Shenonymous, Nov. 20 at 10:13am,

I specified American Socialism as a Societal Model and socialized Capitalism as an Economic Model to work within the Model of American Socialism.

Limit yourself to what I have proposed, if you want me to consider what you say as ingenuous, rather than more of the same equivocation and sophist propaganda.

Shenonymous, Nov. 20 at 10:13am,

I specified American Socialism as a Societal Model and socialized Capitalism as an Economic Model to work within the Model of American Socialism.

Limit yourself to what I have proposed, if you want me to consider what you say as ingenuous, rather than more of the same equivocation and sophist propaganda.

I don’t think, ThomasG, I have quite said what you have interpreted.  I wouldn’t
eliminate privatized capital.  I said there was a rational place for socialized
capital in the Democratic based economic society in the United States.  I think I
did say by implication that socialism and capitalism can be fused to work in
both the scope of this country and as a model for the rest of the world.  That it
must combine to thwart the forces of anarchy that are always at work.  I am an
anti-anarchist, not an anti-socialist.  It is the sense of anarchism that is at the
root of all greed and self-service.  Both socialists and capitalists are
shortsighted from their own point of view about the need for both
perspectives. 

The people who provide the resource for capitalism to work, the common
population, even their basic needs are historically forgotten which is why
socialism emerged in the first place when consciousness of how to fix that
problem occurred to such people like Marx and Engels.  However, to impose
socialism as a complete system overriding the need for individual achievement
and reward has proven to be a failure because of the inherent lack of resistance
to corruption by the surreptitious anarchists that exist in every society and
within every economic system.

Shenonymous, Nov.19 at 10:57pm,& Shenonymous, Nov.19 at 10:56pm,

Are you saying that you agree that eliminating privatized capital and implementing socialized capital as an economic system within a Socialist Society in the United States would be an improvement to the Socio-Economic System of the United States?  If so, your understanding has developed remarkably past what I have taken as misplaced savant ability combined together with propaganda and sophist dogma of your past posts.

You know ThomasG, this is the first time I think I understand you and that you
have written something that at times is intelligible, almost articulate.  Are we
making progress or not?  Maybe.  Maybe because you are finally speaking
somewhat in coherent terms. 

If socialism has been at work in American Society for 233 years, then there is
no need to isolate it as any different than it was 233 years ago.  Left alone it
will continue as is alleged.  I understand that you are making a distinction
between American Socialism and Russian Socialism.  But you failed to say why
Russian Socialism failed, or disintegrated.  The change in direction of the flow
of capital for the American brand of socialism seems sound and an imperative
if the people are to rebound from the near depression and thrive. 

I don’t think your somewhat Victorian theatricality is useful to your cause.  The
name calling is counterproductive as is the sloganisms with which you densely
dot your comments.  While several of us TDers would agree that it is TIME to
turn the direction of financial investment towards the population instead of in
the pockets of the corporatists, it does your cause no good at all to kindle their
ire.  I would rather call the greedy financiers beyond-capitalism capitalists,
since the theory is that privatized capitalism needs a transfusion of socialism,
where tax revenues towards the direction of the public.

So what it looks like to me, is that you are writing a thesis, maybe even a
dissertation, on capitalism/socialism and you are using the Truthdiggers to
write it for you.  I don’t mind my part since I am an academic and at the same
time I am also learning in an area I avoided for so many years having concerns
elsewhere.  But philosophy has always been part of that academic involvement
and I see this discussion as highly philosophy, political philosophy in fact, so it
has much interest for me.  We are providing you with a good bibliography for
research, aren’t we?  If this is just a wild hypothesis on my part, so be it.  But I
digress.

To continue then…From your plethora of definitions, socialism has been
operating since mankind took up residence in the cave as tribes.  To give some
basis for an argument to the notion that socialism was alive and well from time
immemorial, even way beyond early America, I will provide some historical
basis of mankind in social organization.

2.
The original structure of human group life-style was the hunter/gatherer,
usually made up of immediate family or related and near related members and
does not qualify to be called a society so we cannot say socialism was in effect
at the time.  Groups who hunted together could be called societies of a sort
and by a stretch but it was more of an anarchic interrelationship.  Even other
simians form societies, baboons, gorillas, chimpanzees.  We are getting to a
point of de-definition of the word that covers too much ground and too many
groups when we say that socialism derives from the concept society. Granted
the word socialism derives etymologically from the world society.  The word
“socialism” is of comparatively recent origin, having been coined by Robert
Owen in England in 1835. It had no cognitive meaning before that.  Although
you propose that the dynamics of socialism existed long before that.  It could
be theorized if your theory was pushed to its extreme that it existed in
prehistory.

From theorganizational structure of hunter/gatherer clans, the tribe form
emerged to include non-family members who contributed to the group and
followed the patriarchical leadership of the male elders who were perceived as
wise by reason of their longevity.

Next came nomadistic, still not appropriately called society.  Once human
settlements occurred and any cooperation happened beyond anarchism, a
society formed.  Any organization can be considered a complex or simple
‘social’ system.  No doubt this is not the last word on this subject.

Here are some further but different thoughts on the socialism capitalism
dispute, or non-dispute as is preferred:  Socialism is a principle of social
dynamics that implies collective interests and socially sympathetic motives. 
But seems like socialists have handicapped themselves with a program that
calls for a war upon the Capitalist system.  Capitalism is also a principle, an
economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, that
involves personal profit through the investment of capital and the employment
of labor. 

It is imagined that it is a class function necessarily in conflict with socialism. 
What neither socialists and capitalist don’t realize is that they are inseparable
and mutually in historic conflict with a different principle that was old ten
thousand years ago and that is dominant in every city and village in the world
today. That is anarchy, a daily, universal experiment that always fails to work,
but has a philosophy of looking forward to its adoption in a vague future of
perfected and super-enlightened humanity. 

Socialism and capitalism as basic ideas represent parallel efforts on the part of
a growing social intelligence to overcome the rawness of prehistoric anarchism
as it remains in our contemporary world and the achievement of order and
efficiency in social and business activities. 

Socialists rejects the notion that big business is doing the world’s work today
better than it was ever done before.  Capitalists, on the other hand have not the
business sense to see that socialism means the universal triumph of their big
idea; every possible share of stock sold in advance of dividends rolling in as
fast as a common interest in getting out this work as fast and as well as it can
be done it the only way to accomplish this action.  So anarchy continues to
breed, plan, and make war, so far as it still rules, within and between nations.

Shenonymous, Nov.19 at 9:58am & Shenonymous, Nov.19 at 9:58am,

Since you seem to be interested in Socialized Capitalism, here is a post to GRYM on Truthdig thread “GOP Obstruction Goes Unnoticed—and Unpunished”:

“All wealth is created by capital used in businesses engaging in free enterprise and it is irrelevant to businesses engaging in free enterprise whether or not the capital they use in their businesses to create revenue streams and markets is privatized capital or socialized capital.

Your point about the majority of millionaires would be irrelevant to socialized capitalism because those who are presently capitalists would be working for compensation as employees and consumers, rather than private capitalists.”

Shenonymous, Nov.19 at 9:58am & Shenonymous, Nov.19 at 9:58am,

(Addendum to Part 2 of 2)

There is a distinction between American Socialism and Russian Socialism as practiced by the United Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR.

Russian Socialism, as practiced by the USSR, disintegrated along with the collapse of the USSR, the Soviet Union.

American Socialism, as used in the United States successfully for over 230 years to the present date, as the basis of community, city, county, state and nation, is alive, healthy, vibrant and is NOT in danger of disintegration and collapse.  The American Social Order is based on American Socialism, the American Social System that unifies the diversity of the population of America is American Socialism. American Socialism is defined by the Constitution and the Laws of the United States from community to city, county, state and nation, and American Socialism has worked and continues to work both admirably and successfully from its inception in the American Colonies to the present time at the start of the 21st Century.

American Socialism has over 230 years of stable performance in American Society, and American Socialism is perfectly capable of giving stability to the economic cycle of Capitalism.

Since the advent of privatized Capitalism, privatized Capitalism has been cyclically dying, becoming a corpse and being reanimated as ZOMBIE Capitalism that has to be cyclically reanimated every 40 to 50 years by the socialized responsibility of American Socialism.

It is time for the advent of Socialized Capitalism, for American Socialism to socialize Capitalism.

Capitalism requires capital, NOT privatized capitalists.  Socialized institutions of American Socialism can institutionalize capital and provide capital in the same way that privatized capitalists do, so that the revenue stream of capital and markets will flow to social institutions of American Socialism, rather than to the private interests of privatized Capitalism.  It is long past time for privatized Capitalists to continue to control a privatized economy in the United States that American Socialism is responsible for.

It is time for American Socialism to socialize privatized Capitalism, so that American Society can get the benefit of Capitalism, socialized Capitalism, and socialized Capitalism can provide benefit to American Society as a whole, rather than just a few private capitalists cyclically reanimating ZOMBIE Capitalism for their own greedy benefit.

Shenonymous, Nov.19 at 9:58am & Shenonymous, Nov.19 at 9:58am,

(Part 1 of 2)

I am advocating the socialization of capital only, NOT the socialization of private ownership.  Here in the United States, we already have the socialization of capital for private interests without social benefit for the society as a whole.  What I am saying is that since the American masses of the population are already paying TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS to socialize private capital that capital should be socialized, so that capital can serve the social interests of communities, cities, counties, states and the nation, society as a whole; rather than just the private interests of a few greedy capitalists at the expense of society as a whole.

What is socialism?

To determine that question we must first ask what is social?——and, what is the suffix—ism?

Social is of or pertaining to society or its organization; relating to persons as living in society or to the public as an aggregate body.

——ism is the act, process or result of.

Socialism then, according to dictionary definition, is the act, process or result of or pertaining to society.

Society, according to dictionary definition, is the system of community life, in which individuals, ordinarily in a territorial establishment, form a continuous and regulatory association for their mutual benefit and protection; the body of persons composing such a community.

Therefore, according to dictionary definition, socialism is derived from social and society, and society is the same as community.

Society and community being the same thing, what then is community?

Community, according to dictionary definition is the people who reside in one locality and are subject to the same laws, have the same interests, etc.; a body politic; the public; society at large.

Therefore, according to dictionary definition, socialism is derived from social and society, society is the same as community and community is the same as “a body politic.”

Socialism then being the act, process, or result of society, society being community and community being the same as “a body politic”, what then is “a body politic”?

“a body politic”, according to dictionary definition is the state or nation as an organized political body; the people, taken collectively.

Therefore, according to dictionary definition, socialism is derived from social and society, society is the same as community, community is the same as “a body politic”, and “a body politic” is the same as the people taken collectively as an organized political body, a community, a city, a county, a state or a nation.

