Politics @ MindSay 
bush
Obama's Acceptance Speech
"He needs to talk to people and not preach," a coworker told me about last night's speech. Seemed to me he that he did that. I was going to like what Obama had to say no matter what. But what I liked was the feeling of homeyness that his visage on the TV screen brought. How presumptuous of me! I had forgotten what it would feel like to have a president that doesn't prod a nasty thorn into the entirety of American culture (and the late-phase Bill Clinton did this at some level, tho' not into the stratosphere as "Decider" Bush 43 has done).
Obama's confidence succumbed me. He has potential weaknesses: 1) he's black/African-American; 2) he's young; 3) he's "inexperienced" (only in the sense that he excels in his work in order to get a better job). For me, Obama flew above these potential hindrances, and his confidence and charisma -- in front of 80,000 in person and millions watching on TV -- can't be denied. I liked how he looked directly into the camera -- he kept my attention for many minutes.
We've been trained to "see" blackness, "see" authority in a certain way, "see" celebrity. Obama's persona cruises at altitude above all of these -- it's only when people forget Obama and hear others talking "smack" about him that they perceive him in terms of his weaknesses.
"It was just a speech," a naysayer could say. Well, the public address is the sine qua non of political life dating back to Plato's time. Saying "It's just a speech" is like saying "He's just a fast swimmer" of Michael Phelps or "He's just a fast runner" of Usain Bolt. Or: "He just makes money" of Bill Gates.
Like these examples, it's simply pointless to critique someone for excelling at the ultimate skill of their craft. If you can't acknowledge that, you're insecure, and you, Sir, are what's called (colloquially) a Hater. Go back to your hole in the ground.
Speaking of that, did you see the line referring to bin Laden?
How about the articulateness of Al Gore? I liked his honest assessment that if he'd have been elected, we would not be in this mess -- simple, true, direct.
Obama submitted that our nation may go from an Empire of Hate to an Empire of Hope.
I will be protesting the RNC over in St. Paul, and taking pictures. But I'll be waiting patiently for McCain's address, since I've seen him have woeful problems with a teleprompter in front of 50 people; how will he respond with millions?
Regarding the visual presentation of the night at Invesco Field in Denver, we must acknowledge that this is a golden era for the proscenium (to be more precise, "theatre in round"). Obama spoke in front of a beautiful and masculine stage, with hints of the White House, the Rose Garden, and the Lincoln Memorial (especially in coloration).
Just pretty damn inspiring. Now we'll get to hear how Obama "isn't qualified" and "what has he done, what has he run?" But when it comes to communication, Obama is off the charts.
"He needs to talk to people and not preach," a coworker told me about last night's speech. Seemed to me he that he did that. I was going to like what Obama had to say no matter what. But what I liked was the feeling of homeyness that his visage on the TV screen brought. How presumptuous of me! I had forgotten what it would feel like to have a president that doesn't prod a nasty thorn into the entirety of American culture (and the late-phase Bill Clinton did this at some level, tho' not into the stratosphere as "Decider" Bush 43 has done).
Obama's confidence succumbed me. He has potential weaknesses: 1) he's black/African-American; 2) he's young; 3) he's "inexperienced" (only in the sense that he excels in his work in order to get a better job). For me, Obama flew above these potential hindrances, and his confidence and charisma -- in front of 80,000 in person and millions watching on TV -- can't be denied. I liked how he looked directly into the camera -- he kept my attention for many minutes.
We've been trained to "see" blackness, "see" authority in a certain way, "see" celebrity. Obama's persona cruises at altitude above all of these -- it's only when people forget Obama and hear others talking "smack" about him that they perceive him in terms of his weaknesses.
"It was just a speech," a naysayer could say. Well, the public address is the sine qua non of political life dating back to Plato's time. Saying "It's just a speech" is like saying "He's just a fast swimmer" of Michael Phelps or "He's just a fast runner" of Usain Bolt. Or: "He just makes money" of Bill Gates.
Like these examples, it's simply pointless to critique someone for excelling at the ultimate skill of their craft. If you can't acknowledge that, you're insecure, and you, Sir, are what's called (colloquially) a Hater. Go back to your hole in the ground.
Speaking of that, did you see the line referring to bin Laden?
All of these Obama's points seem so readily obvious. But we are not graced with an electorate to match our ideals, but my hope for a changing of the guard of the last seven/eight years -- the Prodigal Era of American culture -- has never been stronger. (George W. Bush plays the part of prodigal son like no other.)
