Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-16-2018, 04:38 PM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7360

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."


Or as I often say, a capitalist has no nation, he has no people, he has no culture, he has no language, he has no religion. A capitalist is anything and everything, so long as it will make him money.

Think of the "capitalist class" in America. People like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg; In what distorted reality are any of these people Americans?

For that matter, the people who whine about high taxes, what is the claim? That if taxes get too high, businesses will just leave the country/state.

The only reason a corporation pretends to care at all about the city/state/country they are in, is because it benefits them. A sports team from Seattle will pretend to be part of the community, and to love the people. But it will jump to another state the moment it can make more money, where it will make the same claims.

Not only does capitalism have no attachment to anything but money, it is effectively impossible for a capitalist to care about anything but money. "The system" is all about competition, so you must do whatever gives you the greatest economic-advantage. Thus it is fundamentally illegal for a corporation to do anything but exploit as best it can, and to be as ruthless as possible. If it doesn't, it will be out-competed by another corporation who will.

I am not an advocate of socialism by any means, but you have a completely naive and delusional understanding of what capitalism is and why it exists.
Come on now comrad, Lenin or Marx couldn’t have done a better job of discussing the evils of capitalism, while conveniently ignoring the benefits, which include the computer you typed this drivel on, to the internet and high speed electronics that delivered it to me almost instantly. Same for the car that will transport you to work, as well as the trucks and trains and cargo vessels that ensure you have something to eat for dinner, clothes to wear, and just about anything else you rely on to enhance your existence.

Quote:
You cannot have the modern world without capitalism. But if you think the "New World Order" has nothing to do with capitalism, you're a fool. And your conception of capitalism as a bunch of small farmers and mom-and-pop stores, while noble, has basically never been real, and it will never be real. Because the reason capitalism exists, is for money, power, hegemony, etc.
Put down the manifesto comrad, and listen up .... you cannot have your cake and eat it too ... while you seem to marginally understand that the modern world would not exist without capitalism, you proceed to denounce it like a hardcore communist. And I must correct you on the matter of the New World Order’s ties to capitalism ... they are connected, but not at all in the manner you seem to be suggesting. In fact, the term NWO itself is a misnomer, as it implies something new, when it would be more accurately named the Old World Order. And that Old World Order relies on control, not capital. Of course, capital can and is an effective tool of control, just like military power, police power, food and water, as well as information/disinformation/propaganda and outright lies so prominently on display these days, the most effective tools of control. There is no greater nor more devious means of controlling people than to convince them to willingly agree to go along, rather than attempt to force them. That eliminates resistance, and replaces it with compliance. And ignorance is the best tool of the controllers. So long as you keep them ignorant of the truth, and facts, they’ll defer to authority, rather than think for themselves.

Quote:
Capitalism wasn't created by "the people". It was created by the government, encouraged by the government, and protected by the government, for the benefit of the government. And the history of capitalism goes back long before the United States or modern democracy, to the days of absolute monarchs, empires, etc.
Really? Sorry ... but governments are composed of people. And capitalism came long before any form of organized governing. Ever since there were coconuts being traded for sea shells, beads for bearskins, there have been people trading one thing they have for things they don’t have. As capital is nothing more than a medium of exchange, it’s not just the almighty dollar, or the shekel or the gold nugget that represents capital, but anything deemed of value has been used over the eons of time. Livestock, to sea shells ... coconuts to concubines have been used. And it all began as an exchange between PEOPLE, who decided that it was more beneficial to trade, rather than to take by force, that which they desired.

The problem with capitalism has never been capitalism itself, but in the way certain individuals and organized groups have circumvented the free markets, to monopolize the markets in their favor. In this regard, monopoly resembles communism or socialism, as it strives to gain absolute control, rather than engage in competition. And it is this distinction which sets apart free market capitalism, with crony capitalism.

Crony capitalism relies on monopolistic control of markets, rather than on competition within the markets. And it is the element of competition that provides capitalism’s greatest benefits. Eliminate that, and you no longer have capitalism ... just a rigged system of pure exploitation and extortion ... which is as good a definition of the Federal Reserve, and it’s monopolistic control of capital, as any.

Free market capitalism is indeed a natural, organic means of exchange, created by people, for the benefit of people. Crony capitalism is an artificial construct that is rigged to benefit the controllers, at the expense of the controlled.

Quote:
With that said, I would gladly be a supporter of Jefferson's small-scale free-market economy, but I am not stupid enough to think it will ever happen.
This is where you expose your lack of understanding so clearly. The controllers of the crony capital system (call them what you like ... NWO ... OWO ... Illuminati.... or the Establishment) realize that the free market model is the only one that actually produces and thrives, which is why it is allowed to operate in cycles. It’s sorta like economic farming .... there are planting, growing, and harvesting seasons. The planting and growing seasons see the free market model operate independently (to a certain extent); but come harvest season, you see recession, depression, and the bursting of bubbles so that the harvesters then swoop in to gather up all that was created during the economic growth period. This explains the cyclic nature of the boom and bust cycles we’ve been experiencing for countless decades, managed and controlled by the crony capitalists who operate the central banks, be it the federal Reserve, World Bank, or other.

The free market capitalist system works well .... its the artificially created bust cycles imposed by the crony capitalists that are the source of misery.

And just to be clear, these crony capitalists are indeed Authoritarian leftists, who have infiltrated every institution in America, from the Universities, to the Cable News Stations, to the halls of Congress, FBI, DOJ, owning democrats and republicans alike.

They despise Donald Trump because they don’t own and control him ... this is why we see such an unprecedented, full scale, no holds barred attack, daily. He is their greatest enemy, and consequently our greatest asset ... understood by those who have not been irretrievably indoctrinated by leftist ideological programming, and the fake news zombies, who believe exactly what they are told to believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2018, 05:27 PM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post

As for implementation, it would be a disaster if it happened all at once here. More logically what would have to happen is for worker cooperative and non-state or private economic activity to take up larger shares of capital movement in this country until the point that eventually the need for the welfare state and corporate investment subside. .
Obviously, a well educated person .... however, well educated can either be a huge benefit, or a huge shortcoming, depending on the content to which your education relies. It appears you have been focused far more on political science and economics, with far less emphasis on history. Let’s look there for some of the details you’re not considering.

Firstly, I won’t bore anyone with a long dissertation on the universal, unanimous historical failures associated with communism, and it’s little sister, socialism. The record is far too clear and consistently shown in countless examples, without a single example of the succes always promised, but never delivered. What I will do is explain why that is the case.

The primary reason such utopian promises are never achieved is that it requires a level of benevolence that is most often foreign to those who seek positions of authority, while those that do posses it, tend to avoid leadership roles. And, no system is safe from corruption, and that is true of communism as much as it is true of capitalism. The difference, in my opinion is, incentives, motivation, and competition are the driving force in capitalist systems, while the communist model strives for conformity. It always ends in universal misery, via stagnation, leading to starvation. Communal governing would be a reasonable idea IF one could rely on the community at large to possess equivalent measures of intelligence and wisdom necessary to operate independently and successfully.

If you believe that to be achievable, your opinion of the intelligence and wisdom of the general public is much more optimistic than mine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
15,507 posts, read 6,400,865 times
Reputation: 4831
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Obviously, a well educated person .... however, well educated can either be a huge benefit, or a huge shortcoming, depending on the content to which your education relies. It appears you have been focused far more on political science and economics, with far less emphasis on history. Let’s look there for some of the details you’re not considering.

Firstly, I won’t bore anyone with a long dissertation on the universal, unanimous historical failures associated with communism, and it’s little sister, socialism. The record is far too clear and consistently shown in countless examples, without a single example of the succes always promised, but never delivered. What I will do is explain why that is the case.

The primary reason such utopian promises are never achieved is that it requires a level of benevolence that is most often foreign to those who seek positions of authority, while those that do posses it, tend to avoid leadership roles. And, no system is safe from corruption, and that is true of communism as much as it is true of capitalism. The difference, in my opinion is, incentives, motivation, and competition are the driving force in capitalist systems, while the communist model strives for conformity. It always ends in universal misery, via stagnation, leading to starvation. Communal governing would be a reasonable idea IF one could rely on the community at large to possess equivalent measures of intelligence and wisdom necessary to operate independently and successfully.

If you believe that to be achievable, your opinion of the intelligence and wisdom of the general public is much more optimistic than mine.
I believe if you look at the history of socialism and capitalism in the world, and in general the history of politics since after the Neolithic period, you’ll see a great degree of control concentrated towards people who do not have the individual capacity to exert said power over the wider populace.

These powers change hands of course, the senate in Rome, the imperial family in China, feudal land lords, kings, captains of industry in the 19th century, etc.

And yet the basis of all these people’s power though relies on the same understanding of invisible control, or control through influence rather than direct force.

While many do claim these persons of power will naturally arise or are even necessary for the organization of human life I see evidence to the contrary. Most of these same functions people talk about being handled by the state or the private industry are in practice handled in the local level where these models are directly implemented.

In mutual aid: A Factor of evolution by peter Kropotkin he discusses many of the factors that natural selection functions by. Most often, both in the human and animal kingdom, these functions awarded not the strongest or smartest individuals, but the ones that excelled at cooperation. Obviously there were differences in abilities within the group and these differences created different roles for each member, but the main factor was the will to understand that mutual benefits were the only way to overcome the challenges of competing species and the environment.

In human kind, in medieval communes (which there were many), people did function out of self desire, but these desires were one of survival and prosperity to a wider extent. To accomplish this the people did agree to some level of order, but this cooperation with the heads of the commune was not one of servitude, but one of role taking. Obviously selfishness exists in all people to varying degree, but even the most selfish did not feel the need to take all power for themselves, for if that were to happen, they would suffer as well. The voluntary agreement to organize did not require some external reward, because production had direct affects. Furthermore the more that were feed, the more who could work, and the more that was produced for everyone.

Going back to power models I mentioned in my previous paragraph, while the power centers did influence the output of a society, the sole production was still handled locally. These immediate powers were the only ones that were present. A manager at a factory could have a badge on him that says he is representative of some larger company, or a guard in a town could wear the sigil of a king to visualize control by said king, but neither of these representatives were themselves the power they claimed to represent. From this we can understand that the actual power (the enforcement of will) is not being distributed down by some incredible power, but is directly being enforced by a local entity (manager, city guards, police department, etc.) who has the voluntary agreement of the actual workforce or civilian population to follow the set of parameters. It is significant to observe this distinction because then we can understand that these presumed power centers are not all that powerful themselves; if that is the case then the order they bring is not inherent to them, in fact there power is in practice nothing but voluntary (whether the subjects know it or not) agreement by the subjects to follow an agreed set of rules. Because the central powers can seem direct in their ability to exert force, this may force some level of subservience, but it is nonetheless what seems to be true.

Now, these power structures still exist. We just understand that they are not being derived from the top. If such a universal accord of structure and organization is being practiced what creates its structure if not central power? I believe, and I think there is evidence to suggest this, that the practical formation of these structures come from networking. All the separate institutions that make up a kingdom, an empire, a corporation, a republic, or anything else comes from the horizontal power sharing that all these separate institutions practice. Even if a police department in one county in the US (for example) is separate from another federal police department on the other side of the country, they both, even if through 3rd party chains or different organizations, connect and share information and operate based on some level of coordination. These intrinsic networks do build the presence of a great singular body (the state), but the input of all this power is created at each decentralized part.
The same applies with corporate structures, different work places all produce separately but they communicate and form this appearance of an individual body.

So for us to assume that each locality needs some organized force to run it, we would have to assume they derive organization from a singular force, when in actuality it is a multitude of forces. For each community, the needs are different, and as such the practice of power will be different. That being said if we were to acknowledge the purpose of checks and balances, we can find the same thing practicing in society. While each community is connected with the next into a web of communities, they are each affected, both in limitations and enhancements by the acts of the others. That would mean the resources that one would need that could affect themselves negatively would be educated and supported by the infrastructure of the others. If we were to take away the central force that redistributes the collective output of all these different networks (corporate shareholders, state leaders, etc.) then the usage of what they produce can be better acclimated to their individual circumstances. Further democratic forces and the inertia of natural law (personal property/property by usage) will help limit the power accumulation of one person. So different people can achieve different levels of control or success but they would be limited by both how much they can own due to operation limitations (one person cannot operate a huge swath of land by themselves), and they would be limited by democratic means (workers control their own labor so one person can’t trade or commodities labor with out consent, and the mass production of goods can’t be monopolized by one person or a small group of people).

Finally as to what you claimed about natural greed or ineffency; to the latter I believed I answered that question do to the reality that current day functions are controlled locally and different roles to different people are offered on the basis of mutual benefit. Both in the communes of medieval Europe and the smaller government departments across the country. I’ll also add that these forms of democratic and community checks and balances is also why the CNT in Catalonia was able to establish a successful anarcho-syndicalist state despite the fact that many of the peasant farmers and factory workers were illiterate; there own authority on the subject was not the basis of how society was run, a system of networks based Mutual Aid created different levels of management that were reliant on the masses to understand the details of every small function. To the former claim about greed, I go back to Kropotkin; when you don’t have the distribution of output controlled by some central force, you allow production to be based on the needs of the community. In such cases mutual Aid is the selfish act that requires people to need to produce enough for the community (and for themselves). The improvement over old tribal functions that allowed this in ancient times is the modern technological network and infrastructure that makes up States and large corporations remains, and the benefits the provide, from supply chains to mass production and distribution remain, only this time they are handled in different scales based on the situation and the output being distributed voluntarily by the decentralized power centers involved.

In all these cases I think this is why the corruption you see in communist countries and the greed you see in capitalist countries are more products of what is allowed to happen by the environment. If corruption or stock crashes had small outwards affects on society, then they would be much easier to fix. The reason they aren’t is that while the network is there to respond, the power output is so centralized to the needs of one source, all these different production areas are affected. We have reached a level in communication, technological advancement, and human education that the cooperative forces of the pass along with the wealth and power standards of the modern era can be combined to great affects.
But even then, a major reason why you don’t see large scale reform or discussion towards these forms of economics and politics (though they are happening) goes back to my first paragraph. All these different power models through our time, while different, allowed for practice of power beyond reason. These same forces today don’t wish to allow the true freedoms humans are capable of, because they can’t, because they know if they do they would have no reason to exist.

Last edited by Winterfall8324; 10-16-2018 at 07:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 08:53 AM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
I believe if you look at the history of socialism and capitalism in the world, and in general the history of politics since after the Neolithic period, you’ll see a great degree of control concentrated towards people who do not have the individual capacity to exert said power over the wider populace.

These powers change hands of course, the senate in Rome, the imperial family in China, feudal land lords, kings, captains of industry in the 19th century, etc.

And yet the basis of all these people’s power though relies on the same understanding of invisible control, or control through influence rather than direct force.

While many do claim these persons of power will naturally arise or are even necessary for the organization of human life I see evidence to the contrary. Most of these same functions people talk about being handled by the state or the private industry are in practice handled in the local level where these models are directly implemented.

In mutual aid: A Factor of evolution by peter Kropotkin he discusses many of the factors that natural selection functions by. Most often, both in the human and animal kingdom, these functions awarded not the strongest or smartest individuals, but the ones that excelled at cooperation. Obviously there were differences in abilities within the group and these differences created different roles for each member, but the main factor was the will to understand that mutual benefits were the only way to overcome the challenges of competing species and the environment.

In human kind, in medieval communes (which there were many), people did function out of self desire, but these desires were one of survival and prosperity to a wider extent. To accomplish this the people did agree to some level of order, but this cooperation with the heads of the commune was not one of servitude, but one of role taking. Obviously selfishness exists in all people to varying degree, but even the most selfish did not feel the need to take all power for themselves, for if that were to happen, they would suffer as well. The voluntary agreement to organize did not require some external reward, because production had direct affects. Furthermore the more that were feed, the more who could work, and the more that was produced for everyone.

Going back to power models I mentioned in my previous paragraph, while the power centers did influence the output of a society, the sole production was still handled locally. These immediate powers were the only ones that were present. A manager at a factory could have a badge on him that says he is representative of some larger company, or a guard in a town could wear the sigil of a king to visualize control by said king, but neither of these representatives were themselves the power they claimed to represent. From this we can understand that the actual power (the enforcement of will) is not being distributed down by some incredible power, but is directly being enforced by a local entity (manager, city guards, police department, etc.) who has the voluntary agreement of the actual workforce or civilian population to follow the set of parameters. It is significant to observe this distinction because then we can understand that these presumed power centers are not all that powerful themselves; if that is the case then the order they bring is not inherent to them, in fact there power is in practice nothing but voluntary (whether the subjects know it or not) agreement by the subjects to follow an agreed set of rules. Because the central powers can seem direct in their ability to exert force, this may force some level of subservience, but it is nonetheless what seems to be true.

Now, these power structures still exist. We just understand that they are not being derived from the top. If such a universal accord of structure and organization is being practiced what creates its structure if not central power? I believe, and I think there is evidence to suggest this, that the practical formation of these structures come from networking. All the separate institutions that make up a kingdom, an empire, a corporation, a republic, or anything else comes from the horizontal power sharing that all these separate institutions practice. Even if a police department in one county in the US (for example) is separate from another federal police department on the other side of the country, they both, even if through 3rd party chains or different organizations, connect and share information and operate based on some level of coordination. These intrinsic networks do build the presence of a great singular body (the state), but the input of all this power is created at each decentralized part.
The same applies with corporate structures, different work places all produce separately but they communicate and form this appearance of an individual body.

So for us to assume that each locality needs some organized force to run it, we would have to assume they derive organization from a singular force, when in actuality it is a multitude of forces. For each community, the needs are different, and as such the practice of power will be different. That being said if we were to acknowledge the purpose of checks and balances, we can find the same thing practicing in society. While each community is connected with the next into a web of communities, they are each affected, both in limitations and enhancements by the acts of the others. That would mean the resources that one would need that could affect themselves negatively would be educated and supported by the infrastructure of the others. If we were to take away the central force that redistributes the collective output of all these different networks (corporate shareholders, state leaders, etc.) then the usage of what they produce can be better acclimated to their individual circumstances. Further democratic forces and the inertia of natural law (personal property/property by usage) will help limit the power accumulation of one person. So different people can achieve different levels of control or success but they would be limited by both how much they can own due to operation limitations (one person cannot operate a huge swath of land by themselves), and they would be limited by democratic means (workers control their own labor so one person can’t trade or commodities labor with out consent, and the mass production of goods can’t be monopolized by one person or a small group of people).

Finally as to what you claimed about natural greed or ineffency; to the latter I believed I answered that question do to the reality that current day functions are controlled locally and different roles to different people are offered on the basis of mutual benefit. Both in the communes of medieval Europe and the smaller government departments across the country. I’ll also add that these forms of democratic and community checks and balances is also why the CNT in Catalonia was able to establish a successful anarcho-syndicalist state despite the fact that many of the peasant farmers and factory workers were illiterate; there own authority on the subject was not the basis of how society was run, a system of networks based Mutual Aid created different levels of management that were reliant on the masses to understand the details of every small function. To the former claim about greed, I go back to Kropotkin; when you don’t have the distribution of output controlled by some central force, you allow production to be based on the needs of the community. In such cases mutual Aid is the selfish act that requires people to need to produce enough for the community (and for themselves). The improvement over old tribal functions that allowed this in ancient times is the modern technological network and infrastructure that makes up States and large corporations remains, and the benefits the provide, from supply chains to mass production and distribution remain, only this time they are handled in different scales based on the situation and the output being distributed voluntarily by the decentralized power centers involved.

In all these cases I think this is why the corruption you see in communist countries and the greed you see in capitalist countries are more products of what is allowed to happen by the environment. If corruption or stock crashes had small outwards affects on society, then they would be much easier to fix. The reason they aren’t is that while the network is there to respond, the power output is so centralized to the needs of one source, all these different production areas are affected. We have reached a level in communication, technological advancement, and human education that the cooperative forces of the pass along with the wealth and power standards of the modern era can be combined to great affects.
But even then, a major reason why you don’t see large scale reform or discussion towards these forms of economics and politics (though they are happening) goes back to my first paragraph. All these different power models through our time, while different, allowed for practice of power beyond reason. These same forces today don’t wish to allow the true freedoms humans are capable of, because they can’t, because they know if they do they would have no reason to exist.
Of course, the status quo has its champions and it’s detractors, no doubt based on the placement and position one finds himself in any given structure. Consequently, those holding the power to effect dramatic change are the least likely to support such action. This explains why revolution is generally the only way such change takes place in existing political structures, and rarely occurs without extreme violence and much suffering. Historically, revolutions most often usher in a less desirable replacement to the old, probably because the leaders of such revolution are extreme radicals, with extreme views.

We see this on a more subtle scale BEGINNING to take place today in the US, with conservatives holding the status quo position, and progressives exhibiting the extremist positions generally found in those seeking revolution. One of the few examples of change that actually brought in a more desirable replacement was the American revolution, and the establishment of our constitutional republic. While far from perfect, it has proven to be the most enlightened form of government, producing unprecedented changes that have been largely and uniquely beneficial to the population as a whole, not just here, but reflected around the world. The reality is, many of the flaws so many like to point out can indeed be tied to the violations and lack of dedicated adherence to the constitutional laws defining the prescribed operations of this Republic, by its detractors. And this is why the leftist radical progressives pose such a danger, even to themselves.

There is no reason to believe that the goals and agendas of the left will produce anything but major steps backwards, as the authoritarian nature of it is in direct opposition to the utopian promises it likes to advertise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
4,944 posts, read 2,928,379 times
Reputation: 3805
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post

There is no reason to believe that the goals and agendas of the left will produce anything but major steps backwards, as the authoritarian nature of it is in direct opposition to the utopian promises it likes to advertise.
Left wing agenda shorter work week. Right wing agenda KKK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
15,507 posts, read 6,400,865 times
Reputation: 4831
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Of course, the status quo has its champions and it’s detractors, no doubt based on the placement and position one finds himself in any given structure. Consequently, those holding the power to effect dramatic change are the least likely to support such action. This explains why revolution is generally the only way such change takes place in existing political structures, and rarely occurs without extreme violence and much suffering. Historically, revolutions most often usher in a less desirable replacement to the old, probably because the leaders of such revolution are extreme radicals, with extreme views.

We see this on a more subtle scale BEGINNING to take place today in the US, with conservatives holding the status quo position, and progressives exhibiting the extremist positions generally found in those seeking revolution. One of the few examples of change that actually brought in a more desirable replacement was the American revolution, and the establishment of our constitutional republic. While far from perfect, it has proven to be the most enlightened form of government, producing unprecedented changes that have been largely and uniquely beneficial to the population as a whole, not just here, but reflected around the world. The reality is, many of the flaws so many like to point out can indeed be tied to the violations and lack of dedicated adherence to the constitutional laws defining the prescribed operations of this Republic, by its detractors. And this is why the leftist radical progressives pose such a danger, even to themselves.

There is no reason to believe that the goals and agendas of the left will produce anything but major steps backwards, as the authoritarian nature of it is in direct opposition to the Utopian promises it likes to advertise.
Not at all, the left in this country is hardly radical. Some (emphasis on some) may use violent tactics but their end goals are very marginal and don't take care to uproot the entire power structure, just modify it.

Left wing activist in this country general are fine with keeping corporate rule, a centralized state, and all the other local structures (schools, family life, etc.).

There is some level of social upheaval a few support, but even that I believe it's in a vocal minority. Personally I find extensive change necessary and possible if implemented gradually.

Of course violent revolution is needed to produce immediate change, but the fundamentals of our current environment are allowing for some progressive change as more people get disappointed in the status quo.
I wish leftist like myself would support none corporate change as well as corporate reform (higher wages, etc.) like cooperative ownership and what not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 02:11 PM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Not at all, the left in this country is hardly radical. Some (emphasis on some) may use violent tactics but their end goals are very marginal and don't take care to uproot the entire power structure, just modify it.

Left wing activist in this country general are fine with keeping corporate rule, a centralized state, and all the other local structures (schools, family life, etc.).

There is some level of social upheaval a few support, but even that I believe it's in a vocal minority. Personally I find extensive change necessary and possible if implemented gradually.

Of course violent revolution is needed to produce immediate change, but the fundamentals of our current environment are allowing for some progressive change as more people get disappointed in the status quo.
I wish leftist like myself would support none corporate change as well as corporate reform (higher wages, etc.) like cooperative ownership and what not.
My friend, do not deceive yourself, or believe what the leftist media is spouting. The true nature of a very radicalized left wing is exposing itself like never before, and the abhorant behavior is pushing away moderates and independents, rather than attracting support.

And make no mistake, Donald Trump is President Trump for a reason! That reason is all too clear to those on the right, yet apparently escapes those on the left who now seem to be doubling down on an already failed strategy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
15,507 posts, read 6,400,865 times
Reputation: 4831
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
My friend, do not deceive yourself, or believe what the leftist media is spouting. The true nature of a very radicalized left wing is exposing itself like never before, and the abhorant behavior is pushing away moderates and independents, rather than attracting support.

And make no mistake, Donald Trump is President Trump for a reason! That reason is all too clear to those on the right, yet apparently escapes those on the left who now seem to be doubling down on an already failed strategy.
Do you really believe their policy positions are radical?

Most of the SJWs make a big deal out of some social positions but they don’t amount to much in terms of policies, and even when they do they are not proposing any real changes to the power distribution in the country.

Look at the women they cheer, Clinton, Oprah, etc. they all are powerful women, not working class leaders.

Again some protest violently, but there actual positions are pretty mundane. Methods and goals are very different things.

Someone like me can promote radical end goals, but the methods would be very legal and humanitarian. Other could endorse violent means for moderate changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 05:48 PM
 
14,944 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Do you really believe their policy positions are radical?

Most of the SJWs make a big deal out of some social positions but they don’t amount to much in terms of policies, and even when they do they are not proposing any real changes to the power distribution in the country.

Look at the women they cheer, Clinton, Oprah, etc. they all are powerful women, not working class leaders.

Again some protest violently, but there actual positions are pretty mundane. Methods and goals are very different things.

Someone like me can promote radical end goals, but the methods would be very legal and humanitarian. Other could endorse violent means for moderate changes.
Yes, the policies of the democrat party are most certainly radical and extreme. Socialized medicine; open borders; higher taxes; draconian energy policy; support of and in some instances call for violence and intimidation tactics; repeal of free speech; censorship; use of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies as a political weapon. .... the list goes on. Pure criminal conduct on a wide scale is most certainly radical and extreme .... and frankly, a clear and present danger to the Republic , and the rule of law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:32 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top