Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Trump IS Unifying the Left.


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#26 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 1,093 posts
  • Gender:Male Mammal
  • Location:@ The United Fascist States of America

Posted 19 February 2017 - 01:13 PM

important points that too many people miss and that is a problem. A lot of folks still believe the U.S. gives too much in foreign aid.
http://www.npr.org/s...aid-guess-again
 
many of our corporations have actually abused third world nations around the globe - assisted by U.S. policy. We have intervened in the democracy of sovereign nations around the world in harmful ways as well. In places like Iran, Chili and Haiti to name but a few. 
 
And it is long overdue that the left should unify on a whole host of issues. Truthful discussions regarding racial injustice and inequality are long overdue. We need to continue to stay active and fight hard to take back the congress in 2018 - and not stop there. We have a long way to go on a lot of policy issues. Just getting Democrats back into power is not going to fix things. We need to take the money out of politics and fight for policies that support the environment and all people first. 
 
Peace

First of all, FTR, on paper it shows that the US has bever been in the lead in "charitable" $ giving to other countries, but is pretty far down the list.

Second the "foreign policy" of the US corporate state is purely imperialist, neo-liberal, that is, "we want their stuff" their resources and "we are going to get it" whatever it takes. Just like we(they) did with the Native Americans, etc etc. So, the US has conducted mostly proxy wars and over thrown democratically elected gov'ts all aroubd the globe for decades as a matter of course--to free the way for US corporate takeover of economies. Thus, in the words of Chomsky, the US has been, post WWII, the #1 sponsor of state "terror"(war) globally. It is not a matter of racial inequality, it's a matter of seizing resources and getting those people out of the way, regardless of their race. The US didn't conduct a proxy war in Nicaragua because they are darker skin people, they did it because N was going heavy socialist(Sandinistas) and were kicking out US corp/investment and nationalizing it. That is the consistent theme.

In capitalism/imperialism, it is a CLASS war, fundamentally, not a race war. The wealthy powerful rulers dominate the ruled--home and abroad-- so your not going to get $ out of politics anytime soon--it's the nature of the beast. The fact that other people often have darker skin it simply a convenienience and that's where they play the race card against poplulations. Early industrial Europe invented racism as they were pillaging Africa to help get the local white poplulations behind it. Same as they play the race card here when, say, they are pillaging the Mid East.
  • 0

The Revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe:  you have to make it fall.(Ernesto Che' Guevara)


#27 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 1,093 posts
  • Gender:Male Mammal
  • Location:@ The United Fascist States of America

Posted 19 February 2017 - 01:40 PM

I agree, there's no question that democratic socialism can take root without victimizing other countries, zero!
 
Peace!

WRONG! Ok, dem-soc is still capitalism plus "extras" for the working class as per Keynesian redistributive taxation. Therefore more of the population requires more resources which INTENSIFIES the burden on the 3rd world countries where the resources and slave labor are acquired.

Hypothetically, IF you brought up all countries globally to 1st world, dem-soc standards, then yeah, ok. But that's quite unlikely to happen and its not how current capitalism works.
  • 0

The Revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe:  you have to make it fall.(Ernesto Che' Guevara)


#28 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 6,053 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 19 February 2017 - 02:28 PM

So how would Socialism minus Capitalism relieve the burden on Third World Countries?   There still must be means of production.


  • 0
You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

#29 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 1,093 posts
  • Gender:Male Mammal
  • Location:@ The United Fascist States of America

Posted 19 February 2017 - 04:09 PM

So how would Socialism minus Capitalism relieve the burden on Third World Countries?   There still must be means of production.

Socialism replaces capitalism, does not reform it, replaces it. What does it replace? It eradicates the owning class/investor CLASS persay. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be investment--the working class takes over, production, distribution, investment is handled equitably. There is essentially one class, socioeconomically speaking.

Well, this is a HEAVY lift considering the entire globe is controlled by the capitalists. Any country that tries socialism is met with myriad attacks by the capitalists--war, embargo, etc.

The Maoists, if you study them, prlly took socialism the furthest in many of their communes. Labor took over and with training in administartive things, took charge of fledgling industries. Well, China was essentially, like Russia, a feudalistic society when all this happened and they got it going into industrialism faster than any country had before. But, it wasn't easy, there were mistakes, and resistence from would-be capitalists within and without. Women were completely liberated, empowered, ahead of the western curb.

Spanish anarcho/socialist rev of '36 was very progressive, they were getting it doen. But the fascists came in and destroyed them. And th(s what usually happens.