You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but he won't even follow him to the cave where he lives.
How about the articulateness of Al Gore? I liked his honest assessment that if he'd have been elected, we would not be in this mess -- simple, true, direct.
Obama submitted that our nation may go from an Empire of Hate to an Empire of Hope.
I will be protesting the RNC over in St. Paul, and taking pictures. But I'll be waiting patiently for McCain's address, since I've seen him have woeful problems with a teleprompter in front of 50 people; how will he respond with millions?
Regarding the visual presentation of the night at Invesco Field in Denver, we must acknowledge that this is a golden era for the proscenium (to be more precise, "theatre in round"). Obama spoke in front of a beautiful and masculine stage, with hints of the White House, the Rose Garden, and the Lincoln Memorial (especially in coloration).
Just pretty damn inspiring. Now we'll get to hear how Obama "isn't qualified" and "what has he done, what has he run?" But when it comes to communication, Obama is off the charts.
Obama's Choice for VP
Obama's campaign has been all about change or the talk of change. That's why I was shocked when I learned that he had selected Joe Biden as his running mate. It's the same Joe Biden who voted for the Iraq war and who voted for the Patriot Act. Biden was supposedly chosen for his foreign policy experience. However, how can he be a foreign policy expert when he says this?
That's very neocon of you, Joe. We know these guys aren't dumb, but they must think we are. Both parties have pushed the talking point of "evil" Russia attacking "defenseless" Georgia. Georgia is the one who started the whole stinking mess in the first place!"For the last seven years, this administration has failed to face the biggest forces shaping this century: the emergence of Russia, China and India as great powers; the spread of lethal weapons; the shortage of secure supplies of energy, food and water; the challenge of climate change; and the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front against terrorism.
"In recent days, we've once again seen the consequences of this neglect with Russia's challenge to the free and democratic country of Georgia. Barack Obama and I will end this neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we'll help the people of Georgia rebuild."
The Reality of Communism (TL;DR)
From Freedom and Reason
TL;DR:
The Soviet Union was not a communist society. The deformities of the Soviet Union were for the most part the consequences of Western capitalist action against the Russian revolutionaries.
Communism as a social system has never existed in the modern period, communism as a social system cannot possibly be responsible for the death of a single person. One can never claim that communism doesn't work because (a) it worked for most of human history and (b) it has never been tested in the modern era.
Communism is the moral philosophy that holds that, since most production is inherently social, members of society should benefit, on the basis of need, from the fruits of social activity, and, furthermore, that all members should contribute to that activity on the basis of their abilities. Communism is the ethical value that every person should have a say so in the decisions that affect her life. It is unremarkable, albeit not popularly known, that this form of social existence is the original form of societal ordering. Most of human history has been spent in communities based on communism (there's a reason why the words are so similar). Economically-stratified societies are a historically recent occurrence and its advocates have tragically managed to obliterate almost everywhere the way human beings lived for most of history and prehistory.
TL;DR:
The Soviet Union was not a communist society. The deformities of the Soviet Union were for the most part the consequences of Western capitalist action against the Russian revolutionaries.
Communism as a social system has never existed in the modern period, communism as a social system cannot possibly be responsible for the death of a single person. One can never claim that communism doesn't work because (a) it worked for most of human history and (b) it has never been tested in the modern era.
Communism is the moral philosophy that holds that, since most production is inherently social, members of society should benefit, on the basis of need, from the fruits of social activity, and, furthermore, that all members should contribute to that activity on the basis of their abilities. Communism is the ethical value that every person should have a say so in the decisions that affect her life. It is unremarkable, albeit not popularly known, that this form of social existence is the original form of societal ordering. Most of human history has been spent in communities based on communism (there's a reason why the words are so similar). Economically-stratified societies are a historically recent occurrence and its advocates have tragically managed to obliterate almost everywhere the way human beings lived for most of history and prehistory.
The Reality of Communism
from Freedom and Reason
Right-wing readers of this blog are sending an avalanche of comments attacking me for being a communist. Their frustration over their failure to counter my various arguments concerning abortion and religion is palatable. Their comments are responding to entries which have nothing to do with communism, therefore they do not appear (which has led to charges of censorship); however, the assumption embedded in the attacks, namely that the Soviet Union was a communist country, is entirely wrong and a comment from me about this is in order.
