there is social conformity so highly prized. Lacking cultural moorings - the dominant culture is not seen as a culture, it is seen as "standard normal" as opposed to those other weirdos - everything becomes a matter of personal beliefs, and you see everyone else through that biased lens.

The "phone booth" remark is telling, as well. It is an admission that you are going along with the crowd, content to be in the herd. Why would that be a bragging point for you? I don't think that it is. You would not come out and say overtly "I check to see what is the general opinion, what is the most popular view, what are the socially acceptable ideas, what thoughts are in the mainstream, and then adopt that rather than thinking for myself."

All politics is driven by small groups vying for the attention of the general public. That means that your veiled phone booth attack applies to all political groups. You are admitting that you have no political philosophy, or rather that you lack the courage to state it and defend it is probably closer to the truth.

The "ego" remark must be projection. Were you able to make a persuasive argument and defend and support it successfully, that would feed your ego, I would guess. Therefore, you assume that since others are making arguments that you are unable to refute - or perhaps even comprehend - they must be doing that to feed their egos.

By the way, since you are not being honest and do not have the courage to state and defend your views in the light of day and instead lurk and snipe and smear people, analyzing what you said - guesswork mostly - is the only alternative to either banning you or ignoring you. If you don't like this, then it is easily solved by you. Simply make an honest argument and have the guts to take a stand and defend your opinions.

Who would "dream" of being the "true Left" and why would that feed their "ego?" You could only be talking about yourself and projecting that onto others.

Who cares if the number of people agreeing with or understanding what you say would only fill a phone booth? Are we supposed to formulate our opinions according to what will be agreed upon by the largest number of people rather than thinking things through for ourselves? Again, you could only be talking about yourself.

I would guess that you imagine that you are hitting some mark, doing some damage, wounding and damaging others. You are not. Your remarks only have power when they are backed up by the jeering mob egging you on and...wait for it - feeding your ego. "Boy he sure told those commies off." But even if your remarks were telling blows, what does that say about you? Why would you want to do that? What motivates you? Your posts tell us much more about you then they do about anyone else.

Why would someone come onto a website like this and make statements that are transparently untrue? For instance, this "person" didn't come on here and read and absorb enough to understand what was going on or to grasp the kind of people who are posting here. He just jumped in with his silly "I have read Capital several times" lies - not even taking into account that we, on the board, are currently reading and studying Capital with some world class minds who know this stuff extremely well. He did not even take that into account when he started telling everyone his opinion of Capital and Marx in general. Is the Liberal/gate-keeping bar so low? Is this the best they can do? Or is this just some sad guy trying to...what? He is definitely approaching politics as a religion and he seems to see this board as some kind of "nest of vipers" or something, but the quality of argument (when there is any) is fairly low level and shows very little grasp of the real world. I wonder what his motivations are? There is no point in asking him, you would get silence, insults, or lies. I was asking the question more as toward a generic individual who behaves in this way...

Why would someone come onto a website like this and make statements that are transparently untrue? For instance, this "person" didn't come on here and read and absorb enough to understand what was going on or to grasp the kind of people who are posting here. He just jumped in with his silly "I have read Capital several times" lies - not even taking into account that we, on the board, are currently reading and studying Capital with some world class minds who know this stuff extremely well. He did not even take that into account when he started telling everyone his opinion of Capital and Marx in general. Is the Liberal/gate-keeping bar so low? Is this the best they can do? Or is this just some sad guy trying to...what? He is definitely approaching politics as a religion and he seems to see this board as some kind of "nest of vipers" or something, but the quality of argument (when there is any) is fairly low level and shows very little grasp of the real world. I wonder what his motivations are? There is no point in asking him, you would get silence, insults, or lies. I was asking the question more as toward a generic individual who behaves in this way...

Please understand however the the crap you spew is equally familiar as well.

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Nothing will "fly here", as you say, unless one toes the idealogical line of your own making.

As I've said, that is not leftist, unless one defines "leftist" in the narrowest of terms, and confines it to the narrowest of definitions.

You chose to do so, but don't get upset when someone disagrees, and try and refrain from rewriting history through a Marxist lens. You look foolish when doing so. In many cases the lens is valid, but to use it as your be all end all is akin to starting every discussion with the phrase "the Bible says." Zealots run the gamut.

As for making shit up that seems to be the stock in trade of many here, so I leave it to those much better at it than I.

Please understand however the the crap you spew is equally familiar as well.