Socialism , as previously defined, has been in existence since the origin of the United States and is defined by the laws and Constitution of the United States, as socialism has been applied with regard to social administration of communities, cities, counties and states within the United States and the United States as a whole.

Shenonymous, Nov.19 at 9:58am & Shenonymous, Nov.19 at 9:58am,

(Part 2 of 2)

Socialism as applied by government within the United States in communities, cities, counties, states and the nation as a whole is based upon the concept of community that serves the greater good, rather than individual self interest; a societal model that was based upon individual self interest would not require the organization of society for the greater good of the collective.

Capitalism is an economic model that functions within society that serves individual self interest of members of the society.

Capitalism that is privatized, privatizes and uses the socialized resources of society without benefit to the society, as has been the case with privatized capitalism in the United states from the advent of privatized capitalism to the present date.

Capitalism that is socialized in accordance with the Model of Socialism practiced in the communities, cities, counties, states and the United states as a nation, can be regulated to provide benefit for society as a whole.

The Model of Socialism practiced in the United States is NOT Cold War Time Warp Socialism of the USSR. American socialism has been used effectively for over 230 years to successfully administer and regulate communities, cities, counties, states and the United States as a nation and in the same manner American socialism can administer and regulate socialized Capitalism and harness Capitalism for the greater good, rather than the greater greed.

Reference: New Illustrated Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language - Thesaurus; Pamco Publishing Co., Inc., 118 E. 28th St., NY, NY 10016; Copyright 1992 by J.G. Ferguson Publishing Co, Chicago, IL; ISBN: 1-881275-04-03.

Part 1 in response to TG Nov. 19 at 1:42am

I watched the videos.  Now the question is will you be just as gracious to read
my comments without rancor and as an honest reaction?  I don’t expect you to
even acknowledge that I was gracious enough to visit your links. I don’t expect
any reasonable discussion from you.

1. Community socialism, hmmmmm ThomasG, are you Rick Smith?  Well I
think Canadians ought to better use their time trying to get Canada to be more
Socialist.  Doesn’t seem to be working there….either.  Idle curiosity, why did it
disband before it decided to reform?  I see, the euphemism Renaissance just
didn’t fool anyone, right?

It is a pure flight of fancy (meaning madness) to think that American factories,
railroads, mines, etc., would ever be community owned.  Anyway anything that
has steps to this or that, i.e., 14 steps to visions for a new society, It means to
me 14 steps to just a different totalitarian bunch of government crap.  Lets see
how successful was Smith in Canada?  Smith says the CCSO is the only “active”
group promoting community socialism.  well he can waste his time if he wants
to, and yours.

What is laughable is that I, me, me myself and I, could be the first to comment
on that article.  I’m laughing my sides off.  Another joke, right ThomasG?

2. I already know this, I said so in my last post.  Maybe you can read because of
something hiding your eyes?  Okay, look at that 150-year history, all that
effort and where has it gotten to?  Nowheresville.  The American people just
aren’t interested. They would druther be capitalists with some social programs.

3.  About communes - America already has cities, towns, burbs, and
backwaters and no communes.  Why do you suppose that is in 233 years? It is
very telling that America is not listed under the “Important Communes” in the
article.

4.  Perhaps informative of political members.  I will check this one out each and
every one of those listed.  All 70.  I don’t hear any of these politicians calling for
socialist democracy as the American form of government.  Democracy at the
national level would descend into mob rule.  But here again is my question.  If
this s such a going concern, why in all the years, lets take the international
organization’s birthday of 1951 just for argument’s sake, why in almost 60
years (58 to be exact) hasn’t the DSA had any significant pull in government
policy?  At the link to “updated information”  there are another set of proverbial
steps only this time it is seven principles.  It is socialist evangelism.  The site
claims an advancement in progressivism (is that just another name for
socialism? yeah).  The thesis is that this “movement” wants to give the people a
“real” voice, when what it is really saying is a “direct” voice as they already have
a voice in their elected officials, and all those on the list are examples of
“elected” representational officials, of the people who elected them. 
Democracy works at the local level, but the Republic works at the federal level. 
Republic is a representative form of government.  That is how the founding
fathers structured this country and for good reason.  Socialist/communism is
at work in China where the idea of freedom is a joke.

Part 2 in response to TG Nov. 19 at 1:42am

5.  Why should anybody be shocked there is some form of socialism in
America? 
From the article, “While the United States is capitalist, it’s also hip deep in
various modes of socialism.”  No one is arguing that any policy that benefits
the general public is not socialistic.  It is just that those programs do not mean
this country is on socialism as an economic platform.  Hip deep does not mean
top of the head deep.  So what if in 1912 Teddy Roosevelt proposed national
health insurance?  That this country sucks bigtime when it comes to health
insurance is not being debated.  I completely support the health care reform
legislation and not the Republican effort to wreck it or revise it in their and
their beloved insurance companies favor.  The fact is that the “socialized”
portion is not getting much flotation by the needed votes to pass.  That
demonstrates my point that there is resistance in this country to socialized
anything!  No one argues that Social Security is socialism.  The word social is
even in the name of the bloody program.  What?  What kind of argument is
being presented?  That some corporations are using some weird definition form
of socialism is ludicrous, laughable.  He jumps from some to ALL.  Bull crap.

Rodgers himself admits he is not “overly keen on socialism.”  That historically it
not only can but did, does curb personal freedom and cripples “entire
economies.”  So again, what is the argument?  Merely hot air argument and the
need to see his name in print?  Again this is merely a report, not an argument
for the virtues of socialism.

6.  The last Yahoo Q&A is the final bit of fluff about socialism.  Any program
that uses tax money, and that means all programs that use tax money could be
construed as socialistic since roads are used by the public, libraries are used by
the public, bridges, parks, etc., are social programs since the society consumes
them.  That part is a ridiculous argument.  Required auto insurance, yeah, is a
form of socialism, because it prevents the entire society from having to pay for
the damages incurred by some idiot driver.  That is a stretch to call this
economy socialism.

All of these examples are lightweight. Mere eiderdown of argument. No
discussion on the merits of socialism versus capitalism. 

Without you,ThomasG, taking any pains to discuss this topic but merely defers
to six other websites, shows your bait and switch kind of logic. Nevertheless, I
paid you respect anyway, and took those websites seriously.  Now all you have
done on this forum and the others is to browbeat the TDers with your pet
politics and have never engaged in discussion, ranting slanders and
condemnations.  Your incessant tirades are deserving of any derision I launched
at you.  You are a charade and unless you actually engage in dialogue that
shows philosophically the prudence of socialism as a full program for
governance, then you are a sham with a bucket on his head.  Give the picture, a
picture of a combination of socialism and capitalism that you think would work
and give the leader who will go to the wall for it.

Shenonymous, Nov.18 at 7:02pm,

Socialized Capitalism is the answer.  Capitalism that requires socialized capital not private capitalists.

You are caught up in reflexive tautology within the six mirrored surfaces of your box and as a sophist propagandist you have no motivation to look for understanding beyond the box, therefore, you are irrelevant.

You do the best you can to defend ZOMBIE Capitalism, that is cyclically reanimated from death by TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS of socialized resources of the masses of the American population and TEN GENERATIONS at least of their progeny, but defending ZOMBIE Capitalism is defending the dead with the expectation that socialism will continue to accept the “moral hazard” of ZOMBIE Capitalism and continue to reanimate its corpse.

Socialism as the basis of community that is the foundation of cities, counties, states and nations is alive, well, healthy, vigorous and tired of using socialized resources in the TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS to bring the corpse of ZOMBIE Capitalism back to life and it is just a matter of time until socialize Capitalism as an economic system is used with socialism as a societal form of governance that will replace private capital with socialized capital and private capitalist with corporate institutions to manage socialized capital for the greater good, rather than for the greater greed and obscene benefit of a few private Capitalists looking for CORPORATE WELFARE to reanimate the dead corpse of private Capitalism one more time, so that ZOMBIE Capitalism can live one more cyclical life as a ZOMBIE to serve the interests of private capital at the expense of the socialized communities of the cities, counties, states and the United States as a nation.

Socialism and Democracy is the same thing.

Here are the Socialism links you requested for your perusal:

http://wikibin.org/articles/community-socialism.html

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1669.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/commune.aspx

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/socialists.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0916/p09s02-coop.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090323191100AAiit6m

Well all right ThomasG, quack quack.  Funny but Warren did not mention the
word socialism even once in the New Yorker interview.  Guess that is a minor
point.  The importance of transparency in consumer financing is still all about a
capitalistic system and I think she is right. But then I am not alone in thinking
so.  If anyone is daffy, it isn’t Daffy Duck (Shenony Mouse), ThomasG, it is you. 
Warren calls it capitalism, tells how that is what she has been teaching for 30
years.  A limited program of socialism has existed in the United States most
visibly since the New Deal in the 1930s.  If you want to say that all community
means socialism in every case, you can do that but then you start losing
distinctions of meaning and further lose the use of language.  Your language is
limited, and nasty, in accusative mode, and repetitive that eking meaning is
foreshortened.  My language might be nasty too, but it is in a defensive mode. 
Besides I’m cuter, especially as Daffy Duck. 

You do not offer any coherent alternative.  Your truncated vocabulary will have
to be expanded if you want to convince anyone of your so far esoteric
economic neo-socialism.  You have not convinced me so far.  If Daffy Duck is
dense, well so be it, then you have failed to provide a simplistic enough
explanation and you therefore have no skill to make yourself understood.  It
should be “Ms. Professor Yesssss Mam,” not” Mr. Sir.”  But given you can only
handle the prosaic, and you wish to retaliate in being name-called Bucket
okay.  Say what you will.  It’s fair game.  But you are very unimaginative.  Since
the Socialist Party in ‘Early” America was founded in 1876, America predates
that by at least a hundred years.  Where do you find your history?  You claim
Socialism in the United States has existed in the United States since the very
origin of the United States as a nation,  It depends on what you define
socialism to be. So far you have been very vague about it.

It must be stifling to constantly be under that bucket.

You are spinning your wheels (bucket) ThomasG, since I had already agreed
with MarthaA that Privatized Capitalism needs modified by socialization.  We
just never got beyond that.  MarthaA never talks about how much or what kind
of socialism would be constructive. And you stay away from making any
definitive statement of any kind.  Your posts are nothing but accusations and
opinions, never any resources to back up your conjectures.  Your utterances are
in a crucial respect unintelligible and because of that, in an important sense
inconceivable and incredible:  incapable of being rational.  There is no reason
you have given that what you say has any truth to it.  There is no ground given
so far for believing anything you say.