Well, now, globally, poor people are fighting back militarily in many places, Africa, Mid East, S America. Western imperialism is on shakier ground. Hence, wars and refugees all over the place. Many millions of people don't have land, or a place to live anymore. 60+ mil refugees in just the last several yrs. All the countries Europe has pillaged over the decades--the chickens are literally coming "home" to roost. Nowhere else to go.

Anyway, for more on socialist economics I highly recommend RD Wolff, "democracy @ work" on YouTube(or website). It's a growing movement in America. And "Mondragon"(Spain) is frequently referred to as the most progressive socialistic, more or less, corp. In the world.

Another thing about socialism is that the idea is you produce stuff that fills practical needs and wants whereas in consumer capitalism at least 50% of all tha's produced is ttly garbage, just for profit's sake, and alotta people don't give a damn about the ethics of what they are producing and selling.
  • 0

The Revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe:  you have to make it fall.(Ernesto Che' Guevara)


#30 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 6,053 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 19 February 2017 - 05:48 PM

I like the Mondragon Federation of Worker Cooperatives concept.  These worker-owned cooperatives actually compete with privately owned corporations.  It seems, there would be much incentive for these worker-owners to put forth their best effort ...  And ostracize parasite-slackers.   But Mondragon is not actually Socialism.  More like a Corporation in the spirit of Socialism.

 

The Mondragon - US Steelworkers alliance could be a model for others to follow.


  • 0
You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

#31 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 1,093 posts
  • Gender:Male Mammal
  • Location:@ The United Fascist States of America

Posted 20 February 2017 - 12:13 AM

I like the Mondragon Federation of Worker Cooperatives concept.  These worker-owned cooperatives actually compete with privately owned corporations.  It seems, there would be much incentive for these worker-owners to put forth their best effort ...  And ostracize parasite-slackers.   But Mondragon is not actually Socialism.  More like a Corporation in the spirit of Socialism.
 
The Mondragon - US Steelworkers alliance could be a model for others to follow.

Mondragon is not perfect socialism, no, because it exist in a capitalist milieu all around. But it's probably the best corporate example out there. WSDEs(coops) bizzes are growing in America, see democracy @ work, rd wolff.
  • 0

The Revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe:  you have to make it fall.(Ernesto Che' Guevara)


#32 Strootman

Strootman
  • Member
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:02 AM

Not sure about that, you may be right. Well, who do they trade with? That's right, countries that control Africa or S America, or Indonesia, etc. Finland was big into Indonesia, me thinks. Point being, none of those 3 countries are anywhere self sufficient in terms of resources.

 

Take a look at this table:

 

 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do

 

you will notice that the countries with the biggest colonial empires (Spain, Portugal, England) are also the highest in terms of Gini coefficient (taking out the former Warsaw pact countries that have a too different recent history to be comparable). This means that the immense riches stolen from their colonies were not distributed equally among the population, but were for the sole disposal of the richest, as usual. Actually, looking at this data, colonialism did very bad for equality in Europe, considering that, with the sole exception of the Netherlands, all of the europen countries with the highest equality rates did not have colonial empires. 

So not only colonialism was a disgrace for the colonies, it actually never did anything good for the colonists too, except making the richest richer.

 

Europe as a economic/political/militar power was already doing very good without the colonies, because it was technologically far ahead everyone else in the world when colonialism begun. Colonialism was just the (evil) effect of this power, not the cause.

 

Of course Finland, Sweden, Denmark etc... are trading with former colonial countries.. they're in Europe, In some case they share borders with them... with whom should they trade? US trade big with those same countries. I still fail to see how this is an unfair advantage, considering that most of the former colonial empires are but a joke right now. Spain and Portugal evil rich empires in 2017, seriously? They can barely afford their public employees or pensions...

I haven't controlled, but I bet their first economic partner is Germany, which, at its highest, had a laughable colonial empire.


  • 1

#33 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 1,093 posts
  • Gender:Male Mammal
  • Location:@ The United Fascist States of America

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:53 AM

 
Take a look at this table:
 
 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do
 
you will notice that the countries with the biggest colonial empires (Spain, Portugal, England) are also the highest in terms of Gini coefficient (taking out the former Warsaw pact countries that have a too different recent history to be comparable). This means that the immense riches stolen from their colonies were not distributed equally among the population, but were for the sole disposal of the richest, as usual. Actually, looking at this data, colonialism did very bad for equality in Europe, considering that, with the sole exception of the Netherlands, all of the europen countries with the highest equality rates did not have colonial empires. 
So not only colonialism was a disgrace for the colonies, it actually never did anything good for the colonists too, except making the richest richer.
 
