you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
What seems to be lost in any discussions of employment is that those who have stopped looking for work represent shuttered businesses, or those businesses that have fled to China in order to, in the minds of their self-centered non-public spirited managements, survive.
As this process continues corruption in the upper ranks of business managements increases in downhill snowball fashion. Nepotism in the ranks of corporations filled with the offspring of previous founders exhibit no loyalty to anyone but themselves, which translates to the political arena where pressure is applied to leaders there to accede to their demands for special treatment at the expense of the electorate. This, of course, results in the destruction of overall living standards, except for the top of the pile. And then enter OWS, a movement encouraged by the mass media to show lack of focus, rather than to suggest what the focus should be to right the ship-of-state. It is becoming abundantly clear that most popular forms of the mass media’s output are bankster driven as they falsely suggest that ALL forms of protest in the current environment are bogus. If this is not what you are hearing, you are not listening.
And, of course, the political environment encourages, just as in the aforementioned non-market driven nepotism in the business world, promotion of future leadership hopefuls, as recently disclosed, like Chelsea Clinton and Caroline Kennedy. You can be sure the pliable brains of public school children are being filled with affirmation towards these trends, generally speaking, as their socialist selfish agendas for an ever larger share of public monies expands and grows into other public employee unions representing prison guards, health care workers, police, fire, and on and on, all at the expense of the private sector.
For the rest of us it is a balancing act of how to gage survival when the wheels come off an economic system guided by the latest crop of anointed political leaders that deserve no degree of respect in their disregard for the country’s well-being founded on the power of the individual. Individuals, determining their own destiny with government as their servant rather than their master, in the past, have been the secret to the country’s unparalleled prosperity.
You describe a neo-feudalistic system and then call it a socialist selfish agenda. Socialism is not selfish. Socialism is all about sharing and giving. A socialist works for the good of society not greed. It seems that a lot of people have been brainwashed into believing that socialism is the same as communism. The right wing has made an effort at this brainwashing to discredit socialism.
A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.
My! My! Some never learn from the lessons of history.
Can’t we just get away from the “isms” and think in terms of “the pursuit of happiness”? As far as the use of “feudalism”, in the context of any discussion within this topic, it has absolutely no relevance, and indicates a lack of understanding of the term.
But if you must, just consider that Russia WAS called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As far as the distinction between communism and socialism, the way it is thought of in the United States is the stealth approach to installing communism by the slower process of “socialism”. Communism has NEVER worked, never will work, and brings with it what we are currently experiencing, which is a decline in living standards along with the misery of lost jobs and dependency on government handouts.
As far as the ethic of sharing, in the communal sense, it was tried early on when the Pilgrims arrived in the then English Colonies. In the earlier times of the Plymouth Colony all were to share and equally divide the output of land upon which they lived with the others in the Colony. The problem with that arrangement was that some refused to do their fair share, but still received their portion of the common output. The arrangement failed and the more equitable arrangement was for those whose output was better to be also compensated in kind, which of course was an enticement for others to compete by increasing their own portion, according to their talents.
There are many other attempts at communal arrangements, and all failed, as have all on a worldwide basis. Even Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother, has come to the realization that the state cannot be the population’s provider and has begun reducing the size of the government in order to avoid complete bankruptcy.
Having said all this it is still is amazing that some are unable, or unwilling, to recognize the lessons of history. What is it that motivates such people? Apparently the possibility that they will be the ones on whom others must depend, rather than the fact that others will use their independence to excel in ways that are a benefit to us all is the only possible answer. That is a truly narcissistic view of life, and we sure have one in our current POTUS.
tburke: "A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing. "
Can you list the places where Socialism/Communism is an ongoing success? Where all wish to work for the common good, share and share alike.
The Pilgrims of Plymouth adopted Socialism in order to pay their debt to the corporation that paid for their passage and meager provisions and supplies. They abandoned the Socialism economic system in less than three years and each family was alloted its own land to till and each family kept all it raised but must subsist on that. At once there was an increase in acreage planted and of efficiency of labor.(1)
Our forefathers gave Socialism a try. They were a tight nit group all of the same religion and even same church, all trying to exist without starving or being overrun by natives. They had strong leadership and a strong faith and hardy character. If Socialism was to work anywhere it should have worked in Plymouth Colony. It didn't. It was abandoned and thus the Pilgrims were allowed to flourish.
Human nature likely has not changed much in the last 400 years. Eh Comrade.
(1) Plymouth 1620 by Walter Prichard Eaton C. MCMXXVIII
communism is a "ism"
Karl Marx was a economist.
Read his book "Das Kapital"
If he would have lived to see what Stalin
and Mao TseDung did He would have to write a new book
Charles Dickens also saw evils in capitalism
That was then
this is now
plenty of new evils to write about