Communism is the moral philosophy that holds that, since most production is inherently social, members of society should benefit, on the basis of need, from the fruits of social activity, and, furthermore, that all members should contribute to that activity on the basis of their abilities. Communism is the ethical value that every person should have a say so in the decisions that affect her life. It is unremarkable, albeit not popularly known, that this form of social existence is the original form of societal ordering. Most of human history has been spent in communities based on communism (there's a reason why the words are so similar). Economically-stratified societies are a historically recent occurrence and its advocates have tragically managed to obliterate almost everywhere the way human beings lived for most of history and prehistory.
Unfortunately, communism does not prevail in the modern era. This is why the definition of modern communism states that it is a theoretical social system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members (to use a standard dictionary definition). It is theoretical because, while communist ideas and practices have found their way into capitalism (and where they have they have vastly improved human conditions), communism as a social system does not exist anywhere at the societal level in the modern era.
The Soviet Union was not a communist society. The Soviet Union was a state socialist society at most. It's existence was only as the initial stages of a communist revolution, and its ability to move onto the next stages was retarded by capitalist encirclement. The deformities of the Soviet Union were for the most part the consequences of Western capitalist action against the Russian revolutionaries.
Only a few years after the October Revolution, in the context of the first world war, a multinational force, in which the United States was a key participant, invaded the Soviet Union in an attempt to restore capitalist rule. That effort, rarely discussed today in US history classes, was crushed by the Red Army. The United States suffered a humiliating and deserved defeat.
During the second world war, Nazi Germany, an authoritarian capitalist juggernaut that made the error of making war against other capitalist countries in a bid to expand its national territory, attempted to overthrow socialism in Russia. Like the multinational force before it, the invading army was repelled by the Soviet military, a defeat that brought about the end of Hitler's attempt to take over the world (the late entry of the US in the war effort fated millions of Eastern Europeans to death as the German military exhausted themselves in a futile attempt to halt the Red counteroffensive).
These victories of the Soviet state showed the vitality of state socialism. They were glorious moments where the socialists defended the interests of the people against the interests of the exploiters and profiteers. At the same time, the attacks showed the Soviet leadership quite clearly that if it the country was to survive it had to maintain an extensive and ready national security apparatus. The workers state was forced by western capitalist aggression to maintain a vast military capability. The workers state was forced to be ever vigilant to defend against the spying and sabotage that sought to undermine the Soviet state from within. The Revolution was prevented from moving forward because it had to defend the Revolution itself from the counterrevolution plotted and perpetrated by capitalist forces inside and outside the Soviet Union.
Could the United States and the West have permitted the Soviet Union to continue on the path to communism? While this would have been the proper thing to do if the ideals of freedom and democracy actually carried meaning for bourgeois policymakers, the answer is obvious: Of course not. The Soviet Union, even in its siege state, had already accomplished too much. (Read Socialism Works.) That the Soviet Union lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and was improving the lives of hundreds of millions people throughout the world was embarrassing to the imperialist countries that had driven hundreds of millions into poverty in the regions under their control. Wrecking the Revolution was the goal of the Cold War, a long struggle that the West started with the fall of nationalist authoritarian capitalism. The Cold War was not a defense of freedom and democracy, but an aggressive expansion of imperial capitalism.
Thus, through this history, the Russian people had only started the journey towards communism by successfully overthrowing the capitalist state and putting the socialist state to the service of improving the lives of their lives. Although this effort was led by the Communist Party, the Soviet Union was never communist. Neither was China (which isn't even socialist anymore). Nor is Cuba. These countries were only ever state socialist. The arrested development of the communist movement, for the most part the consequence of external forces, represents a great loss to humanity. (This is why I spend so much time debunking the anti-communist myths and propaganda.)
Therefore, incorporating in the attacks on my moral philosophy exaggerated claims that communism is responsible for the deaths of some one hundred million persons completely fails for three reasons.
First, since communism as a social system has never existed in the modern period, communism as a social system cannot possibly be responsible for the death of a single person. One can never claim that communism doesn't work because (a) it worked for most of human history and (b) it has never been tested in the modern era. (Save your breath over this absurd argument that "capitalism has never existed in the ideal either," because capitalism does in fact exist. The economy under which we live meets all the criteria of capitalism. Our lives in a capitalist world system are material facts. The hundreds of millions of people killed by capitalism were killed by a really-existing social system. And capitalism continues its lethal course.)