Europe as a economic/political/militar power was already doing very good without the colonies, because it was technologically far ahead everyone else in the world when colonialism begun. Colonialism was just the (evil) effect of this power, not the cause.
 
Of course Finland, Sweden, Denmark etc... are trading with former colonial countries.. they're in Europe, In some case they share borders with them... with whom should they trade? US trade big with those same countries. I still fail to see how this is an unfair advantage, considering that most of the former colonial empires are but a joke right now. Spain and Portugal evil rich empires in 2017, seriously? They can barely afford their public employees or pensions...
I haven't controlled, but I bet their first economic partner is Germany, which, at its highest, had a laughable colonial empire.

Yes agree, in colonialism, capitalism, imperialism, most the spoils go to the top, rich, useless pricks that pay for and control the use of violence.

BUT, in Europe, under dem-soc influence, there has been more resources spread among more people, but obviously the econ gap between bottom and top is still yooge. It's more exaggerated in Murica.

Also, no, wrong about feudal Europe. Middle ages was a shithole for most people--the serfs. Horrible sanitation, poverty, disease, the works. Africa and India and China were more advanced societies in ever way, plus they had beaucoup resources.

In Europe, you had this little thing called the Black Plague, caused by infected fleas on rats that acted as vectors via ships and the like. Of course, the clerisy, not having science, blamed it all on evil spirits and witches and such and tortured and killed a ton more people like that.

So, Black Plague, the workforce is dying off big time, along with livestock and industry starts to come in a bit, but the monarchs HAVE to go down to Africa for more labor and all the wealth of resources. Hence, colonies saved Europe.

Spain and Portugal fell far behind once they left or got booted out of the New World, Spanish American war and such, but they couldn't sustain it. They were getting outta the slave trade ahead of the curve too.

France eventually was the biggest in Africa, colonizing about 14 countries, that they named, at one point. They are still "neo-colonialists" there today, like they get roughly 600 billion/yr from Algeria alone.

England had India mainly, and China to some degree, etc, and they all also got into SE Asia and the mid east.

The North(hemisphere) countries were built off of and still maintained by the South(hemisphere) countries. Otherwise Europe and America wouldn't exist, economically as we know them.
  • 0

The Revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe:  you have to make it fall.(Ernesto Che' Guevara)


#34 Strootman

Strootman
  • Member
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 20 February 2017 - 05:26 AM

You are confusing historic periods. The middle ages were a terrible period for Europe, i agree. Europe, at that time, was a backward area from every perspective: socially, economically and militarly. The reason is pretty simple: religion. Christian (actually Catholic) religion, at that time the most horrific, fundamentalistic and oppressive religion in the world, was in control of every single aspect of society, thus the result could not have been any different.

 

Problem is that colonialism did not happen in the middle ages, but begun in the Renaissance, when, finally, Europe was beginning to get rid of the religion (or at least some of its aspects). China was ahead technologically till the late middle ages (roughly 14th century), then falled behind Europe for the remaining centuries and until the present time. The tech leading of Europe was at its highest between 18th and 20th century, when the difference with the rest of the world (excluding the former 'westernized' colonies: US, Australia and so...) was embarassing. The future, even in technology, is chinese, of course, but that's another story.

If Europe was not the tech leader at that moment, colonialism could not have happened, because to conquer big countries with small armies, either you have a big tech advantage or you will be easily wiped out.

 

Regarding France and England, i agree with you that they're still exploiting some of their former colonies, but again, if you look at their societies, this seems to have no benefit at all for like 99.9% of their people. Have you ever been to England outside of London? For the most part is a shithole, from every point of view. That's because the wealth of the few hundreds/thousands french or english that benefit from that income is almost totally interspersed in tax heavens who knows where... It's the corprations, not the people, that benefit from neo-colonialism. Strikingly this was true even in original colonialism, just think of East India Company...


  • 1

#35 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 1,093 posts
  • Gender:Male Mammal
  • Location:@ The United Fascist States of America

Posted 20 February 2017 - 07:23 AM

You are confusing historic periods. The middle ages were a terrible period for Europe, i agree. Europe, at that time, was a backward area from every perspective: socially, economically and militarly. The reason is pretty simple: religion. Christian (actually Catholic) religion, at that time the most horrific, fundamentalistic and oppressive religion in the world, was in control of every single aspect of society, thus the result could not have been any different.
 