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Nothing will "fly here", as you say, unless one toes the idealogical line of your own making.

As I've said, that is not leftist, unless one defines "leftist" in the narrowest of terms, and confines it to the narrowest of definitions.

You chose to do so, but don't get upset when someone disagrees, and try and refrain from rewriting history through a Marxist lens. You look foolish when doing so. In many cases the lens is valid, but to use it as your be all end all is akin to starting every discussion with the phrase "the Bible says." Zealots run the gamut.

As for making shit up that seems to be the stock in trade of many here, so I leave it to those much better at it than I.

I said that you are using the same cliches that have been used against the political Left for decades. You don't deny that. Instead you say that they are not used against the Left (which is easy to disprove) but rather merely against people here, and that therefore that must mean that I have declared myself the "One True Left."

Clearly, that is not logical. One assertion does not follow from the other.

- Those arguments have been used against the Left. (you cannot refute that)

- You are using those arguments. (you do not deny that)

- But you are not using them against the Left, rather against the people here.

- Therefore, the people here must be declaring themselves the one true Left.

I agree with this statement: "Democrats complain that we need kinder gentler dirt, Republicans claim you can leave dirt any damn place you want."

You then say that I "just bitch about how it's so unfair that someone left the pile in front of (my) house, then form a study group on the origins of silica."

Would you say we should not criticize and analyze what is happening? Is it only criticism you do not happen to agree with that is to be called "bitching?" I don't think people hear talk much about fairness, nor complain that they have personally been treated unfairly, as you claim.

For your information, many people here are engaged in a variety of organizing activities, so the snide implication that people are forming a "study group" in lieu of doing something is false. People are "moving dirt." Understanding the origins of the "dirt" leads to more effective removal, wouldn't you say? In any case, this is an Internet discussion board, so what we do here is hold discussions. Feel free to join in on that. You yourself are posting, so mocking others for doing the same thing seems a little silly. People form "study groups" all of the time on Internet discussion boards - about conspiracies, about New Age spiritual concepts and lifestyle choices, about electoral politics, about current affairs and the latest blather on the cable TV outlets. What makes this "study group" so objectionable in your mind, if it is not the content that bothers you?

I am not the one who formed or is leading any "study group," but what on earth is the problem with people doing that? We may just be a few people in a phone booth, but it sure has people worked up and watching intently what we are doing in that phone booth. Which is it - that we don't matter, or that we matter so much that you feel a need to do whatever you can to derail and distract, to malign and smear? It cannot be both. (You will now have to either leave in order to "prove" how irrelevant we are, or escalate your attacks to "prove" how wrong we are. You have no other options, and trying to get people to believe that both are true - we are important to you and we are not - is going to be a tough task.)

I agree that there are many liberals who "move dirt," or who think that they do.You may not see yourself as a liberal, I don't know. I would guess that you fancy yourself independent in some way or the other. Or you may see yourself as a representative of the Left, and imagine yourself to be part of the "practical" and "realistic" Left, the Left that gets things done. That would explain your smears against others here, who you say are claiming to be the "One True Left." You are projecting, since you think of yourself as a representative of the "real" Left, the "good" Left.

This is a good topic, and something we have been discussing. Does the moving of some "dirt" actually act as a palliative, actually become a substitute for tackling the problem of "dirt" and contribute to the problem? Chlamor posted a great article about this the other day, that talks about how the battle against racism works to promote the upper class and strengthen class-based society.

You can go to this thread if you want to dicsuss the "moving dirt" idea -

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=102669

I said that you are using the same cliches that have been used against the political Left for decades. You don't deny that. Instead you say that they are not used against the Left (which is easy to disprove) but rather merely against people here, and that therefore that must mean that I have declared myself the "One True Left."

Clearly, that is not logical. One assertion does not follow from the other.

- Those arguments have been used against the Left. (you cannot refute that)

- You are using those arguments. (you do not deny that)

- But you are not using them against the Left, rather against the people here.

- Therefore, the people here must be declaring themselves the one true Left.

I agree with this statement: "Democrats complain that we need kinder gentler dirt, Republicans claim you can leave dirt any damn place you want."

You then say that I "just bitch about how it's so unfair that someone left the pile in front of (my) house, then form a study group on the origins of silica."

Would you say we should not criticize and analyze what is happening? Is it only criticism you do not happen to agree with that is to be called "bitching?" I don't think people hear talk much about fairness, nor complain that they have personally been treated unfairly, as you claim.