Second, the state socialist system that did exist where the Communist Party prevailed did not result in the deaths of a hundred million people but on the contrary saved the lives of millions of people while lifting hundreds of millions of people to a better place. The fact of the matter is that socialism works. State socialism in the Soviet Union accomplished in two decades what it took capitalism two centuries to accomplish: the industrial revolution. State socialism provided the people with education, jobs, and extensive social services, where before the people had lived as peasants. Every country that experienced socialist transformation was lifted from the bottom third of countries ranked on income inequality and quality of life to at least equality with the middle-level capitalist countries, with some approaching the quality of life of the first-tier capitalist countries. And, crucially, the socialists did not purchase this greater equality and quality of life at the expense of third world peoples the way the rich capitalist countries did. On the contrary, Soviet "imperialism" was crucial to lifting up the third world (which is why so many people suffered so greatly with the collapse of the Soviet Union). It's not a question of simply raising standards of living but how standards of living are raised.
Third, while one can say that the communist movement caused deaths, this is true of the many non-communist movements that anti-communists and even communists support. For example, the movement to overthrow British rule in North American that lead to the creation of the United States with its extraordinary Bill of Rights, caused the deaths of thousands of people. Had I been around at that time, I would have been counted among the patriots killing British soldiers and politicians. I would have been among the Union troops in the Civil War killing Southerners, too (sorry guys).
The question is not whether people die during social transformation but whether their deaths are justified. I'm no pacifist. Overthrowing slavery may require the deployment of lethal force, and lethal force in the service of overthrowing slavery, where peaceful means fail, is justified. Unfortunately, the slaveowners in the US South would not do the right thing, so the North forced them to (at least this was the consequence). And while the North did not start the war, nor did it seek to achieve these ends through war, my participation in killing Southerners would have been to see the end of slavery. Had the Union failed to end the practice of humans owning humans, I would have encouraged my comrades in arms to turn on the Union (I would have seen the overthrow of slavery at the time as Marx did, namely a step in unifying the working class against capitalism).
Likewise, overthrowing capitalism may require the deployment of lethal force, and lethal force in the service of overthrowing capitalism, where peaceful means fail, is justified. The justification for force lies in the fact that both slavery and capitalism are unjust social arrangements that no persons should be forced to endure on the basis of pacifism. Peaceful transformation is to be sought first, of course. Violence is only the means of the last resort. But to condemn a social system on the grounds that it required its people to fight for liberation and in defense of their lives is contemptible.
One must judge a social system not only by whether it lives up to its ideals, but by the context in which it exists and evolves and in comparison to what came before it. For example, Cuba today has flaws; but Cuba before the Revolution was worse. Under US imperialism and the puppet state lead by Batista and his cronies, Cuba was a haven for US business and organized crime. Havana became a giant gambling casino, the "Latin Las Vegas." And the Cuban people suffered terribly as a consequence. The people's movement, led by Castro, overthrew capitalist rule and turned social production to the benefit of the people as it should be. Whatever the flaws of the Cuban system, a return to capitalism is not the answer. The way forward is to reform the socialist system not negate it.
Finally, I need to note something I have said many times before: I don't recommend a Soviet-style system for the United States. The form socialism takes should shaped by the history of the people. The Russian people did not enter the Revolution with a wonderful bill of rights like US citizens enjoy in back of them. I advocate socialism consistent with our bill of rights - along with an expansion of basic human rights. I argue for a socialism that keeps religion away from the state, that permits free speech, and that maintains due process in the criminal justice system, but that at the same time adds to these rights by expanding economic and social rights consistent with the principles of democracy: universal life-long public education, public ownership of and democratic control over the means of production, cradle-to-grave social security, and comprehensive environmental protection.
So, in the future, if we could proceed via the above level of discourse rather than on McCarthyite attacks on my communist philosophy, our discussion would generate more light than heat and more of the comments that pile up in the moderation box would likely make it to air.
Right-wing readers of this blog are sending an avalanche of comments attacking me for being a communist. Their frustration over their failure to counter my various arguments concerning abortion and religion is palatable. Their comments are responding to entries which have nothing to do with communism, therefore they do not appear (which has led to charges of censorship); however, the assumption embedded in the attacks, namely that the Soviet Union was a communist country, is entirely wrong and a comment from me about this is in order.