Problem is that colonialism did not happen in the middle ages, but begun in the Renaissance, when, finally, Europe was beginning to get rid of the religion (or at least some of its aspects). China was ahead technologically till the late middle ages (roughly 14th century), then falled behind Europe for the remaining centuries and until the present time. The tech leading of Europe was at its highest between 18th and 20th century, when the difference with the rest of the world (excluding the former 'westernized' colonies: US, Australia and so...) was embarassing. The future, even in technology, is chinese, of course, but that's another story.
If Europe was not the tech leader at that moment, colonialism could not have happened, because to conquer big countries with small armies, either you have a big tech advantage or you will be easily wiped out.
 
Regarding France and England, i agree with you that they're still exploiting some of their former colonies, but again, if you look at their societies, this seems to have no benefit at all for like 99.9% of their people. Have you ever been to England outside of London? For the most part is a shithole, from every point of view. That's because the wealth of the few hundreds/thousands french or english that benefit from that income is almost totally interspersed in tax heavens who knows where... It's the corprations, not the people, that benefit from neo-colonialism. Strikingly this was true even in original colonialism, just think of East India Company...

Agreed, good take. One of the first industries in Europe was manufacturing the "stuff" for the slave trade.

Anyway, let's take Germany of today where dem-soc is the most developed and therefore the working and middle classes have higher incomes and more social benes. That is not to say that there aren't huge income gaps compared with top, who are still millionaires and billionaires. The low end, on average, are further up than say, the USA or England or France.

Well, those dem-soc countries can have difficulty sustaining all the "goodies". Britain has like no internal industry left anyway--all shipped out. France pretty much same deal. Germany still makes A LOT of great stuff--cars, for e.g.

Switzerland is prlly the most interesting example, high standard of living FTMP due to all that bankster $--and GOLD. The Nazis brought most the spoils of Europe to Switzerland--their "handlers". No one ever touches Switzerland, hmmmm, wonder why... ;). Drumpf has massive loans out w Deutche Bank.

And all those "economic collapse" websites invariably are ads for Swiss gold and silver--good marketing ploy.
  • 0

The Revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe:  you have to make it fall.(Ernesto Che' Guevara)


#36 Strootman

Strootman
  • Member
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:09 AM

Agreed, good take. One of the first industries in Europe was manufacturing the "stuff" for the slave trade.

Anyway, let's take Germany of today where dem-soc is the most developed and therefore the working and middle classes have higher incomes and more social benes. That is not to say that there aren't huge income gaps compared with top, who are still millionaires and billionaires. The low end, on average, are further up than say, the USA or England or France.

Well, those dem-soc countries can have difficulty sustaining all the "goodies". Britain has like no internal industry left anyway--all shipped out. France pretty much same deal. Germany still makes A LOT of great stuff--cars, for e.g.

Switzerland is prlly the most interesting example, high standard of living FTMP due to all that bankster $--and GOLD. The Nazis brought most the spoils of Europe to Switzerland--their "handlers". No one ever touches Switzerland, hmmmm, wonder why... ;). Drumpf has massive loans out w Deutche Bank.

And all those "economic collapse" websites invariably are ads for Swiss gold and silver--good marketing ploy.

 

Yes, the 'trick' of Germany being a wealthy country is their still big manufacturing industry. And that's why i firmly believe that every are should have its own significative manufacturing capacity: that's the only way to create real and stable wealth. Relocation of industry is the main source of povertry and inequality of the western world.

 

Switzerland is essentially a huge money laundering machine, mostly for high-end criminal activies. Everybody knows it and all governments know, they just pretend not to look, no need to explain why... At least they use this money wisely (working and living in Switzerland is ideal for almost everyone, very low inequality, extremely high standards of life....), still the source of their wealth is immoral and unacceptable.


  • 1

#37 etienne

etienne
  • Member
  • 1,093 posts
  • Gender:Male Mammal
  • Location:@ The United Fascist States of America

Posted 20 February 2017 - 12:12 PM

 
Yes, the 'trick' of Germany being a wealthy country is their still big manufacturing industry. And that's why i firmly believe that every are should have its own significative manufacturing capacity: that's the only way to create real and stable wealth. Relocation of industry is the main source of povertry and inequality of the western world.
 
Switzerland is essentially a huge money laundering machine, mostly for high-end criminal activies. Everybody knows it and all governments know, they just pretend not to look, no need to explain why... At least they use this money wisely (working and living in Switzerland is ideal for almost everyone, very low inequality, extremely high standards of life....), still the source of their wealth is immoral and unacceptable.

Agree to all points.