Here are a couple of references…
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Socialism_in_the_United_States_-
_Early_American_Socialism_and_its_Leaders/id/5471378
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United
_States#Early_American_Socialism_and_its_leaders

Give me a decent historical reference that backs your theory up and I will get it
and read it! 
Yours truly,
Shenony Mouse aka Daffy Duck aka Minnie Mouse

Daffy Duck, Shenonymous, Nov.18 at 3:53am, and Daffy Duck, Shenonymous, Nov.18 at 3:44am:

The conversation is about socialism, “Mr. Sir”, that socialism is the basis of community, that community is the basis of cities, counties and states within the United States as a nation, and that socialism in the United States has been very successful in the United States, successful enough to cyclically rescue Capitalism as a Zombie every time Capitalism goes into a death spiral.

There were many death spirals of Capitalism where Capitalism has been reanimated as a Zombie prior to 1929, and Capitalism has been reanimated since 1929 as a Zombie prior to 2008, but the 2008 reanimation of Capitalism by socialism was the most socially costly reanimation of Capitalism in the history of the World.

However, socialism in the United States has never needed to be rescued.  Socialism in the United States has existed in the United States since the very origin of the United States as a nation, and socialism in the United States has always been healthy and vibrant.

Capitalism in the United States, on the other hand, goes into a cyclical death spiral every 40 to 50 years and requires socialism in the United States to reanimate it as a Zombie, and Zombie Capitalism reanimated and brought back to life then lives until Capitalism’s next death spiral as a dependant upon socialism to reanimate its privatized interests as Zombie Capitalism.

Privatized Capitalism is a “moral hazard” for socialism.  Capitalism serves privatized interests and interests of greater greed.

Socialism is accused, condemned, denounced and demonized by Zombie Capitalism and without socialism Zombie Capitalism could not and would not exist and have the opportunity to be cyclically reanimated as a Zombie by socialism.

The conversation was about socialism and the conversation still is about socialism; socialism in the United States that has existed prior to and since 1776 to the present that always has to resurrect Privatized Capitalism as an ungrateful Zombie that without gratitude tries to kill the very thing that gives it life and cyclically brings Capitalism back to life as a Zombie.

Even you, “Mr. Sir”, should be smart enough to understand that it is time for an end to Privatized Capitalism that has to be cyclically reanimated as a Zombie, Zombie Capitalism, and that it is time for socialized capitalism that serves the greater good as an economic system within a social system, socialism, that does not need to be cyclically reanimated as a Zombie.

I didn’t see where Warren said anything earthshaking.  If she did, please show me. 
Promoting transparency and regulation are everybody’s understanding that is what
is needed.  It has been said by many other “illustrious” economic speculators on
the financial situation as well.  Asking for a new model of regulation seems the
logical thing to do.  Congress just has to hammer out what that means. 
Have a nice evening,
Shenony Mouse

Marion was John Wayne’s real first name.  Marion Morrison. That his middle
name Robert was changed by parents to Michael is trivial.  Marion is often a
man’s name. It is the French pet form of MARIE or masculine form of MARY.
“Holes is a movie I show students often.  Know it almost by heart.  Jon
Voight is the infamous Mr. Sir, wearing odd items, not so sure how it hooks up
with Daffy Duck.  Care to explain yourself, maybe not in caps or bold letters?  If
you are suggesting I am a man, here is my middle finger again. If not, I take
back my middle finger.  But I’ll leave it here just in case.

Okie doakie, ThomasG, you do keep trying.  I watched the new Elizabeth
Warren video from CommonDreams and the five comments left so far!  I
actually transcribed the interview so I could consider what she said in her rapid
delivery of speech.  She spent about 3 minutes on capitalism and voiced her
utter support of it.  So what is your game?  Trying to be a trickster I see.  You
don’t wear it well.  Trickster was a god!  Just ask TAO Walker!  or Paul Raden. 
It is your turn to try again.

Minnie Mouse, Leefeller, Nov.17 at 11:42am, Daffy Duck, Shenonymous, Nov.17 at 10:58am, Daffy Duck,Shenonymous, Nov.17 at 10:38am and the Leader, Goofy, OzarkMichael, Nov.17 at 4:02pm,

Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Shill Blah.

Shenonymous said: “I have no prejudice
against Daffy and find him rather cute,”

ThomasG’s answer:  It’s a “Mr. Sir” thing.
http://iwhocant.typepad.com/i_who_cant_/2006/04/is_mr_sir_a_wom.html

Try again:

  Published on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 by The New Yorker
Elizabeth Warren on Transparency and Regulation

James Surowiecki spoke with Elizabeth Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School and the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), about the importance of transparency in consumer financing, the future of the regulatory system, and what’s good about capitalism. They met in Washington, D.C., on November 5th.

http://www.commondreams.org/video/2009/11/17-0

Martha/Thomas offers: Here is a PBS link to an interview with Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard University Professor, which should help you with your understanding of Socialism and Capitalism

As Martha/Thomas knows, some people define socialism very differently from Elizabeth Warren. Does anyone here believe that Martha/Thomas knows or follows Elizabeth Warren? Or has a book by Elizabeth Warren at home?  Oh please!

Other people might follow that false track but I am not so easily shaken off.

I asked YOU, Martha/Thomas, about YOUR Socialism and what did you do? You distracted us with quotes from Elizabeth Warren, who you never mentioned before. Who you never met. Who you dont know. You do not have a book by her. You are not her follower.

You remain amorphous so that your real plan is hard to percieve. That distracts other people but not me.

So lets get to the truth. You know that I am going to figure it out eventually. Why not be honest?

Lets make it easy for you, Martha/Thomas. Simple binary questions, which require a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response from you. You can say “YES” or “NO” cant you? Even a knuckle dragging troglodyte can do that.

Ready?

Do you follow Elizabeth Warren?

Answer Yes or No.

Are you using Elizabeth Warren, who you probably never heard of before, as a smoke-screen?

Answer Yes or No.

Are there other definitions of Socialism?

Answer Yes or No.

You have an important book in your home which has a completely different type of Socialism, one that has nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren, and you refer to that important book all the time. Isnt that true?

Answer Yes or No.

I have made it as simple as i could for you, Martha/Thomas. Answer the questions. Or are you going to make me comb back through your writings to find the answers?

My experiences with Credit Cards is the same as She’s, but I did not know about the opt out part.  As I have heard from others, it seems most prudent to get rid of credit cards and go back to cash or bartering.

In order to be called socialism in the real sense, the bail out would need to have been an apparent benefit to society as a majority, not in the covert sense it was applied.

My plan is to whittle down my credit cards to one card for using in dire emergencies, like when I run out of hang nails.

I watched the Elizabeth Warren PBS interview.  While she portrayed the financial
catastrophe apparently with accuracy, her report on credit cards is not quite the
whole truth.  As an example,  two major credit card companies sent me a letter
informing me of a gigantic rate increase in their interest rates.  I was also given
the opportunity to cancel my account.  Doing so I froze the rate I was currently
paying, which was 10 and 13%.  I am diligent to not miss a payment because if
that happens, the new rate of 30+% would be imposed. I am not arguing that
the obscenity of rate raising has not happened, as it did.  What I am saying is
that cardholders do not have to take the new rate.  They can close their
account.  Yes, it does mean less density in their purchasing power.  But it also
means since they had to pay the statement anyway this way they do not have
the enormous interest rate.

A following interview with a credit card spokesman defended the raising the
rates due to the sagging economy.  This is ludicrous.  They cry that the
increase in unemployment threatens repayment of the credit run up.  And he
lied about the rates now and the rates a year ago and the average rate for the
last several years.  He claims 10% now and 5% in the recent past! That is
outright lying.  The rate was no lower than 10% but the average was anywhere
between 14% to 18%  as I checked these out thoroughly when I decided to apply
for a couple of credit cards.  In the last year the average rate was 22% to 24%. 
But mine were locked in to the rate of 10% and 13% as it was when I opened
the accounts if I did not make any more purchases.  Then a letter came that
the rate was going to 30% - 31% whether I made any further purchases or not. 
Or I could opt out of the credit card account and still make payments based on
the original rate.  I opted out.  If I am typical, they are cutting their own
throats.

Warren argues that we are already in a state of socialism with the bailout and
that taxpayers not only rescued the financial institutions but are guaranteeing
their solvency.  That this involvement of the taxpayer defines a socialism of a
sort. 

While this illustration has truth to it and it is a kind of socialism, it does not
mean socialism will become the economic base for the country as a permanent
operating government program. Warren said that this financial conundrum is
fixable with Congressional legislation and encourages that to happen.  She
does not advocate socialism as an economic structure for this country. 

The best thing ordinary people can do first of all is learn to be frugal. That is
something that used to be the ethic and is mine.  Next best thing is to inundate
their politicians with correspondence to support and vote for legislation that
would regulate all the warts and boils that have surfaced in the financial
burden that fell to their tax money filled country’s treasury.

This is much different from what you and martha yammer about.  Warren’s
definition of capitalism and socialism in that video is completely simplistic and
only superficially descriptive.  What I offered was the prototypical or general
definitional interpretation since applied programs would take extensive
analysis.  You were stupid to blister me about it.  As I’ve said you are malicious
minded.  Warren’s antidote should be expected of our government, it is
reasonable and rational.  A full-out radical socialism program as you are
suggesting is infeasible and would be rejected by the Common Majority.  I have
already agreed with MarthaA that a federal program combination of capitalism
and socialism seems to be the only remedy.  Your bucket-covered mind does
not want to acknowledge that, but would prefer to sling slanders at me and a
few others.  I realize you get an emotional thrill at it.

You are inconsistent ThomasG.  First you paired me up with Minnie Mouse (female
cartoon) now it is Daffy Duck (seems to be male).  While I have no prejudice
against Daffy and find him rather cute, I prefer the lady comparison, Minnie, so
when you wish to call me a cartoon name, please use that aspersion.  And just so
you are perfectly clear about it, I have a middle finger, on each hand.  If you lift
your bucket you would see them in your face!

Also pay attention to Leefeller’s distinction about cartoon groups!

Thomas G, if on is to ask others to know the difference in something, maybe they should start showing some degree of trying to do so themselves. 

Any child over 4 and a moron such as in Thomas G’s case would know the Walt Disney Mickey Mouse Club, is not connected with Warner Brothers Loony Toon’s.

It seems normal erroneous tidings, from the self proclaimed enlightened Thomas G does not know Uranus from a hole in the ground!

Micky Mouse Club Members, Goofy, OzarkMichael and Daffy Duck, Shenonymous:

Here is a PBS link to an interview with Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard University Professor, which should help you with your understanding of Socialism and Capitalism, and the difference between socialism and Capitalism:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/546/

Truthdig’s Mickey Mouse Club Member, Goofy, OzarkMichael:

Here is a link explaining socialism and Capitalism:

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20091105_steve_fraser_on_the_crisis_of_capitalism/

OzarkMichael, Goofy Leader of Truthdig’s Mickey Mouse Club, Nov.16 at 4:15pm,

ThomasG’s unanswered quote: “Look up the definition of commune and the definition of a community in YOUR OWN dictionary and post the definitions of what your own dictionary says the basis of a community, city, county, state and nation is; I will give you the opportunity to do so before I do.  If you do so, you will find that your own dictionary definitions agree with me.  If you do not do so, all who are watching will observe your sophism and propaganda based on Cold War Time-Warp understanding and tautological framing of socialism that YOU are promoting by tautological sophism and propaganda and see YOU and YOUR ilk for what they are.”

Socialism already exists and is the basis of community that constitutes cities, counties, states and nations, and has been used in the United States since its inception as a nation; are you smart enough to tell me why, or do I need to tell you again, and again and again and again, since I have already posted why?

Dear Martha/Thomas,

In your next fulmination please explain what operation, action and process is needed to achieve Socialism. Specifically what laws will need to be passed in order to break and permanently remove the power of Noble (top 10%) and nearly Noble(20%) classes.

By all means bring us the message of what you plan on threatening Republicans with. You do have a plan for that, dont you? Your Socialism has already been presented elsewhere on Truthdig so dont lie.

Tell us your “dog and duck” story which illustrates it so well. I dare you.

Martha/Thomas, lets have it out right here. It is so cowardly of you to flee from article to article. Do you want me to keep chasing you around for answers? Because I will do that.

Truthdig’s Mickey Mouse Crowd: Donald Duck, Minnie Mouse, Daffy Duck, Goofy, Leefeller, Nov.16 at 12:51pm, Shenonymous, Nov. 16 at 12:30pm and we must not forget your leader OzarkMichael and Night-Gaunt will surely chime in:

Your posts are polarized Hitleresque framing and rhetoric that attacks the messenger to deny the message; none of you have made a case to deny the message on the merit of my posts.  All any of you have done and all you are capable of doing is to accuse, condemn, denounce and demonize the messenger to deny the message.

Look up the definition of commune and the definition of a community in YOUR OWN dictionary and post the definitions of what your own dictionary says the basis of a community, city, county, state and nation is; I will give you the opportunity to do so before I do.  If you do so, you will find that your own dictionary definitions agree with me.  If you do not do so, all who are watching will observe your sophism and propaganda based on Cold War Time-Warp understanding and tautological framing of socialism that YOU are promoting by tautological sophism and propaganda and see YOU and YOUR ilk for what they are.

ThomasG, reading such profoundness coming from a moron such as yourself, brings a tear to me eye! Seeing the messenger with a bucket on his head, ridiculed and insulted like some common imbecile instead of the special much all knowing imbecile portrayed! For the Hysterical of Dittle is the great messenger, has even been known to dance on a table with a lamp shade on his head to the tuned of Das Boot!

Thomas G, such profoundness of tautological framing said to be false, when it originated in Uranus, makes it true! (one should know only the forth from the last word makes sense in connection with ThomasG) 

Supposed verifications of authenticity makes one clearly see! (A bucket)
The odious Culture of Critical Discourse, said to be mentality that bounces false realities around inside a silver bucket!  Without regard for the objective reality that exists beyond the confines of the silver bucket.  YOU?  Like the rest of your ilk? Attack, condemn, denounce and demonize the messenger?  The great Histerical of Dittle! 

Never to respond ingenuously to the nonsense of the most exulted in his own mind (if there is one)  Dittle?

In this case, ThomasG, I am justified in condemning, denouncing, and
demonizing since the “messenger,” is deranged.

If you wish to revise the “framers” of capitalistic and socialistic economic
programs, distinctions of which I have amply posted, you should publish a book
and see how far it gets in the public domain.  You are a fraud and have no
substantial principles to stand on.  You have no thorough investigation of your
claims.  You express only idiosyncratic imagined policy.  You have never published
such principles nor have you ever held up for examination any spokesman who
would exemplify your twisted ideas.  I submit you have your head in a bucket
filled with a personalized rhetoric that you cannot shake.  You are the sophist
incarnate.

Shenonymous, November 16 at 2:28pm,

Your post advocates acceptance of embedded false tautological framing that was false when it was originated, is still false, and that you propose to use as verification of authenticity; this is in line with your Culture of Critical Discourse mentality that bounces false frames around inside the mirrored surfaces of a box without regard for the objective reality that exists beyond the confines of the box.  You, like the rest of your ilk, attack, condemn, denounce and demonize the messenger, but never respond ingenuously to the message.

And you, ThomasG, are a constipated verbally stuttering whiner.  Of course
every description in the literature on capitalism and socialism makes the same
definitions I have provided.  If you want a bibliography I will be happy to
provide one, but it would be more efficient if anyone interested to simply
google the contraction of ‘capitalism and socialism’ since links are provided
where in an instant what is written is at the fingertips.  But you wish to
pontificate with weak opinions without portfolio, meaning without
authentication.

Your new term “frames” is also a pathetic device.  Apparently you and martha
did not get any adhesion with your other repetitive words and phrases so you
grasp at vocabulary straws.  You have no apprehension of vocabulary that is
obvious.  I suggest you get yourself a Scrabble dictionary and keep it at your
side.  Make sure it is in Braille whilst you insist in keeping that Bucket on your
head.

Your yapping on and on about different kinds of economic systems are a
smoke screen to keep the topic obfuscated.  The forms of capitalism and
socialism being discussed is exactly as it is manifested in the world today.  You
are spinning your ideological wheels and getting nowhere.  Definition of
pathetic: miserably ineffective or inadequate.  That decidedly describes your
program.

Shenonymous, November 16 at 3:05am,

You make reference to socialism as if it is an economic system, when it is NOT.  The Soviet Union, USSR, used a Command Economy, rather than a Demand Economy, a Capitalist Economy.  It is valid to compare a Command Economy to a Capitalist Economy, a Demand Economy, but it is NOT VALID to compare Capitalism to socialism, because the comparison is NOT between LIKE TERMS.

Capitalism is the act, process, or result of operating an economy based upon the use of capital.

Socialism is the act, process, or result of operating a greater or lesser community; a group of people living together in one locality and subject to the same laws, with common benefit, ownership and participation; i.e., a community, city, county, state, or nation.

It is a false frame to compare Capitalism to socialism or socialism to Capitalism, because Capitalism is the means of operating an economy within a community, city, county, state, or nation; and socialism is the means of operating the community, city, county, state, or nation where the Capitalist economy is located.

It is a false frame when comparisons are employed that do not utilize LIKE TERMS.  Capitalism can be compared to other forms of Capitalism as a means of running an economy; and socialism can be compared to other forms of socialism as a means of running a community, city, county, state, or nation; but to compare the means of running an economy, Capitalism,  to the means of running a state or nation, socialism, is a comparison of unlike terms, and therefore a false frame.

To compare Capitalism to socialism implies that Capitalism is a means of running a community, city, county, state or nation; and, so far as I am aware, there is NO community, city, county, state, or nation that is or can be run by Capitalism, as a means of running an economy, that could exist, unless the community, city, county, state, or nation is privately owned or under fascist control.

You are making a false comparison between an economic system, Capitalism, and a social system, socialism, based upon time warp Cold War understanding in an effort to demonize socialism, a social system that is the basis of community upon which ALL cities, counties, states and the United States as a whole is founded.

There are differing forms of socialism and it is valid to compare socialism used in the United States, to socialism used in Israel, to socialism used in the United Soviet Socialist Republics and socialism used elsewhere.

There are differing forms of economic systems, namely Command Economies and Demand Economies, and it is valid to compare differing forms of economies.

However, it is NOT VALID to compare economic systems to social systems; you are smart enough to know the difference and by so doing it can only be taken that you are doing so as a sophist propagandist in an effort to demonize socialism, the very basis of community upon which all states and nations are founded.

Seeing the arguments carried on here as overly complicated, more simply put
there are many different ideas or systems of how an economy ought to be run.
The two with which we are most familiar are capitalism and socialism. They are
very different from each other in how they view who runs the economy.  Most
economies have ideas from both systems, but tend to be more of one than the
other. 

There is no dispute that capitalism is an economic system based on private or
corporate ownership of, production and distribution of goods and .  It has
always existed to some extent in all civilizations.  Adam Smith, a colleague of
David Hume, was another Scottish moral philosopher,  who conceived political
economics, wrote about the principles of economics in his book “The Wealth of
Nations” in 1776.  Capitalists favor a system of free enterprise which means the
government should not interfere in the economy - that the laws of supply and
demand will make sure that the economy runs most efficiently in meeting
people’s needs. Smith proposed that rational self-interest and competition
leads to economic prosperity and well being. 

Capitalism is described by competition in which there is rivalry, or competition,
in supplying or getting an economic service or good with the intent of making
profit.

In opposition to capitalism and its free market base, socialism is an economic
theory or concept that declares that the government or the state is in charge
of economic planning, production and distribution of goods and as such
socialism is also a system. This contrasts with capitalism where free markets
predominate and property is privately owned. Socialism tends to favor
cooperation whereas capitalism is characterized by competition.  Under
socialism there is no private ownership of property.  It all belongs to the state.

Socialism had its birth in the late 18th century as a reaction to the Industrial
Revolution where factory owners were becoming a wealthy class and the
workers sank into poverty.  Workers wanted and demanded a greater share in
the wealth that factories were making.  Ironically, Marxian economics has roots
in Smith’s labor theory of value.  From socialism, Marxist communism evolved. 
Communism advocates class struggle and often militant revolution to establish
a society of cooperation with strong government control.

What each form of economics promises is what is speculated about here.  We all
know that in this country, and the world for that matter, the economic
philosophy right now is not working.  We have known it publicly for more than
a year.  What is the solution is the big question.  Theories abound and they
have not been offered in any plain language.  All of them have emotionally
charged vested interests.  I believe the commenters on this forum are capable
of such explanation for they think they know consequences.  For us to decide
which system is best for our society without having to take extensive courses
in economic theory, a straightforward detached explanation and projections
need to be presented without rancor or hubris.  That is not too much to ask.

Repost of WriterOnTheStorm’s post on another Truthdig thread, ‘Steve Fraser on the Crisis of Capitalism’:

By WriterOnTheStorm, November 10 at 8:35 pm #

In describing late-stage capitalism Fraser neglects perhaps the most salient point: left to it’s own devices, capitalism will inevitably arrive at financialisation. Larry Elliott, economics editor of the Guardian, put it this way:

“It is not the financialisation of Western economies that explains the sluggish growth of recent decades; rather, it is the sluggish growth and the lack of investment opportunities for capital that explains financialisation.  From this perspective, the only way capitalists could increase their wealth was through the expansion of a finance sector which, divorced from the real
economy, became ever more prone to asset bubbles.  Calling time on the casino economy does not mean balanced growth, it just means lower growth.”

This helps explain why all the kings horses and all the kings men are insanely trying to put this economic humpty-dumpty back together again.  Without financialisation, we slide into immediate stagnation or even crippling stagflation. 

But, as Elliot writes, “After a short period in which bankers are chastened by their egregious folly there is a return to business as usual… As a result, we can now start counting down the days to an even bigger financial crisis down the road.”

But the takeaway point is that this is always and inexorably the result of too much wealth aggregation in too few places.Financialisation
happens as capitalists (driven by the contraptions’s intrinsic imperative to maximize profit) attempt to expand their capital more rapidly than society’s consuming ability will allow. Now, if one cannot increase the demand for a product, one can expand by buying out competitors and expanding market share. This process is repeated until complete market domination is acheived. Still, this phase results eventually in stagnation - a condition capitalism abhors. 

And so the fun begins. Multinational corporate behemoths now dominate the economic playing field. Capital, now all dressed up but with no place to go, turns to high finance. Essentially, they are investing in investment. A move which strikes anyone—anyone with a modicum of horse-sense at least—as folly. Or rather, long-term folly, because in the short term there’s an irresistible, drunken, rip-roaring, profit-taking hoe-down spilling out into the streets. There’s just one little problem.  Financialisation, like it’s wicked step sister, you know, the one we like to call Ponzi, only works as long as there’s more cash coming in than there is going out. The minute your markers are called in, the whole she-bang takes a tumble.

Again, the point I would underscore is that this too is inevitable. This is the natural cycle and unavoidable consequence of the Ayn Rand/Milton
Friedman/Alan Greenspan model. This manic-
depressive behavior is part and parcel to the borderline personality of unfettered capital.  Talk about moody…

This is not to say that there isn’t a compromise
to make with capitalism that will work for everyone in a more equitable, sustainable way.  But this odious, scorched-earth, balls-to-the-wall thing that’s been foisted upon us isn’t working, and never has. Unless, of course, your name is Goldman, or Sachs.

Shenonymous, November 8 at 10:08pm,

Blah.

ThomasG  You are a non-weight.  A zero only the bucket with you know
what in it can be seen) The only thing that has weight is the bucket!  You had
better keep it on because you would be non-existent without it and We, the Boiler
Room Blah Contingent. would have to ignore any post you made completely since
it would have been made by a no-account has been that was oddly attached to
martha.  Henceforth, I will only address the bucket.

Leefeller, November 8 at 9:26pm,

Light weight sub-blah.

Thomas G,

If you knew She did not have the answer and it did not exist, why did you ask the question? Is this the first time you have actually written a full sentence?

My vote for TG as second most annoying on TD and as OM mentioned it is like kicking a skunk. Actually skunks are fairly intelligent animals, I will stop there.

Wish you well TG, maybe you and Ma will eventually get over the apparent duo social obnoxious problem, though is has been amusing like trying to dig out a sliver.

Shenonymous, November 8 at 7:51pm,

Subjective blah.

Honey, ThomasG, to the tune of You ain’t nuttin but a hound dog… You
ain’t nuttin but a lunkhead robot with a bucket on its head. 

You have no skills at reading or understanding.  Too much metal on your head. 
You make another mistake, that I care what you think.  I don’t believe you can
think.  You never answer questions, you are the original sleezy dodger.  You
are afraid to answer the questions.  Actually I don’t believe you can. 

Hey, what happened, no copy/pasting?!  Some improvement going on?  Maybe
She has had Her effect after all?  The reason you say my posts only drone in
your robotic persona’s head is because that bucket is on your head.  Anyone
with a lucid brain could understand perfectly and if you had a molecule of
ability to dialogue you would engage in a rational discussion instead of
repeatedly making the boring sniping posts you have made thus far.  I guess
we, my brethren and I, can conclude you are incapable of engaging in a real
discussion.  Where we each explain our position without rancor or name-
calling.  You know, the adult way.

Because it is worth repeating:
On Truthdig forums you, ThomasG have never once shown a moment of
kindness towards anyone, not even the common population you pretend to
defend.  In your vanity, you have been tunnel-visioned on your weak
hypothesis and have not defended it in any compelling way….You have never
expressed any care about anyone or any group.  You are consumed in your own
arrogance and your political hypothesis only remains untested.  You are
depleted of any real humanity.  You have only shown you are full of
maliciousness.  You are a verbal thug.

Shenonymous, November 8 at 1:10pm and Shenonymous, November 8 at 1:10pm,

As I read YOUR two lengthy posts, and listened to the droning of the words going on, and on, and on, and on, and on in my mind, my ears in sympathy with my eyes input to my brain caused my ears to bleed. I do not hold you personally responsible for this damage YOUR posts have inflicted upon me by YOUR long and rambling recitation of savant amorphous nonsense that contributed NOTHING to understanding, that I waded through to find out if there was any small degree of redeeming information somewhere within your posts that could be construed in any way as an answer to MY post.

The cause of my bleeding ears was my own fault, for in hope searching for something in YOUR long and rambling posts that I knew did not exist from the beginning; an ingenuous answer to my forthright post.

In summation, babbling, blathering, blah.

Good Sunday Morning, ThomasG

1.  Specifically addressed to ThomasG but, of course, anyone may read
and comment, or not.

Again, ThomasG, you make a categorical mistake.  It is obvious you
cannot distinguish one set of facts from another but throw them all into a
mixing bowl like a fruit salad.  That mistake is that you accuse Right-Wing
Conservative Extremists of using socialism/communism for the pursuit of
privatized capitalism.  The fact is that Democrat Capitalists also use socialistic
program to further the care of the general population who are less fortunate
than those who have wealth.  There is a spectrum of caring that ranges from
complete self-interest to complete exoself-interest, that is, no self-interest. 

Taxes are one way to equalize no-fault disparity, to redistribute the wealth,
which by the way allows for individuals to achieve wealth without the
oppressive arm of the state.  Wealth, however, comes in many forms and does
not necessarily mean money.  You know that.  Other ways to preserve the
integrity of the society are to pass legislation that provides subsidies for
particular social programs such as education, health, food, and housing.  There
are many untold numbers of such programs and yes these are socialistic in that
the society at large benefits.  But you do not tell the whole story.  You are a
piker in support of your own thesis. 

This American government, which is unique in all of the world, where those
who have the wealth and those who see there are those who unjustly have no
wealth, wage the best civilized but fierce argument to bring resolution to the
perceived debate through its remarkable governmental structure.  It is an ever
ongoing battle, but it is ever sustainable as a practice because of its
Constitution and resolve to civilized social interaction.  Those who have wealth
who have a vision of the unjustly poor, through an altruistic conscience, take
up the gauntlet, meaning engage in civilized debate, on behalf of those who
cannot defend themselves, and argue with those who have wealth but are self-
serving.  The nature of political argument is that sometimes one side wins the
better, other times the other side wins.  And sometimes both sides come to
equitable agreement.  It is a civilized way to proceed, the civilized way to
proceed.  This is what is considered the Common Good, meaning the good of
the society.  The rights and self-interest of the individual is reduced.  The
reduction is not necessarily a direct inverse ratio as the individual will benefit
as the good of the society is preserved.  However, that does not eliminate the
pride of achievement of the individual.  This is the unique result of the special
government of this country.  That both individual and society may thrive even
when there is the issue of self-preservation of either the individual or the
society is at stake.

Those who have wealth and power naturally wish to hold onto to that and thus
necessarily are conservative in their essential nature.  It is the original impulse
of the individual.  They do not care that the world of poverty exists and that the
poorest people actually are the vehicles of that wealth.  Those who do not have
much wealth, are poor, usually are not poor because they choose to be but
because the world in which they are born and function does not give them the
opportunity to better conditions.  That is one picture.

2.  Specifically addressed to ThomasG but, of course, anyone may read
and comment, or not.

Another picture is simply a clearer one:  that picture of enmity between the
individual and the herd.  The question becomes who has priority?  The
individual will think he/she has priority since evolution built them that way. 
Noticing that the environment in which they find themselves presents most
hostile conditions of weather, availability of sustaining food individuals
concluded that living with others in cooperation to offset those hostile
environmental conditions was the best way to survive and survival is the first
principle for any organism.  Once formed, the society thinks it has priority. 
There are positive and negative arguments for both individuals and herds. 

Fast forward a million or so years to now.  We see that those naturally formed
societies for the sake of survival of the organism called human, has developed
more complex means of argument beyond the primitive impulse to war,
through physical thuggery.  It is more complex now because the problems are
more complex.  Intermixture of cultures and ethnic groups has evolved and the
different cultures and ethnic groups bring to the mix their previous cultures
and ethnicities. 

Now the argument transforms.  It is whether this variety of people ought to
fuse and become indistinguishable, or if they should keep vestiges of their
former culture and ethnicity.  Do we want gray people or a rainbow? 

Something occurred to me this morning about you ThomasG. As I reflect
on our now long standing argument, you have never once shown a moment of
kindness towards anyone, not even the common population you pretend to
defend.  You have been completely focused on raising your hypothesis and
defending it.  I admit I have been quite unkind myself at times in portraying
your character.  It was a matter of defense on my part as a person since you
attack me as a person.  But I have offered many times a care about individuals,
the herd, and the rights of all human beings to certain freedoms such as
freedom of thought, speech, and liberty.  I have even offered music and humor
which you show you have neither in your soul.  More signs of an inhuman
perspective.

You have never specified any such care.  You are consumed by your hypothesis
which remains a hypothesis because you have not tested it and by all accounts
of the nature of the American people, the Common Population, you will never
get that opportunity.  Speaking to forms of government, it does not matter that
there are social programs.  This is not a socialistic country and will never be. 
Having a capitalistic based economy does not declude the existence of
socialistic programs.  You fail to notice the size of this country and its diversity. 
For while there is an effort to ashen the nature of the culture, to neutralize
individuality, it will remain divers and groups will continue to value its original
ethnicity.  You present a mechanical writing thesis, which is why at times I have
perceived you to be robotic, inhuman, a duopoly with martha.  And from
my insight this morning, I conclude that you are not human, but are some sort
of collective that has no real feelings for anyone. 

As an afterthought, since I love peas, I am quite proud to have a pea brain
(which I don’t have and have demonstrated over and over and over, at any
rate).  I intimidate you and so you resort to infantile name-calling.  But to make
use of your silly name-calling, from that tiny-sized brain, even I can see the
preposterousity of your hypotheses.  It doesn’t take a mental giant or even one
with an average-sized brain to wade through all the crap you present to see
the truth.  The Beast of Truth is always present.

Shenonymous, November 8 at 12:53am,

Shenonymous said:  “But if so, then why are you arguing for
something that already exists?”

ThomasG’s answer: The answer that you claim to be too pea brained to understand is that the dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism/Communism is a false dichotomy, that Socialism/Communism exists on both the Right and the Left.

The Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS decry Socialism/Communism for the masses of the population of America, but the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS use the Socialism/Communism that they decry for use by the masses of the American population in pursuit of privatized Capitalism.

Whether it is possible for your little pea brain to understand or not, I am sure that others will realize that by the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Capitalists using Socialism/Communism in pursuit of privatized Capitalism,—that all their argument really reduces itself down to is that Socialism/Communism is bad for the masses of the population of America, because the masses of the population of America receive the benefit of Socialism/Communism, rather than Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Capitalists; in short, the Capitalist Argument is “greed is good”.  To the extent that Socialism/Communism can be used in support of privatized Capitalist greed, Socialism/Communism is good.  And, to the extent that Socialism/Communism can be used in support of the masses of the American people, Socialism/Communism is bad.

The dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism/Communism as conflicting idealisms that are competing for supremacy is a false dichotomy and a false frame, a relic 1950’s Cold War Frame against the Soviet Union as an enemy of the United States that was NEVER true to begin with.

ThomasG, November 7 at 1:06pm,

ThomasG asked: “Do you have an argument for or against privatization, capitalization and marketing of capitalists bodily functions in support of Capitalism? ——and, if so, what is that argument?”

MarthaA’s answer: I have an argument in favor of Socialist-Capitalism where there is no possibility of as Leefeller says, “Uranus” being marketed.

It appears we currently have Planetary Capitalism in the United States of which Leefeller appears to be increasingly aware, as Capitalism’s FREE MARKET leaves single individuals wide open to the exploitation of privatization, capitalization and marketing of their body parts and functions, which in effect could be, again, as Leefeller says,  “Uranus” being privatized, capitalized and marketed for the benefit of big Capitalists.

If you do not choose to have “Uranus” be privatized, capitalized and marketed for labor in the 21st Century, it would behoove the people of the 70% MAJORITY Common Population to wake up and realize Leefeller is onto something here with this “Uranus” thing.

ThomasG, I agree that a base situation such as this is highly possible and needs to be cut off at the pass—as privatization, capitalization and marketing in a Capitalist FREE MARKET nation of only stand alone individuals without Socialism/Communism protections allowing people to bind together, as Leefeller says, “Uranus” is highly likely to be privatized, capitalized and marketed for the benefit of big Capitalists. 

I understand there is a thriving kidney market, but with proper privatization, legislation, and capitalization, one wouldn’t have to actually lose the body part or the function—just legalize the payment to the Capitalists for the possible loss of the body part or the use of the function. This Planetary Type Capitalism can be routed out of Capitalism by strong legislation for Socialist-Capitalism where individuals will be able to have community support groups to avoid “Planetary Capitalism”, as our nation is already in support of Socialized Capitalism, it just needs to be legislated and institutionalized into the law and order of the nation.

Oh ThomasG, how silly.  You portray yourself as such a fool with your
redefinition of municipal organization.  Let us hypothesize that what you say is
true.  But it isn’t.  It is a fabrication.  But if so, then why are you arguing for
something that already exists?  Do you enjoy self-flaggelation?  I’ve heard of
those pathologicals.  Your imagined structure doesn’t exist,  your redefinition
does not apply.  And where is your war?  It is in your own head.  You like to wear
your bucket, I see.  Getting used to it are you?

Applied Socialism/Communism in the United States of America

(Page 1 of 2)

When people in a community decide to do something by joining together for the greater good it is Socialism/Communism, that is hated by Conservative Capitalists, but the very act of forming a community, a commune, that is expanded into a city, a county, a state, or a nation is an application of Socialism/Communism.  Do people against Socialism/Communism THINK? 

The following is a list of a few Socialist/Communist organizations created to bring together communities to provide social services and social facilities with social funding for the good of the many in the United States TODAY:

Electric Cooperatives are examples of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

Water Departments are examples of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

Sewer Departments are examples of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

Cities, as cities, are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

Counties, as counties, are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

States, as states, are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

State Hospitals are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

State Colleges are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

Veterans Administration and Veterans Hospital are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

Public Health Service is an applied example of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

Medicare is an applied example of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

Social Security is an applied example of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

Unemployment Compensation is an applied example of Socialism-Communism, individuals binding together for the good of the many.

Applied Socialism/Communism in the United States of America

(Page 2 of 2)

Here is a list of a few Capitalist Conservative Socialist/Communist organizations that are communed, bound together, to provide social services for private interests of the few, and NOTHING for the many: 

Chambers of Commerce are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, capitalists binding together for the good of the few.

Private Corporations and more than single owner Companies are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, capitalists binding together for the good of the few.

Private Group Organizations and Private Interest Groups are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, capitalists binding together for the good of the few.

Private Trade Associations are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, capitalists binding together for the good of the few.

Private Foundations are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, capitalists binding together for the good of the few.

The concept of Political Conservatism is to conserve what others created based upon Conservative doctrine.  Political Capitalist Conservatives conserve what others create.  Political Capitalist Conservatives only SERVE the good of the few, the Capitalist Conservatives——Political Capital Conservatives NEVER serve the good of the many.  Capitalist Conservatives want their advantage and they don’t want anything creating a problem for their advantage, and creating anything new to them is a threat to their advantage, because all Capitalist Conservatives care about is maintaining their advantage.

Applied Socialism/Communism in the United States of America

(Page 2 of 2)

Here is a list of a few Capitalist Conservative Socialist/Communist organizations that are communed, bound together, to provide social services for private interests of the few, and NOTHING for the many: 

Chambers of Commerce are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, capitalists binding together for the good of the few.

Private Corporations and more than single owner Companies are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, capitalists binding together for the good of the few.

Private Group Organizations and Private Interest Groups are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, capitalists binding together for the good of the few.

Private Trade Associations are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, capitalists binding together for the good of the few.

Private Foundations are applied examples of Socialism-Communism, capitalists binding together for the good of the few.

The concept of Political Conservatism is to conserve what others created based upon Conservative doctrine.  Political Capitalist Conservatives conserve what others create.  Political Capitalist Conservatives only SERVE the good of the few, the Capitalist Conservatives——Political Capitalist Conservatives NEVER serve the good of the many.  Capitalist Conservatives want their advantage and they don’t want anything creating a problem for their advantage, and creating anything new to them is a threat to their advantage, because all Capitalist Conservatives care about is maintaining their advantage.

Shenonymous, November 7 at 6:35pm,

Unworthy amorphous blah.

Heil! Comrade Herr ThomasG.  Seig Heil! Comrade!

Tit for tat reciprocity.  If you answer all the questions put to you by my Boiler
Room Contingent Brothers and me, I will answer yours.  Yes or No?  See the War
of Language forum for a list of the questions you have failed to answer, not
even one.  I would be happy to copy/paste the list over from there to here for
your convenience.  Yes or No?

You have fainted from the brilliant expose OzarkMichael has drawn up as
an indictment of the martha/thomas duopoly.  You cannot be blamed as
anyone would faint even if they do not wear buckets. 

We all know now that in the privacy of your bathroom it is “sieg…Heil!
sieg…Heil! sieg…Heil!” It is a strange form of communism you propose, one
grafted with Nazism.

Shenonymous, November 7 at 1:52pm,

I have asked you a question as regards Capitalism and Communism and, other than accusation, condemnation, denunciation and demonization in accordance with Hitleresque protocol, you have NOT responded.  I doubt seriously that you even know what an economy is and how it works.  As a sophist and propagandist for the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS— understanding of economics would be beyond your pay grade there as a toiler in the Right-Wing boiler room.

I suggest that you get someone else, either inside or outside of the boiler room, to answer my post, since all you have demonstrated you have the ability to do is accuse, condemn, denounce and demonize; calling YOUR accusations, condemnations, denunciations, and demonization — answers.

Leefeller, November 5 at 7:11pm and OzarkMichael, November 5 at 6:36pm,

Your posts are examples of framing amorphous nonsense as an answer that accuses, condemns, denounces and demonizes with Hitleresque dialectic, Adolph Hitler would be proud and so will the Republican National Committee, RNC.

Please continue, YOUR examples are helpful to those looking in on this dialogue for the understanding of Hitleresque framing.

Oh ThomasG, the product of your bodily functions far outsmell and far
outproduce mine!!  Mine are not sequestered in a bucket on my head like
yours!  Monkey see monkey do only in your case it is monkey doo doo since
crap is all you are about.  Scratch scratch.  Your euphemisms use up your limit
of 4000 characters rather uselessly.  I have made my argument against
communism and you cannot provide any argument against them, so you
babble on and on and on and on with only repetitious emptiness.  You cannot
answer the questions put to you and resort to the same tired accusations over
and over and over and over.  You are a like the spider sprayed with Raid flailing
in its own web.  I always have a can of Raid for spider-minds on hand.

Do you think you are affecting anyone’s thinking with your pathetic bombastic
nonsense?  Answer yes or no.  Please produce a list of your mindless followers. 
You cannot as they do not exist and never will.  Well there was one who showed
up to backstab, but has disappeared.  You see how paltry is your appeal.  Neo-
communism is a figment in your own reverie of the bucket.  The Beast of Truth
gives testimony.  I submit you are tongue tied from having that bucket on your
head and are unable to produce anything hence the inept copy/pasting
strategy.

We all can see it.  Those with buckets on their heads are blind.  There is only
one way to remove that bucket, ThomasG.

This monkey asks ThomasG do you have a coherent and comprehensive
argument for communism and the communists’ with buckets on their heads
who support Communism?  If so, please produce that argument instead of the
constant diarrhea you present.

Shenonymous, November 4 at 5:35pm,

Your post is a 1950’s Time Warp Philosophy in support of a false dichotomy between communism and capitalism.  Society and Community is applied socialism and communism that has been working effectively for thousands of years. 

You talk amorphous nonsense based upon a 1950’s Time Warp Frame of Communism that has been indoctrinated into you like a caged monkey; get beyond the box of your cage and develop greater understanding, instead of making the false frame of your ignorance the basis of your wisdom.

If it was suggested that YOUR bodily functions and the bodily functions of capitalists be privatized and capitalized in order to make markets for others to benefit from the use of YOUR and their OWN BODILY FUNCTIONS, would you be agreeable to the privatization, capitalization and marketing of YOUR bodily functions in the name of Capitalism?——or, would you support Socialism/Communism with regard to YOUR OWN bodily functions?

If you and capitalists would not support privatization, capitalization and marketing of YOUR OWN bodily functions to make private markets for others, and prefer Socialism/Communism with regard to YOUR OWN bodily functions, why do YOU and capitalists advocate making privatized markets for Capitalism that are in effect the same process whereby privatization compels others to buy in the marketplace that which is social/communal in nature.

Do you have an argument for or against privatization, capitalization and marketing of capitalists bodily functions in support of Capitalism? ——and, if so, what is that argument?

Om you did well, but Tg having his head in the bucket may have done it’s toll.  Still you exposed the Hitler approach for what it was, I was rather enjoying it. 

In the end TgMa are the sorry sacks they are! It is still my feeling they everyone an apology.

It seems that without any help from me, someone has managed to provoke Martha/Thomas into revealing more about her nefarious plans. This is what i was working on in another thread. 

Bravo to the Liberals who smoked out the totalitarian! I thought that only American conservatives cared enough, but it turned out to be the American Liberals who did the heavy lifting, and prove to be the champions of freedom today.

Shenonymous, you can Grunt a little while you flex those freedom muscles! Smile while you take your well deserved victory lap.

Chasing after a cause, requires little imagination for the peg-holes are set where they will be placed. All causes not just Thomas G cause, from religion to political promos.  After all this time listening to insults and accusations, as I suspected TGMA are promoting Communisim, which would not bother me in the slightest, even if I do not agree with Communism, my beef is how it has been done here on TD in such an accusatory insulting manner. Stalinist it is! Me suspicions have been substantiated after what seems eons.

It seems an apology is in order?

ThomasG — QED!  Thank you, you have made my point exquisitely.

Did you run out of bolding markers for the last paragraph of your Page 1?  I
could loan you some of mine, I don’t need to use them as much as you do. 

If one is against communism/socialism, one is literally against having one’s
own mind!  Bowing to the commune is abrogating one’s individuality.  If you
want to be a cutout from a cookie cutter society, do join the
socialism/communism commune.  To be against one’s own mind is to be a
communist.  In the name of freedom stand up and defend your own mind. 
Defending your own mind is a trope for one who thinks for themselves.  To
think for yourself does not mean you are against others.  It means you
consciously care about others using your own powers of reasoning to care.  If
you want to have the respect of others, think for yourself and encourage others
to think for themselves.  Only then can you have authentic caring and live
happily in this hostile world where there are sinister forces waiting to snatch
your thinking powers away from you, just as kidnappers snatch innocent babies
from their mothers.  The communists would kidnap your mind.  Beware of the
communists.

Know this, it is not greed to care for your own intellect and mind.  It is the
opposite of greed so you may be able to think greed away.  You are not forced
to give up your mind by the mind-snatching communists.  Notice that no viable
communist organization exists today even though the impulse has been
around for a hundred years!  That ought to tell your thinking mind something. 
Notice I am not telling you what to think, but I am tell you to think.  You
will never get that freedom from communism, nor will they encourage you to
think for yourself.

Only a free-thinking mind is free to contribute to the greater good, and will
desire to do so because the free-thinking mind will see that the good of the
society is good for themselves. The free-thinking mind will find ways to agree
with other free-thinking minds.  The communist free-mind thieves would rob
you of that insight and action.  This is the only way to clearly see and clearly
hear the truth.  Beware of the Trooth.  The Beast of Truth is your ally you if you
wish to think freely.

Shenonymous, November 3 at 7:54pm,

(Page 1 of 2)

If you can stand up and defend freedom in support of Hitleresque framing, and freedom in support of Privatized Capitalism framing, and freedom in support of accusing, condemning, denouncing and destroying socialism and communism framing, why is it that you find it so hard to stand up and defend freedom in the name of freedom, freedom that is the absence of oppression, freedom that is freedom without negative framing; to stand up and defend freedom that is a trope that is tyranny and oppression framed as freedom is not standing up for freedom at all, it is standing up for tyranny and oppression in the name of freedom as a trope; this is what YOU do.

If one is against socialism and communism, one is literally against the very concept of a community, the basis of a state or a nation.  A commune, a community——a commune—ity, a political division of people that are self-governing, a commune, and -ity a suffix that designates that which is a state or quality.  To be against communism would be to be against that which has a state or quality of a political division of people that are self-governing, the very basis of all modern states and nations.

To, in the name of freedom, stand up and defend freedom as a trope that is engineered to be the frame of tyranny and oppression against freedom is not standing up for freedom at all.

If you want to be respected by those who would stand up in support of freedom, stand up and support freedom for all that are a part of greater and lesser communities that make up the states and the United States as a nation, so that interests of all communities are maintained for the greater good, rather than privatized for the greater greed.

When time warp framing of the 1950’s is used to accuse, condemn, denounce and demonize communism and socialism, the very basis of community and the use of communal resources for the greater good of the community in support of privatized interests that destroy the reality of community for the masses in order to advance minority community interests for purposes of capital accumulation, this is not freedom and this is not standing up for freedom.

Freedom to pursue the greater greed of a minority within a greater or lesser community is not freedom, it is oppression and tyranny.

Freedom for all within a greater or lesser community to pursue the greater good of themselves and the greater good of the community is communal freedom based upon communal interests of the greater good, rather than the greater greed, and when this type of freedom is accused, condemned, denounced and demonized; whether it be by YOU or anyone else, it is clear to all that have eyes to see and ears to hear that the greater greed of control, benefit, sophism and propaganda are at work in the name of freedom for themselves that requires the loss of freedom for others.

Why is it MarthaA always sounds more coherent and rational than
ThomasG?  It is really curious.  Is she the left side of the single brain that
is martha/thomas?  Left in this case is the side that is critically analytical. 
The right side of the brain blathers on more in its creative swamp often
stuttering with the onomatopoetic sound “blah.”  The martha/thomas
unity is a sad practically dead issue.  The left side tries to sound cogent, and
sometimes even succeeds.  But the right side that is diseased affects the left
side over the corpus callosum and becomes nearly as corrupt.  The right side is
by observation truly unable to use language well.  That comes from a bucket
that happens to be over their collective head. Unfortunately if martha
could escape she could actually be instrumental in making a coherent case of
her thesis.  She is unduly influenced by her masculine side.

By the way, there is no 70% majority common population.  If any reasonable
discussion is to take place, discussion must acknowledge a “voting” population,
and then ratios proved with referenced research.  The 70% majority common
population is a simple mnemonic device for whatever the personality duopoly
of martha/thomas want to use as a signification of their thesis.  For the
benefit of any of those who do not quite understand the psychology of
language, creating a metaphoric mnemonic device that is repeated over and
over is a useful tool to help those who are ignorant of such psychology to
remember, it is what is called a trigger for thought.  This kind of thought is
often employed by propagandists who wish to surreptitiously influence the
thought of the mass population.  Graphic designers who drive advertisements
know this strategy very well.  Just notice the advertisements for penis
enhancements these days and how often they are run on all the stations, both
local and satellite. Different brands all with one thing in mind.  Now they even
have women testifying for the extra pleasure they are now receiving.  It is a
slight change in tactic and I think TG/MA are watching for those ads for
reference to slightly nuance their respective posts.  Sort of a good cop/bad cop
strategy.  Is it working on you?  Do check yourself out. 

I have used the strategy successfully myself in declaring ThomasG has a
bucket on his head.  Not only a plain bucket, but one that has his own shit in it
and prohibits him from seeing or hearing properly.  Now no one on the forums
can think of him without that bucket!

I have also created a new metaphor, The Beast of Truth.  It is an apt metaphor
since truth can be a beast, actually always is a beast to those who have been
blind either by choice or by propaganda. I often use another metaphor to keep
it interesting for me, trooth, sometimes capitalized as Trooth.  One is for the
individual, the other is for the universal crap that parades as Truth.  I have
admitted to my metaphors and explained how and why I use them.  But do
notice that martha/thomas do not!  They intend to deceive you, you who
read these forums on Truthdig.  (I have also created another metaphor for
Truthdig that you may have noticed from time to time, Truthdip.  Do try to
understand why I’ve created that one.  I would wager you would comprehend
immediately.)

I look forward to ThomasG’s Page 1 of 2 to show up.  As I am quite sure
it will once again prove my point.

Shenonymous, November 3 at 7:54pm,

(Page 2 of 2)

American Freedom has from the beginning been about freedom for the minorities of the populations of the American Aristocracy and Professional Middle Class at the expense of tyranny and oppression of the 70% MAJORITY Common Population that are not a part of the making and enforcing of law and order that is used to tyrannize and oppress the 70% MAJORITY Common Population’s freedom for the benefit of greater freedom for the American Aristocracy and Professional Middle Class.

For the claim of the doctrine of the United States to work, the claim of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with freedom and justice for all, freedom has to be inclusive of the communal interests of the 70% MAJORITY Common Population of the United States, so that the masses of the 70% MAJORITY Common Population of the United States are not used as Wage Slaves in support of providing freedom and capital to the American Aristocracy and Professional Middle Class at the expense of the 70% MAJORITY Common Population as an underclass and culture that have no part in the making and enforcing of law and order that is in their own class and cultural interests and function only to provide freedom for their overlords of the American Aristocracy and Professional Middle Class.

Time Warp 1950’s framing is offensive and using freedom that is oppression and tyranny framed as freedom is offensive; if freedom is to have meaning it must be inclusive for all, rather than exclusive for minority populations, as objective freedom and subjective freedom as a trope for the 70% MAJORITY Common Population as a class and culture.

This is what I said, October 5, 11:59pm:  “You could not live as you do
anywhere else.  This is not to say that that unfettered capitalism is healthy.  It
needs controls.  It needs intelligent controls.  It needs controls by those who
don’t stand to make so much money.”  I will further say, American
capitalism needs regulation.  If some form of socialism is the right formula,
then that formula needs to be made explicit.  I for one do not want to give up
owning my own home, nor if I wish to start a business I may do that finances
willing without government saying I can’t.  Those also need to be promised.

I agree with you MarthaA at 6:44pm today, and I’ve said that before, a
couple of times, but you and ThomasG insist that I want to be aligned
with RWECRs and that is your blindsight.  And we go off on tangents about
absurdities really.  What I’ve said and I still say it is they have a right to their
perceptions and opinions.  It is the kind of free speech I fight for.  Freedom to
believe as one chooses is basic to this country.  We who are of an opposite view
have to be stronger and argue better.  We are dealing with a great number of
malleable people.  The elections today are proof of that and it is a travesty that
the Democrats have lost those elections. 

What I don’t quite agree with is the ratio of socialism to capitalism and who
would run the show.  You and ThomasG never say who would or even could be
the leaders of this “neo” capitalism.  No one does!  I find that ludicrous. 
Furthermore, I want to see if Obama’s plan will work and I want to give him a
clean one more year.  Seems to me the chasm the Republican administrations
have put this country in is so much deeper than anyone could imagine that it is
take every ounce of strength the Obama strategy can muster.  I am very
troubled that more focus on creating employment does not get as much
research and implementation.  I believe government sponsored jobs is the
answer.  Clean energy, nationwide cross-country railway systems,
infrastructure with much care taken over the construction companies who win
contracts for in the past they have been as corrupt as any politician.  Just look
at the gouging in the military programs, the space program contracts.  It is
staggering.  There are a thousand ways the government could start worker
programs, like the WPA, like the New Deal and the Great Society. 

I am quite unhappy with the Democrats these days and their handling of this
congressional and gubernatorial election.  It is a damn shame they cannot get
themselves together enough to see what is happening.  I am actually disgusted. 
They are stupid to lose any seats in Congress and if the people, the common
voting population lose their social programs because of it, it will be from
Democrat mindlessness.

Private Capitalism must die and give way to a better form of Capitalism——Socialized Capitalism, where the United States will still have Capitalism, just not the exact same Capitalism where only a few Capitalists get all the profit——profit will be spread so that the many will not have to suffer for a few to squander all the profit.

Capitalism buys labor and materials with fiat money that has no value, it is a
scam. It is, quite probably the worst system of wealth ever invented. Real
wealth is food, water, energy et cetera and has nothing to do with pretty
pictures printed on linen. Oddly enough the perpetrators of the scam may end
up stuck with piles of money that cannot buy them lunch.

By samosamo, November 3 at 12:45 pm #

I meant those who help perpetrate and willingly participate in the grand
larceny just shows what can be a very good economic system is really
something
as horrible as the holocaust was to the jews in germany.

By Shenonymous, October 5 at 8:59 pm

I would be supportive of capitalism, but with the regulations intact and not
gutted, ignored or subverted such that the goddamn bunch of thieves that openly
welcome ‘unfettered’ access to the wealth or what is left of it can simply take at
anytime what they want and with the collaborators in our congress and all other
levels of government turning their blind eye the the grand larceny, well I am
sorry, I meant those who help perpetrate and willingly participate in the grand
larceny just shows what can be a very good economic system is really something
as horrible as the holocaust was to the jews in germany.

A few years ago a woman brought me a short film of a stripper and photos of
her face from various angles so that I might Photoshop her face on the
stripper. At 24 frames per second the three minute film was a logistical
nightmare so I wrote a program to drag and drop photos that would
automatically match the parameters of the pictures. It worked so well that she
suggested that I go commercial with the program. Since I had no need for that
much money I declined but your articulate defense of capitalism and low
opinion of men has inspired me. Oddly enough one of my ideas does have
commercial value, the porn industry is very interested.

By Shenonymous, October 5 at 8:59 pm #

Even if I am the only one on TD to stand up for capitalism, then that is what I
will do, being the iconoclast that I am.

Shenonymous, October 5 at 8:59 pm,

YOUR frame is for or against Capitalism, a false frame.

Everyone, including me, is for Capitalism, Capitalism is not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not Capitalists are necessary to Capitalism; whether or not Privatized Capitalism that has cyclically FAILED, since Privatized Capitalism’s origin in Britain, or whether “Socialized Capitalism” is a better model.

Since socialized/communized resources have cyclically bailed out Privatized Capitalism, since its origin in Britain, it would seem that “Socialized Capitalism” would be the most advantageous form of Capitalism for the greater good of society and civilization as a whole.

Your tired, old, 1950’s Propagandistic Frame of Privatized Capitalism AGAINST Socialism, which in effect is socialized responsibility for privatized benefit has been lost by the payment of TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS of socialized/communized resources to bail out Privatized Capitalism in the continuing 2008-2009 collapse of the U.S. Economy from the toxic capital assets and greed of Privatized Capitalism

BTW, You say you are an iconoclast.  What is an iconoclast? And, how are YOU being an iconoclast?

You frame yourself as an iconoclast when you are doing grunt work in support of Conservative resistance to CHANGE.

An iconoclast is one who attacks conventional or cherished beliefs and institutions; YOU are one who SUPPORTS a conventional cherished belief in Privatized Capitalism that is dependent upon socialized responsibility for privatized benefit for its very survival.

Since socialized responsibility ENABLES Capitalism, Capitalism should be socialized, so that socialized Capitalism can provide socialized benefit for the greater good, rather than the greater greed of Privatized Capitalism.

How is your 1950’s Style blind support of Privatized Capitalism as the status quo being one who attacks conventional or cherished beliefs an institution—an iconoclast???????  Your logic for being an iconoclast is the same amorphous nonsense
that you have spread throughout this blog in the name of academic discourse.

Even if I am the only one on TD to stand up for capitalism, then that is what I
will do, being the iconoclast that I am.  Looks like everyone else is singing the
same song of anti-capitalism and it looks to me like you are all hypocrites if
you indeed live in ‘Merka and claim to be ‘Merkin as you sit at your computer
that was developed, if it is an Apple, by ‘Merkin capitalist pig computer
engineering, or if it isn’t you bought it from a ‘Merkin merchant that is part of
the ‘Merkin pig-corporate world, and using the Internet that was developed
with ‘Merkin capitalist pig money as you sit in your home, rented or owned
with ‘Merkin pig money that paid your salary to rent or own, if you drive a car
by taking out a loan from a ‘Merkin pig car loan company on ‘Merikin roads
paid for by ‘Merkin pig money, use ‘Merkin pig-corporation gasoline.

And where did that percentage that capitalism treats 99% of the people like,
what was it?  dead Indians? come from Jean Gerard?  Did you make that up?
Are you unthinkingly casting aspersions on the Indians?

There is no escape, no exit…because if you wear clothes bought at any ‘Merkin
clothing store, well you bought them from a ‘Merkan pig corporation,
including all your shoes, and if you buy groceries at a market in your
neighborhood, you can bet it uses ‘Merkin capital or invests on the ‘Merkin
financial marketplace, and the groceries themselves are provided by ‘Merkin
corporations. listen to any radio or watch any TV you are a user of pig-
capitalism.  Oh, there’s a lot more that you buy and use that ‘Merkin pig-
corporate money is used to provide.  Even if you die, your casket no doubt is
manufactured with ‘Merkin capital, and the cemeteries are run by corporations,
or if you are cremated, well, funeral homes that do it are usually now owned
by corporations, so you cannot escape ‘Merkin capitalism even in death. so go
ahead and blow out on the vices of ‘Merkin pig-corporations and pig-
capitalism.  You could not live as you do anywhere else.  This is not to say
that that unfettered capitalism is healthy.  It needs controls.  It needs
intelligent controls.  It needs controls by those who don’t stand to make so
much money.  But it needs to be the basic economic philosophy of this
country, period.

Communism is not the option for ‘Merkins, not if you want to live freely as you
do.  Unless of course you think you will be part of the administration of the
Bureau that runs the program.  Hahhahaha.  So that is your game.

Forgive me, I haven’t actually watched the video yet (I
don’t think I could get away with it at work) but…

You give too much credit to Reagan in the small blurb at
the top. Unfettered capitalism has been a nuisance for
quite some time… at the very least since the end of
WWII when the IMF began putting their fingers into
everything. But it was capitalistic furor that lead us
to Cuba half a century before. Some would even say
capitalism… at least a premature form of it… was a
major reason for declaring independence in 1776.

Our leaders have been playing what they think is a zero-
sum game for a very long time. Reagan was a douche-
bag… but let’s not give him that much credit.

Why is it that the communal resources of the masses of the population of the United States have been used in the past, continue to be used and are presently being used in amounts of tens of trillions of dollars, as government entitlement programs for the wealthy in support of privatized capitalism, to support the value of the wealthy’s toxic capital against the best interest of the communal majority of the U.S. population?

The wealthy are on the dole from U.S. Government entitlement programs for privatized capitalism that are at present costing socialized resources of the American people tens of trillions of dollars, and will in all likelihood cost additional tens of trillions of dollars of socialized resources of the American people, and while the wealthy take U.S. Government Welfare for the Wealthy, they complain incessantly about the masses of the population of the United States receiving any socialized/communized benefit from their own socialized/communized resources for fear that it will diminish what the wealthy can root out of the trough of the U.S. Government as Welfare for the Wealthy, U.S. Government entitlement programs for privatized capitalism.

The masses of the population are being denied the benefit of their own socialized/communized resources and have been and continue to be forced by corporate crony legislators in the House of Representatives and the Senate to provide Welfare for the Wealthy, U.S. Government entitlement programs for privatized capitalism, while the masses of the population, their children and their children’s progeny for ten generations will be deprived of the benefits of their own socialized/communized resources, doomed to poverty, stricken circumstances and a lack of health care in order to support and provide Welfare for the Wealthy, U.S. Government entitlement programs for privatized capitalism, that already amounts to tens of trillions of dollars and will be additional tens of trillions of dollars before the end of the current economic cycle collapse is stabilized.

Welfare for the Wealthy at the expense of the people must end and the corporate crony legislators in the House and Senate that facilitate Welfare for the Wealthy must be voted out in the Mid-Term Primaries and replaced.

Bernie Sanders now has help, with Alan Grayson of Florida, and it would be good if Congressman Grayson had family like himself that could come to Oklahoma, because Oklahoma is a desperately RED state, that I hope turns BLUE after 2010, if the common majority wake up and realize they aren’t the conservative right——as few have capital to conserve and most have no idea as to exactly what capital even is, which doesn’t say much for our school system.

Of course, it could only take two mutual ‘mud packers’ such as ‘rear-end ronnie’ reagan and his fellow mudpacker milton ‘oh go deeper turd fuck’ friedman to collude in taking their favorite activities to the people of not just america but the world, which when those ‘unfettered mudpackers’ agendas hit South America, it totally wreck the economy of every country that was forced into taking it in the end and now South America is pretty much aware of the american imf, wto or the world bank coming around to propose a return to those horrid activities and basically reject them, wisely enough.

And enough countries all around the rest of the world have experienced the ‘american unfettered pack fest’ that they do what the can to reject it unless the perverted united states sends its military in to ensure some poor country’s adherence to the ‘unfettered brokeback mountain mudpacker fest’.

There hasn’t been a good president of this country since andrew jackson, all the rest have been bought out by the corporate big business machine.

I got this in the mail and posted it at the thread about Capitalim means never having to say youre sorry—its good. Sanders should use it in the full floor debate on health care reform, Wall St regulation, school funding, etc.

We need more Dems like Bernie Samders. Viva Bernie!