Communism is the moral philosophy that holds that, since most production is inherently social, members of society should benefit, on the basis of need, from the fruits of social activity, and, furthermore, that all members should contribute to that activity on the basis of their abilities. Communism is the ethical value that every person should have a say so in the decisions that affect her life. It is unremarkable, albeit not popularly known, that this form of social existence is the original form of societal ordering. Most of human history has been spent in communities based on communism (there's a reason why the words are so similar). Economically-stratified societies are a historically recent occurrence and its advocates have tragically managed to obliterate almost everywhere the way human beings lived for most of history and prehistory.
Unfortunately, communism does not prevail in the modern era. This is why the definition of modern communism states that it is a theoretical social system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members (to use a standard dictionary definition). It is theoretical because, while communist ideas and practices have found their way into capitalism (and where they have they have vastly improved human conditions), communism as a social system does not exist anywhere at the societal level in the modern era.
The Soviet Union was not a communist society. The Soviet Union was a state socialist society at most. It's existence was only as the initial stages of a communist revolution, and its ability to move onto the next stages was retarded by capitalist encirclement. The deformities of the Soviet Union were for the most part the consequences of Western capitalist action against the Russian revolutionaries.
Only a few years after the October Revolution, in the context of the first world war, a multinational force, in which the United States was a key participant, invaded the Soviet Union in an attempt to restore capitalist rule. That effort, rarely discussed today in US history classes, was crushed by the Red Army. The United States suffered a humiliating and deserved defeat.
During the second world war, Nazi Germany, an authoritarian capitalist juggernaut that made the error of making war against other capitalist countries in a bid to expand its national territory, attempted to overthrow socialism in Russia. Like the multinational force before it, the invading army was repelled by the Soviet military, a defeat that brought about the end of Hitler's attempt to take over the world (the late entry of the US in the war effort fated millions of Eastern Europeans to death as the German military exhausted themselves in a futile attempt to halt the Red counteroffensive).
These victories of the Soviet state showed the vitality of state socialism. They were glorious moments where the socialists defended the interests of the people against the interests of the exploiters and profiteers. At the same time, the attacks showed the Soviet leadership quite clearly that if it the country was to survive it had to maintain an extensive and ready national security apparatus. The workers state was forced by western capitalist aggression to maintain a vast military capability. The workers state was forced to be ever vigilant to defend against the spying and sabotage that sought to undermine the Soviet state from within. The Revolution was prevented from moving forward because it had to defend the Revolution itself from the counterrevolution plotted and perpetrated by capitalist forces inside and outside the Soviet Union.
Could the United States and the West have permitted the Soviet Union to continue on the path to communism? While this would have been the proper thing to do if the ideals of freedom and democracy actually carried meaning for bourgeois policymakers, the answer is obvious: Of course not. The Soviet Union, even in its siege state, had already accomplished too much. (Read Socialism Works.) That the Soviet Union lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and was improving the lives of hundreds of millions people throughout the world was embarrassing to the imperialist countries that had driven hundreds of millions into poverty in the regions under their control. Wrecking the Revolution was the goal of the Cold War, a long struggle that the West started with the fall of nationalist authoritarian capitalism. The Cold War was not a defense of freedom and democracy, but an aggressive expansion of imperial capitalism.
Thus, through this history, the Russian people had only started the journey towards communism by successfully overthrowing the capitalist state and putting the socialist state to the service of improving the lives of their lives. Although this effort was led by the Communist Party, the Soviet Union was never communist. Neither was China (which isn't even socialist anymore). Nor is Cuba. These countries were only ever state socialist. The arrested development of the communist movement, for the most part the consequence of external forces, represents a great loss to humanity. (This is why I spend so much time debunking the anti-communist myths and propaganda.)
Therefore, incorporating in the attacks on my moral philosophy exaggerated claims that communism is responsible for the deaths of some one hundred million persons completely fails for three reasons.
First, since communism as a social system has never existed in the modern period, communism as a social system cannot possibly be responsible for the death of a single person. One can never claim that communism doesn't work because (a) it worked for most of human history and (b) it has never been tested in the modern era. (Save your breath over this absurd argument that "capitalism has never existed in the ideal either," because capitalism does in fact exist. The economy under which we live meets all the criteria of capitalism. Our lives in a capitalist world system are material facts. The hundreds of millions of people killed by capitalism were killed by a really-existing social system. And capitalism continues its lethal course.)