For your information, many people here are engaged in a variety of organizing activities, so the snide implication that people are forming a "study group" in lieu of doing something is false. People are "moving dirt." Understanding the origins of the "dirt" leads to more effective removal, wouldn't you say? In any case, this is an Internet discussion board, so what we do here is hold discussions. Feel free to join in on that. You yourself are posting, so mocking others for doing the same thing seems a little silly. People form "study groups" all of the time on Internet discussion boards - about conspiracies, about New Age spiritual concepts and lifestyle choices, about electoral politics, about current affairs and the latest blather on the cable TV outlets. What makes this "study group" so objectionable in your mind, if it is not the content that bothers you?

I am not the one who formed or is leading any "study group," but what on earth is the problem with people doing that? We may just be a few people in a phone booth, but it sure has people worked up and watching intently what we are doing in that phone booth. Which is it - that we don't matter, or that we matter so much that you feel a need to do whatever you can to derail and distract, to malign and smear? It cannot be both. (You will now have to either leave in order to "prove" how irrelevant we are, or escalate your attacks to "prove" how wrong we are. You have no other options, and trying to get people to believe that both are true - we are important to you and we are not - is going to be a tough task.)

I agree that there are many liberals who "move dirt," or who think that they do.You may not see yourself as a liberal, I don't know. I would guess that you fancy yourself independent in some way or the other. Or you may see yourself as a representative of the Left, and imagine yourself to be part of the "practical" and "realistic" Left, the Left that gets things done. That would explain your smears against others here, who you say are claiming to be the "One True Left." You are projecting, since you think of yourself as a representative of the "real" Left, the "good" Left.

This is a good topic, and something we have been discussing. Does the moving of some "dirt" actually act as a palliative, actually become a substitute for tackling the problem of "dirt" and contribute to the problem? Chlamor posted a great article about this the other day, that talks about how the battle against racism works to promote the upper class and strengthen class-based society.

You can go to this thread if you want to dicsuss the "moving dirt" idea -

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=102669

as The Left.

as The Left.

What is the ideological line that you think one must toe?

There are very few, if any discussions that start with anything like "the Bible says."

Where are people re-writing history?

No one is upset with anything you are saying - it is not as though it is anything new or unusual, or makes for much of an argument - nor have you presented anything that could be characterized as a "disagreement" with anyone.

You have made a number of unsupported assertions here. Back them up, if you can. I don't believe you can.

What is the ideological line that you think one must toe?

There are very few, if any discussions that start with anything like "the Bible says."

Where are people re-writing history?

No one is upset with anything you are saying - it is not as though it is anything new or unusual, or makes for much of an argument - nor have you presented anything that could be characterized as a "disagreement" with anyone.

You have made a number of unsupported assertions here. Back them up, if you can. I don't believe you can.

Left field.

Left on base.

Left over.

Left at the altar.

Left turn.

Left out.

Has he left yet?




Your turn.

Define "the left". While you're at it, define "needs", as in "according to their.."

Left field.

Left on base.

Left over.

Left at the altar.

Left turn.

Left out.

Has he left yet?




Your turn.

Define "the left". While you're at it, define "needs", as in "according to their.."

Put up or shut up.

Or is that all you got?

Put up or shut up.

Or is that all you got?

that this erstwhile, uh, lurker(?) is really not interested in displaying their political acumen in the slightest instead opting for silly internet gameboy drama.

Sounds familiar.

that this erstwhile, uh, lurker(?) is really not interested in displaying their political acumen in the slightest instead opting for silly internet gameboy drama.

Sounds familiar.

Here is what I posted:

"The obsession with the decadent elite in the arts community, the shadowy cabals, the people secretly controlling 'our' media and government, the bankers and AIPAC (international Jewish conspiracy), as well as the nationalism, the 'we the people' national character ideas, and the 'stab in the back' betrayal conspiracy theories are all reminiscent of National Socialism."

To what do you take exception, and why?

Here is what I posted:

"The obsession with the decadent elite in the arts community, the shadowy cabals, the people secretly controlling 'our' media and government, the bankers and AIPAC (international Jewish conspiracy), as well as the nationalism, the 'we the people' national character ideas, and the 'stab in the back' betrayal conspiracy theories are all reminiscent of National Socialism."

To what do you take exception, and why?

People form "study groups" all of the time on Internet discussion boards - about conspiracies, about New Age spiritual concepts and lifestyle choices, about electoral politics, about current affairs and the latest blather on the cable TV outlets

Yes, and according to you they all have no merit, yet your group does. Oh, you love to bash New Age (whatever the hell that is) and you're especially nasty against again 9-11 folks, but when the voices turn against you we are suddenly "not your allies." Really, how much more fraudulent can you possibly be?

I am not the one who formed or is leading any "study group," but what on earth is the problem with people doing that? We may just be a few people in a phone booth, but it sure has people worked up and watching intently what we are doing in that phone booth

I think that is because from what I remember this site used to be an auditorium. Freedom to move around, civil discussion, lively topics. Now you've managed to make it a phone booth and the number on the phone is 1-800-YEA-KARL. You've effectively shut out dissenting (actually, credible leftist) views in favor of a never ending critiques against capitalism (well worth talking about) and ridiculous mantras to a discredited alternative.

Understanding the origins of the "dirt" leads to more effective removal, wouldn't you say?

Actually, no - a dump truck leads to more effective removal. Sometimes you get so wrapped up in over-intellectualization that you lose sight of what needs to be done NOW. If I am trapped under two tons of earth I don't give a rat's ass how it got there, and by the time you finish figuring it out I would have suffocated.

- Those arguments have been used against the Left. (you cannot refute that)

- You are using those arguments. (you do not deny that)

- But you are not using them against the Left, rather against the people here.

- Therefore, the people here must be declaring themselves the one true Left.

Hey, I remember these logical inference examples from grade school.

John is tall.

Karen only likes boys that are short.

Bob is short.

Therefore, Karen likes Bob.

C'mon, even you guys can do better than this.

Can't you? :)


I'm enjoying this discussion, but I'd enjoy it more if you would clarify your purpose. If you're just here to talk about capitalism and its destructive properties, great. I'm all in. If, however, you are looking for folks to join you in your fight to make it forever go away you're going to have to tell me and others what happens on Capitalism: The Day After, So far, you have been unwillingly (and I am sure) unable to do so, which is why you attack the messenger whenever it is brought up. Talk is cheap, but if it moves your make-believe revolutionary bones then have it. By yourselves. In a really small group. With no chance of growing stronger. In a phone booth.

Here is where I stand: Socialism is a pure form can not work. It fails to take into account the human condition, no matter how often you say that has nothing to do with it.

If it doesn't, prove it.

If not, stop pretending.

P.S. Sincere thanks to all those on this board and everywhere else who are helping to move the dirt. At least you got something right. :)

People form "study groups" all of the time on Internet discussion boards - about conspiracies, about New Age spiritual concepts and lifestyle choices, about electoral politics, about current affairs and the latest blather on the cable TV outlets

Yes, and according to you they all have no merit, yet your group does. Oh, you love to bash New Age (whatever the hell that is) and you're especially nasty against again 9-11 folks, but when the voices turn against you we are suddenly "not your allies." Really, how much more fraudulent can you possibly be?

I am not the one who formed or is leading any "study group," but what on earth is the problem with people doing that? We may just be a few people in a phone booth, but it sure has people worked up and watching intently what we are doing in that phone booth

I think that is because from what I remember this site used to be an auditorium. Freedom to move around, civil discussion, lively topics. Now you've managed to make it a phone booth and the number on the phone is 1-800-YEA-KARL. You've effectively shut out dissenting (actually, credible leftist) views in favor of a never ending critiques against capitalism (well worth talking about) and ridiculous mantras to a discredited alternative.

Understanding the origins of the "dirt" leads to more effective removal, wouldn't you say?

Actually, no - a dump truck leads to more effective removal. Sometimes you get so wrapped up in over-intellectualization that you lose sight of what needs to be done NOW. If I am trapped under two tons of earth I don't give a rat's ass how it got there, and by the time you finish figuring it out I would have suffocated.

- Those arguments have been used against the Left. (you cannot refute that)

- You are using those arguments. (you do not deny that)

- But you are not using them against the Left, rather against the people here.

- Therefore, the people here must be declaring themselves the one true Left.

Hey, I remember these logical inference examples from grade school.

John is tall.

Karen only likes boys that are short.

Bob is short.

Therefore, Karen likes Bob.

C'mon, even you guys can do better than this.

Can't you? :)


I'm enjoying this discussion, but I'd enjoy it more if you would clarify your purpose. If you're just here to talk about capitalism and its destructive properties, great. I'm all in. If, however, you are looking for folks to join you in your fight to make it forever go away you're going to have to tell me and others what happens on Capitalism: The Day After, So far, you have been unwillingly (and I am sure) unable to do so, which is why you attack the messenger whenever it is brought up. Talk is cheap, but if it moves your make-believe revolutionary bones then have it. By yourselves. In a really small group. With no chance of growing stronger. In a phone booth.

Here is where I stand: Socialism is a pure form can not work. It fails to take into account the human condition, no matter how often you say that has nothing to do with it.

If it doesn't, prove it.

If not, stop pretending.

P.S. Sincere thanks to all those on this board and everywhere else who are helping to move the dirt. At least you got something right. :)

You jokers haven't answered a question since Magellan sailed.

Walk the walk.

You jokers haven't answered a question since Magellan sailed.

Walk the walk.

From you.

From you.

First, the stated objection that you have to Socialism is that it "fails to take into account the human condition." That is a serious point that we can discuss. What is it about human nature, or the human condition, that you believe is taken into account by Capitalism and not by Socialism?

We are "here to talk about capitalism and its destructive properties." I don't know what would give you any other idea.

I don't think anyone is "looking for folks to join (us) in (our) fight to make it forever go away" since most of us think that its disappearance is inevitable. The assumption that people talking Socialism are trying to convert people to a belief system is something we have all been trained to think our entire lives, in the absence of any evidence to support that idea. It is an effective argument against the Left, since you can't prove that you don't have "a plan" or "an agenda." The next step for red baiters is to then imply that it must be a secret, scary and presumably nefarious plan, since "they can't answer the question." No one can answer a question about something that doesn't exist.

Brief answers to your other statements:

I don't say that New Age spirituality and liberalism have no merit, I disagree with the premises of those movements. I think they make for weak and ineffective politics. I have no problem with people pursuing whatever lifestyles and spiritual values they choose. I object to that being presented as politics, and further more as the only legitimate politics and as the only possible left wing politics. Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black here, since you are the one doing most of the "bashing?" While I may criticize certain political views, you are attacking the people holding those views that you disagree with, and painting all with the same broad brush. That is "bashing." What I am saying is not "bashing" anyone, it is attacking certain ideas.

Of course, I think what I think, and disagree with people who think contrary to what I think. That is true for all of us, and is hardly damning. Obviously, you agree with "the group" that agrees with you and disadree with "the group" that disagrees with you. How is that "fraudulent?"

I agree with you that sometimes people get so wrapped up in over-intellectualization that they lose sight of what needs to be done NOW. I just don't see what that has to do with any particular group, nor with Socialism. Why cannot people "move dirt" AND express Socialist opinions? Why do you want us to presume that non-Socialists are more likely to "move dirt?" There are plenty of armchair warriors of every political viewpoint.

You say that you want to know "the plan" and that "so far, you have been unwillingly (and I am sure) unable to do so, which is why you attack the messenger whenever it is brought up."

There is no "plan." It is not incumbent upon any of us to present you with a plan. I am not attacking the messenger, I am responding to your message. Merely claiming that "they have no plan, and that is damning" and that you are being personally attacked for raising that question does not make it so.

First, the stated objection that you have to Socialism is that it "fails to take into account the human condition." That is a serious point that we can discuss. What is it about human nature, or the human condition, that you believe is taken into account by Capitalism and not by Socialism?

We are "here to talk about capitalism and its destructive properties." I don't know what would give you any other idea.

I don't think anyone is "looking for folks to join (us) in (our) fight to make it forever go away" since most of us think that its disappearance is inevitable. The assumption that people talking Socialism are trying to convert people to a belief system is something we have all been trained to think our entire lives, in the absence of any evidence to support that idea. It is an effective argument against the Left, since you can't prove that you don't have "a plan" or "an agenda." The next step for red baiters is to then imply that it must be a secret, scary and presumably nefarious plan, since "they can't answer the question." No one can answer a question about something that doesn't exist.

Brief answers to your other statements:

I don't say that New Age spirituality and liberalism have no merit, I disagree with the premises of those movements. I think they make for weak and ineffective politics. I have no problem with people pursuing whatever lifestyles and spiritual values they choose. I object to that being presented as politics, and further more as the only legitimate politics and as the only possible left wing politics. Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black here, since you are the one doing most of the "bashing?" While I may criticize certain political views, you are attacking the people holding those views that you disagree with, and painting all with the same broad brush. That is "bashing." What I am saying is not "bashing" anyone, it is attacking certain ideas.

Of course, I think what I think, and disagree with people who think contrary to what I think. That is true for all of us, and is hardly damning. Obviously, you agree with "the group" that agrees with you and disadree with "the group" that disagrees with you. How is that "fraudulent?"

I agree with you that sometimes people get so wrapped up in over-intellectualization that they lose sight of what needs to be done NOW. I just don't see what that has to do with any particular group, nor with Socialism. Why cannot people "move dirt" AND express Socialist opinions? Why do you want us to presume that non-Socialists are more likely to "move dirt?" There are plenty of armchair warriors of every political viewpoint.

You say that you want to know "the plan" and that "so far, you have been unwillingly (and I am sure) unable to do so, which is why you attack the messenger whenever it is brought up."

There is no "plan." It is not incumbent upon any of us to present you with a plan. I am not attacking the messenger, I am responding to your message. Merely claiming that "they have no plan, and that is damning" and that you are being personally attacked for raising that question does not make it so.

"All I wanted when I registered here was for someone who PRETENDS to have an inkling of what is wrong to show me another path."

You came here to bait and troll and lie.

That much is perfectly clear.

You aren't looking for "another path," you're looking for a fight. Frankly, I'd be surprised if you weren't one of the folks who recently got shown the door.

And frankly, if it were up to me, you'd have been shown it again in light of your opening post.

[i]edit - punctuation

"All I wanted when I registered here was for someone who PRETENDS to have an inkling of what is wrong to show me another path."

You came here to bait and troll and lie.

That much is perfectly clear.

You aren't looking for "another path," you're looking for a fight. Frankly, I'd be surprised if you weren't one of the folks who recently got shown the door.

And frankly, if it were up to me, you'd have been shown it again in light of your opening post.

[i]edit - punctuation

is, I believe, the statement you are citing.

I'll admit I've always been a bit puzzled by that statement so I'd like to see some discussion on it if the people here don't mind. The meaning of the statement is pretty straightforward but I'm just not clear on how exactly it would work.

is, I believe, the statement you are citing.

I'll admit I've always been a bit puzzled by that statement so I'd like to see some discussion on it if the people here don't mind. The meaning of the statement is pretty straightforward but I'm just not clear on how exactly it would work.

Look, we're not trying to figure out "how exactly it would work", at some time in the future. In fact, while I think Marx was a giant in analyzing the sickness of capitalism, I'm more than willing to consider any revolutionary models that place the working class as the rightful location of political power (if you have another, please tell me: how exactly it would work).

Look, we're not trying to figure out "how exactly it would work", at some time in the future. In fact, while I think Marx was a giant in analyzing the sickness of capitalism, I'm more than willing to consider any revolutionary models that place the working class as the rightful location of political power (if you have another, please tell me: how exactly it would work).

Sorry, I replied to the wrong post, meant to address this to you.

Look, we're not trying to figure out "how exactly it would work", at some time in the future. In fact, while I think Marx was a giant in analyzing the sickness of capitalism, I'm more than willing to consider any revolutionary models that place the working class as the rightful location of political power (if you have another, please tell me: how exactly it would work)

Sorry, I replied to the wrong post, meant to address this to you.

Look, we're not trying to figure out "how exactly it would work", at some time in the future. In fact, while I think Marx was a giant in analyzing the sickness of capitalism, I'm more than willing to consider any revolutionary models that place the working class as the rightful location of political power (if you have another, please tell me: how exactly it would work)

The model here is a family or clan (a human group organization) in which the distribution of tasks ("from each") and the meeting of needs ("to each") is assigned with a human caring toward the betterment of the group, as a whole, and not for the aggrandizement or profit or benefit of one or a few of the group's members. The idea is that we can act, in society, as though we ACTUALLY cared for each other. The reaction to this idea, that this concept is somehow difficult or "pie-in-sky thinking", only goes to show how far the oppression of human beings has gone and how severely suppressed the human spirit has become...

The model here is a family or clan (a human group organization) in which the distribution of tasks ("from each") and the meeting of needs ("to each") is assigned with a human caring toward the betterment of the group, as a whole, and not for the aggrandizement or profit or benefit of one or a few of the group's members. The idea is that we can act, in society, as though we ACTUALLY cared for each other. The reaction to this idea, that this concept is somehow difficult or "pie-in-sky thinking", only goes to show how far the oppression of human beings has gone and how severely suppressed the human spirit has become...