Hitler's "big boy" Nazi handlers were in Switzerland, that's why he had his "Eagle's Nest" on the Swiss border and why most the loot ended up in Switzerland. I consider Switzerland the true seat of Nazism.
  • 0

The Revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe:  you have to make it fall.(Ernesto Che' Guevara)


#38 bigmike1256

bigmike1256
  • Member
  • 5,661 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:NY

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:22 PM

No question, the Left is unified against Trump. 
 
But just as important:--  Is the Left unified on a strategy for winning elections again?   One hears views as disparate as "The Democratic Party has moved too far Left"  to its opposite "We are so far Right we are merging with the Republicans".
 
One thing is for sure:--  The Republican Party will not go beyond rhetoric to stop the impoverishment of the middle class.  Barring the the near impossible start of a major new party, the Democrats are the only hope for the restoration of a higher standard of living for the American People.
 
So it's extremely important that we start winning elections again and take back the political system.  But Democrats don't seem to be unified on how to do it.

it will be a natural progression, unfortunately there will be pain and suffering till then.
  • 0
IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP!
CHILD RAPIST, FRAUD, CONMAN..

#39 bruno718

bruno718
  • New Member
  • 19 posts
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 11 March 2017 - 07:54 AM

 

Ok, just ask Africa how they feel about European living large in dem-soc. Europe was built and currently exists off the extreme theft and raping of Africa. The resources and slave labor gotta come from somewhere. But since YOU nor the Europeans are not the brutalized slaves of Africa, getting all their resources stolen, it's "outta sight, outta mind".

Amen, brother.

 

Wait a minute.  Sweden, The Netherlands, New Zealand ...  They are Democratic Socialist nations which never had colonies in Africa.

The feudalistic governments of those regions raped the native people of those lands.  Not sure about New Zealand, but how do you think these European countries got their wealth?  They took it by force through taxation hundreds of years ago. Democratic Socialism is propped up by a long history of totalitarianism, violence, murder and pillaging.

It's amazing to me how out of touch many Americans white liberals are.


  • 0

#40 bruno718

bruno718
  • New Member
  • 19 posts
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 11 March 2017 - 08:00 AM

The left is not unified in "how" to oppose Trump.  Trump is a symptom of the disease known as American Imperialism.  He is the face of America's past and present brutality - the extermination of the Native Americans, the enslavement of Blacks, the virtual economic enslavement of the Chinese in building the railroads and building Apple products.  The left sold out white working people back in the 90's when Clinton signed NAFTA, and they sold out the Peace movement when they rallied around Bush in his war on terror and when they backed Obama in continuing the War on Terror (cough War on Muslims cough)

I was interrupted by a series of cries about all of the horrible things Donald Trump had said in the last week, month, in the last year.  Of course, they were ignoring all of the people Hillary signed off on butchering.  And that’s exactly why the cries about racism from Hillary voters are void of integrity: Hillary supported killing people who happened to come from predominantly Muslim countries (I’m not just talking about Iraq here, I’m talking also about the illegitimate and ill-advised invasion of Afghanistan, as well as her support for the “War on Terror” in general - it was a racist policy when it began, and it’s a racist policy today).  And Democrats were pissed about some words some greedy, old, orange-faced man had said?  How the fuck could they expect to be taken seriously criticizing a guy for being mean while simultaneously backing a racist murderer?  It made absolutely no sense to me then, and it still doesn’t to this day.  In my humble opinion, it’s the true reason she lost.  Hillary had no moral credibility.  She sacrificed it the day she said, “Yes, I vote for the American military to invade another country and murder innocent men, women and children.”
            Case in point, Donald Trump is president today.

mokesnapcentral.blogspot.com

 

  • 0

#41 Strootman

Strootman
  • Member
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 11 March 2017 - 09:17 AM

Amen, brother.

The feudalistic governments of those regions raped the native people of those lands.  Not sure about New Zealand, but how do you think these European countries got their wealth?  They took it by force through taxation hundreds of years ago. Democratic Socialism is propped up by a long history of totalitarianism, violence, murder and pillaging.

It's amazing to me how out of touch many Americans white liberals are.

 

Democratic socialism or whatever other form or recent democracies has nothing to do with colonialism. It was monarchies that colonized the world. Also making it a race issue is deceiving: do you think the English would have give a f if the the Indians, Africans or Australians where as white as milk? They would still have treated them like trash to exploit their resources and land.

The democratization of Europe was mainly due to the technological improvements on agriculture that allowed the growth of big cities and this in turn gave rise to a decently big middle class and, most importantly to the spread of information among lower classes and the birth of the awareness that nobles' blood wasn't really blue and that despotism was morally unacceptable.


  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users