Second, the state socialist system that did exist where the Communist Party prevailed did not result in the deaths of a hundred million people but on the contrary saved the lives of millions of people while lifting hundreds of millions of people to a better place. The fact of the matter is that socialism works. State socialism in the Soviet Union accomplished in two decades what it took capitalism two centuries to accomplish: the industrial revolution. State socialism provided the people with education, jobs, and extensive social services, where before the people had lived as peasants. Every country that experienced socialist transformation was lifted from the bottom third of countries ranked on income inequality and quality of life to at least equality with the middle-level capitalist countries, with some approaching the quality of life of the first-tier capitalist countries. And, crucially, the socialists did not purchase this greater equality and quality of life at the expense of third world peoples the way the rich capitalist countries did. On the contrary, Soviet "imperialism" was crucial to lifting up the third world (which is why so many people suffered so greatly with the collapse of the Soviet Union). It's not a question of simply raising standards of living but how standards of living are raised.
Third, while one can say that the communist movement caused deaths, this is true of the many non-communist movements that anti-communists and even communists support. For example, the movement to overthrow British rule in North American that lead to the creation of the United States with its extraordinary Bill of Rights, caused the deaths of thousands of people. Had I been around at that time, I would have been counted among the patriots killing British soldiers and politicians. I would have been among the Union troops in the Civil War killing Southerners, too (sorry guys).
The question is not whether people die during social transformation but whether their deaths are justified. I'm no pacifist. Overthrowing slavery may require the deployment of lethal force, and lethal force in the service of overthrowing slavery, where peaceful means fail, is justified. Unfortunately, the slaveowners in the US South would not do the right thing, so the North forced them to (at least this was the consequence). And while the North did not start the war, nor did it seek to achieve these ends through war, my participation in killing Southerners would have been to see the end of slavery. Had the Union failed to end the practice of humans owning humans, I would have encouraged my comrades in arms to turn on the Union (I would have seen the overthrow of slavery at the time as Marx did, namely a step in unifying the working class against capitalism).
Likewise, overthrowing capitalism may require the deployment of lethal force, and lethal force in the service of overthrowing capitalism, where peaceful means fail, is justified. The justification for force lies in the fact that both slavery and capitalism are unjust social arrangements that no persons should be forced to endure on the basis of pacifism. Peaceful transformation is to be sought first, of course. Violence is only the means of the last resort. But to condemn a social system on the grounds that it required its people to fight for liberation and in defense of their lives is contemptible.
One must judge a social system not only by whether it lives up to its ideals, but by the context in which it exists and evolves and in comparison to what came before it. For example, Cuba today has flaws; but Cuba before the Revolution was worse. Under US imperialism and the puppet state lead by Batista and his cronies, Cuba was a haven for US business and organized crime. Havana became a giant gambling casino, the "Latin Las Vegas." And the Cuban people suffered terribly as a consequence. The people's movement, led by Castro, overthrew capitalist rule and turned social production to the benefit of the people as it should be. Whatever the flaws of the Cuban system, a return to capitalism is not the answer. The way forward is to reform the socialist system not negate it.
Finally, I need to note something I have said many times before: I don't recommend a Soviet-style system for the United States. The form socialism takes should shaped by the history of the people. The Russian people did not enter the Revolution with a wonderful bill of rights like US citizens enjoy in back of them. I advocate socialism consistent with our bill of rights - along with an expansion of basic human rights. I argue for a socialism that keeps religion away from the state, that permits free speech, and that maintains due process in the criminal justice system, but that at the same time adds to these rights by expanding economic and social rights consistent with the principles of democracy: universal life-long public education, public ownership of and democratic control over the means of production, cradle-to-grave social security, and comprehensive environmental protection.
So, in the future, if we could proceed via the above level of discourse rather than on McCarthyite attacks on my communist philosophy, our discussion would generate more light than heat and more of the comments that pile up in the moderation box would likely make it to air.
Why aren't we in outrage over this?
Police Brutality at the DNC protests:
American Gulags:
Do you need any more evidence of the police state?
RESIST STATE TERROR
Remember, if arrested, to plead the fifth immediately. DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE OR ANY GOVERNMENT AGENT UNTIL YOU GET AN ATTORNEY. A Capitalist State works for the wealthy elite and are not concerned about your safety or welfare.
American Gulags:
Do you need any more evidence of the police state?
RESIST STATE TERROR
Remember, if arrested, to plead the fifth immediately. DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE OR ANY GOVERNMENT AGENT UNTIL YOU GET AN ATTORNEY. A Capitalist State works for the wealthy elite and are not concerned about your safety or welfare.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: Public ... Republican VP Announced - My gawd Shiny, you are a genius! You should produce your own video...
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy