Socialism: The enemy of capitalism according to the capitalist class.
An economic system in which We the People recognize the interconnectedness and interdependence of all of existence and understand that the strength of the whole (the many) is far stronger and greater than the strength of any individual or individual entity.
Capitalism, with its focus on fierce individualism and wealth concentration and accumulation in the hands of the few seeks to limit the power of the people to insure that all levers of economic and political control rests with them, the capital class.
Compassion and empathy is the positive force behind socialism and drives it. Greed and power lust drives capitalism.
Winston Churchill was far from liberal and progressive- but practical. We note- "Winston Churchill did not invent modern Social Security, but as a young British Liberal government minister in 1908–1911, he helped pioneer early worker social insurance and labor exchanges. The specific term and federal program known as "Social Security" was created in the United States by President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he signed the Social Security Act in 1935" We note that the current leader is consumed by "I", even in his ERs (Illiterate, inhuman, insolent, idiotic imbecile)
"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." - Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program" (1875)
"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the 'first' or lower phase of communist society." - Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (1917)
Marx and Friedrich Engels generally used the terms "socialism" and "communism" to mean the same thing.
Lenin Created the Timeline: Lenin formalized "Socialism" as a necessary, intermediate stepping stone. He argued that society could not jump straight from capitalism to full communism without a transitional phase to build up industrial abundance and reshape human behavior.
Not all forms of socialism are a step to communism. While Marxist-Leninist theory views socialism as a transitional phase leading to a stateless communist society, many other forms of socialism—such as democratic socialism and social democracy—reject communism entirely and operate within democratic, capitalist frameworks.
Marxist Theory vs. Democratic Socialism
Marxist-Leninist view: Karl Marx described socialism as the lower phase of communism, acting as a temporary bridge where the state controls production before evolving into a classless, stateless society.
Democratic socialism: Seeks a socially owned economy and economic democracy through political freedom and democratic elections, stopping short of a one-party state or revolutionary communism.
Social democracy: Supports a capitalist market economy alongside a large welfare state, public services, and labor laws (common in Nordic countries), rather than abolishing private property.
The federal government under the Trump administration has acquired equity and quasi-equity stakes in roughly 30 private and public American businesses totaling billions of dollars. These deals—spanning sectors like semiconductors, critical minerals, and quantum computing—are tied to national security and domestic manufacturing initiatives.
While not communism, the administration's pivot toward taking equity stakes in roughly 30 private companies has drawn sharp criticism from both political sides and free-market experts:
State Capitalism and Cronyism: Critics argue that government intervention—where the state acts as both a market regulator and a corporate shareholder—distorts free-market competition and invites political favoritism or cronyism.Ideological
Contradiction: Free-market advocates and some lawmakers point out a rhetorical irony, noting that while the administration frequently denounces leftist or democratic policies as "socialist" or "communist," its own direct acquisition of corporate stock breaks sharply with traditional conservative and capitalist orthodoxy.
Lots of avenues lay before society. Fickle humankind will dabble and tweak at will. With the wealthy and powerful pulling on, and controlling the strings. In ways that best benefit them.
The only thing that is cerain is that 250 years from now, if humankind is still alive, is that society will look nothing like it does today.
The only thing that is permenant iscontinual never ending change. Everything in existence is, in fact and reality impermanent.
Belief in Permanence is, and always has been, a delusion. As it will Always be.
I favour Commerce, not Capitalism. It's trade between individuals, not between individuals and corporate or State conglomerates. Socialism is a move towards fascist State conglomerates. I say we move in the direction towards Individual small business OWNERS, not State ownership and CONTROL. I'm a RADICAL progressive. I put the emphasis on SMALL business over BIG busines. Main Street over Wall STreet.
And I agree with you. The move towards giving the State an equity stake in a corporate conglomerate is the wrong direction.
btw - Democracy is merely a "brand name" for Capitalism. Want to be against Capitalism? Stop supporting Social "democracy" and start support laiisez-faire COMMERCE.
The "West" is an admixture of Athens and Jerusalem. Athens is Democracy (Individual freedom), and Jerusalem represents Capitalism (paying interest on Commoditized Capital). That is a tension, a "generation from opposites". When the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) says it wants to "democratize" a former communist satellite republic from the former USSR, it means it wants to "capitalize" it. To transform the equity in former State enterprises (factories, etc) into private interest bearing stock (commoditized capital).
Private Property means "Dominion/ Sovereignty" It has 3 aspects, only 2 of which individuals can agree upon and 1 which the "State/ Commons" insists upon controlling. And that is Jus abutendi
Jus abutendi refers to the right to consume or destroy a property, which is a core component of ownership in Roman and civil law, alongside jus utendi (right to use) and jus fruendi (right to the fruits). These rights together form the "bundle of rights" that constitutes ownership, allowing the owner to use, enjoy, and dispose of their property. While jus abutendi historically implied the right to abuse or destroy property, it is now subject to legal limitations today, such as rules against wasting resources or harming the rights of others.
And the abuse or wasting of SURPLUS resources is what gives meaning and significance in terms of "sovereignty" to the society writ large, The "Part Maudite (accursed share)
The Greeks understoof this ritualized gift-giving as Xenia, and the violation of it led to the Trojan War (the receivers of it breaking the "Law of Zeus" (Chris Nolan's Odyssey) by abducting Helen while being "hosted" in Menelaus' home.
Unrelated, but important... notice -FJ that you're allowed to post here. Sometimes we agree with you, often not. Sometimes you get pretty snarky with people, sometimes not.
But you can post here and I for one, even in disagreement with you, believe it makes us better. Besides, you introduced me to Žižek. A new philosopher is always good to read.
You made a good effort at the Mothership and were summarily rejected. She has no interest in respectful dialogue with any of us. Or anyone else who challenges her, or the beliefs of the rest of the crew.
PE is not, nor does it desire to be an echo chamber. Honest, evidence based disagreement and discussion is what we want.
As Lone Cactus would say... Carry on... you're dismissed.
No Democrat is advocating Communism. That's the new meme the floundering Trump regime is pushing because they have nothing else to sell their gullible dupes.
Gas prices are horrible; food prices are horrible; Americans are being killed by Trump's ICE goons; Americans have lost their health insurance, the Strait of Hormuz is still closed as a result of Trump's war of choice with Iran; income inequality is at a terrible problem for Americans. While economic output and average incomes have grown, the vast majority of those gains have concentrated at the top of the economic ladder rather than flowing evenly to middle- and lower-income families.
And Trump's solution to our economic and military problems is to paint DC statues gold, destroy the Reflecting Pool, and destroy the East Wing of the WH to build his golden ballroom; and Trump is selling early access to his social media posts for $100,000 a month. Critics are raising alarms over paying customers seeing market-moving statements from a sitting president before the public.
Laiisez-faire is but a word to identify a completely unregulated free wheeling market where the capitalists can do whatever their greedy hearts desire to increase capital accumulation even more in their slimy greedy hands and portfolios.
Minus man must be a very wealthy person, or, so conditioned and blind he accepts without question the capitalist naratives.
Or, you have a tax system that supports the general welfare rather than selfish individualism and the MIC and war machine. An entity that drives wealth accumulation to the capitalists of death and destruction.
Ignorance, delusion, and greed reigns supreme in the reichwing fascist trump administration and republican party.
A spectre of eventual economic collapse and deep social dislocation and suffering awaits America under current fascist capitalist policies and control under trump and the reichwing republican party.
My favorite philosopher is a communist (Slavoj Zizek). Communism is an utopic "end" (social harmony and dissolution of the State). Socialism is the disgusting "mess" between capitalism and communism. And capitalism is the disgusting "mess" on the way to a utopic "Commerce" (social harmony and the dissolution of the State). And around and around the circle we do go...
So yes, democrats are advocating their utopic vision of society (communism). I have the same vision, but a different path... one that avoids totalitarian State control that Democrats and Republicans in the One Party State Global Corporate Capitalist Uniparty ceaselessly advocate.
As for me? I look forward to a democratic left leaning congress. Then the criticism of leftwing lunacy (Ukraine war, support for Zionism, allowing lobbying to continue, etc) can begin in earnest. For first we must shut down the fascist republican evils before attacking leftwing lunacy where it exists.
I have to admire -FJ's insight and noble vision. "I have the same vision, but a different path... one that avoids totalitarian State control." And the unspoken part: "Yes, and... I am MAGA, and Trump's blatant corruption, cronyism, nepotism, authoritarian policies, unaccountable secret police shooting protesters, sending non-violent immigrants to be abused and neglected in privatized concentration camps, his violent insurrection, summary executions on the open sea, ill-considered war of aggression on Iran with its growing list of war crimes, and other criminal abuses of power and violations of the law and betrayals of our country are OK by me, because none of of this is remotely totalitarian in my mind."
...as opposed to the technofeudal market of Amazon.com where Jeff Bezos DIRECTS every transaction in a totally regulated marketplace and takes his cut of the value transacted.
The General welfare is the surplus (part maudite/ accursed share). No Les, taxing individuals for building more monasteries for Lamas to pray in isn't a solution to improving social relations.
Zabelle has thrown out the suitors. They made a mess of her blog palace. For that I cannot condemn her. They violated the Law of Zeus (Xenia) first.
...and when Zeus (government) himself violates his own laws, as with Covid and Trump-Russia, it should come as no surprise that a "housecleaning" results.
In French philosopher Georges Bataille’s theoretical framework (outlined prominently in The Accursed Share), the concept corresponding to societal care or standards of living is framed through his general economy rather than a legalistic "general welfare" clause. Bataille argues that the Earth constantly receives an excess of solar energy that creates a biological and economic surplus. Societies must figure out how to expend this unrecoverable surplus.
The Role of Welfare and Luxury in General Economy
Absorption of Surplus: Modern industrial societies attempt to channel excess wealth into social improvements, higher wages, expanded leisure, and public welfare.
Concealed Luxury: Demands for social equality and better living standards mask a structural economic necessity: they act as non-military safety valves to consume excess resources.
The Failure of Utility: When a society refuses to consciously recognize unproductive luxury or expenditure, excess energy-surplus finds catastrophic outlets, historically manifesting as destructive mechanized warfare.
Key Elements of Bataille’s View
Acknowledge Deprivation First: Extreme regional poverty must be addressed as an imbalance tied directly to localized surplus elsewhere in the global economy.
Beyond Production: A conscious general economy balances basic material necessities with the absolute requirement to squander or gift excess energy without subordinating every human act to future production.
Capitalism subordinates every human act to future production. That's the problem with it. Even modern "philanthropy" does so.
Les, We need to take the money out of elections and the graft lobbyist provide to sitting politicians. Unfortunately both parties are in on the get rich quick scheme. Maybe the DSC has the right approach. Get rid of congress, close all prisons and fire all police. After all spending well over a billion dollars to lose an election shown the influence of the rich. My question to you is won't imposing high taxes on corporations increase prices for everyone on everything.
The law of Zeus... an early golden rule, mas o menos. Look, people came with a take. But excepting Ducky, who doesn't seem to comment from our earthly orb, no one called her unAmerican, a traitor, evil, an America hater, etc. Yet all of those terms got applied to anyone who dared contradict the MAGA far right view point. And it was the same at AOW.
Looking at your comment, I can see Zeus [Ms. Z and AOW] violating their own role of hospitality, and the attendant rules, almost daily.
You get way more latitude here, as does Skud, then I got at either of those blogs. Sure we respond back at/to you, but again, you can post. Under some pretty loose guidelines.
Your very first comment, trite and without any evidence as to me ever taking about tax dollars being used for building monasteries for Lamas to pray in is why I never read your drivel abd BS.
Lamaism was one of Bataille's examples of how an organized society can use it's part maudite (accursed share/ surplus). It does so at the expense of its' own defense.... which is the failure in Aldous Huxley's "Island" (foreign invaders).
And you are a Buddhist, so its' a lesson explicitly for you to learn.
I was there in the "early days" Dave. My own blog was established as a coordinated defense against some very vicious and destructive trolls. I became :"the trolls troll" with many identities, to lure them away from their blogs. You wonder what gave me the idea for multi-personality blogging? At FPM there was a troll named Socrates, who did the same thing. At the time, I had only one identity, "Homer" (yes the Odyssey, not the Simpsons). And he would "gang attack" certain posters with them. The power of the mob, so to speak.
btw - Do you know Gert? He and I are friends now. he blogs as Zwaremetalen239. He's a Palestinian activist, did some prison time in the UK and has moved back to the continent (He's Belgian, originally). He was one of the original attackers. He's also a chemist with a very VERY high IQ.
Skud proposed... "We need to take the money out of elections and the graft lobbyist provide to sitting politicians."
What would you propose Skud?
Some history... After Watergate the Dems passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) building on a previous law which included public funding of presidential campaigns. You've got to have some money to run a campaign, right?
In 1992, the Dems tried to expand the limits of the FECA and public financing to Congressional races. The GOP vetoed it. In 1993-1994, ultimately a GOP filibuster ended a change for a larger reform bill. McCain-Feingold passed in 2002. Then came Citizens United from the conservative SCOTUS and the flood gates opened.
So we had a law, McCain-Feingold, a bi partisan approved law, that was helping, but the SCOTUS Citizens United rule made it possible to systematically dismantle it. Bit by bit. Again, a case to effectively dismantle and end a bi partisan law, was brought by conservatives, to a conservative SCOTUS to end that law.
Since then, the GOP has blocked every major attempt to rein in spending, use public money for campaigns, disclose large donors, etc.
You, and Les are right. Money is a huge problem in the US political world. However, by and large, the efforts to limit money in campaigns, identify large money campaign donors and provide public money to candidates has come primarily from Democrats.
Since we know Democrats will support real campaign finance reform, what suggestions do you have that will change the mind of conservatives and bring them on board?
The authoritarian Criminal President Trump is about as opposite of state control as a dictator is. Refusing aid to states that didn't vote for him, election interference, secret unaccountable police, concentration camps, media control, extorting law firms, and news organizations, arresting and censoring dissidents is ALL ABOUT control of everything.
And the failure in Aldous Huxley's "Island" was not foreign invaders, but the moral failure of leadership. (Ring any bells?) It was a greedy Raja, who rejected the values of his countrymen and betrayed them by welcoming a neighboring dictator and oil company to take over their island.
It's about how greed, power lust, and capitalism can destroy Paradise.
Maybe you need some "Moksha Medicine" to help you get the point of the book?
Island parrots were trained to say, "Karuna!" (Compassion/empathy) to remind the Islanders of their faith. You know, the "the fundamental weakness of Western civilization" according to Musk. It's the path to a sane and peaceful society or individual.
I have to wonder how many other books go over your head, only for you to support your confirmation bias.
I'm thinking another book where Thersites missed the point would be 1984. He probably thinks its a critique of socialism, but it was written by a socialist.
It's about how a one-party modern dictatorship CONTROLS the media, employs mass and intrusive surveillance, and tortures anyone caught asking questions or dares to engage in critical thinking. It rewrites history and redefines words and concepts to limit thinking itself.
Ring any bells?
But, hey, "Proles (the poorly educated) and animals are free". How MAGA is that?
We need sensible tax policy that supports the people needs and effectively maintains the infrastructure of the nation . Do some research skud into the tax policies and marginal rates during America's actual greatest growth years. Before Ronnie Raygun's trickle down economics scam and BS.
You Know, Before greed and total focus was placed on the selfish self interests of the capital class elites.
could huxley's islanders in island have defended against invasion?
In Aldous Huxley's 1962 novel Island, the pacifist residents of the utopian island Pala could not have defended themselves against the military invasion led by Colonel Dipa from the neighboring military dictatorship of Rendang.
Their inability to resist was a deliberate thematic and structural choice by Huxley. He designed Pala's society to prioritize decentralized cooperation, spiritual mindfulness, and scientific humanism, which left them fundamentally incompatible with—and defenseless against—the mechanics of modern warfare.
Structural Vulnerabilities of Palanese Society
Absolute Pacifism: Pala deliberately avoided maintaining a standing army, stockpiling modern weaponry, or developing military infrastructure. They prioritized psychological and spiritual well-being over defense spending. The "No-Defensive-Alliance" Policy: Guided by the Raja’s philosophy, the Palanese consciously chose isolationism. They refused to form military or political pacts with major Western or Eastern power blocs, leaving them entirely without international allies when the invasion struck.
Refusal to Industrialize For Warfare: Pala selectively imported modern Western technology (like medicine and agricultural science) but aggressively rejected heavy industrialization, resource extraction (specifically their oil reserves), and consumerism. Because they did not build factories to process their oil, they lacked the domestic industrial base required to manufacture weapons or armored vehicles.
Ideological Incompatibility with War
Huxley argues in the text that a society cannot prepare for total war without corrupting its own utopian values. For the Palanese to build an effective military deterrent, they would have had to adopt the very societal evils they spent a century eradicating:
Authoritarian Hierarchy: Preparing for an invasion requires military centralization and strict obedience, which would destroy Pala's decentralized Mutual Aid Associations.
Psychological Conditioning: Palanese education trained citizens to recognize and neutralize aggressive impulses through mindfulness ("Karuna" and awareness). To fight a war, they would need to condition citizens to hate, dehumanize an enemy, and endure trauma—reversing their entire psychological paradigm.
The Downfall
Ultimately, Pala's downfall is engineered internally before the physical invasion even begins. Murugan, the young Raja who is heavily influenced by Western consumerism and Rendang's militarism, conspires with Colonel Dipa to exploit Pala's unmined oil wealth.
The novel concludes with armored cars rolling into the island, the execution of the reformist Prime Minister, and the immediate dismantling of the utopia. By showing their total lack of defense, Huxley delivers a heartbreaking thesis: a genuinely sane, peaceful, and enlightened society cannot survive in a world dominated by aggressive, militaristic, and resource-hungry nation-states
Thersites I was there in the "early days" Dave. My own blog was established as a coordinated defense against some very vicious and destructive trolls. I became :"the trolls troll" with many identities, to lure them away from their blogs. You wonder what gave me the idea for multi-personality blogging? At FPM there was a troll named Socrates, who did the same thing. At the time, I had only one identity, "Homer" (yes the Odyssey, not the Simpsons). And he would "gang attack" certain posters with them. The power of the mob, so to speak.
THIS YOU?
Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 11, 2012 7:32 AM Thersites has left a new comment on your post "US ADMIRAL: MR. OBAMA "FANTASTIC" PRESIDENT": ...but will Harry Reid stop beating his wife? Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 18, 2012 3:44 PM
Thersites has left a new comment on your post "US ADMIRAL: MR. OBAMA "FANTASTIC" PRESIDENT": But the REAL question is, "Does Harry Reid beat his wife?" Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 18, 2012 8:09 AM
Thersites has left a new comment on your post "RYAN A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE?":One of these days Harry Reid will stop beating his wife and THEN we can have a real debate about the issues...
...but then, Harry Reid will NEVER. stop beating his wife, will he?Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 13, 2012 5:14 PM
Baggage": Unlike Harry Reid, Paul Ryan, at least, doesn't beat his wife. Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 14, 2012 6:55 PM
Thersites has left a new comment on your post "Paul Ryan: Big Spending Conservative":
Harry Reid. Wifebeater. Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 15, 2012 8:15 AM
Thersites has left a new comment on your post "Paul Ryan's Trouble With The Truth: HE TOOK STIMU...": I just wish that Harry Reid could control himself and STOP beating his wife! Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 17, 2012 7:45 AM
Thersites has left a new comment on your post "RYAN'S THE ONE":
Harry Reid beats his wife... and the Democratic conspiracy to prevent the electorate from learning of the president's drug addiction... Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 12, 2012 11:17 AM
Yes W, Orwell was a socialist. A Peace socialist, not a War socialist...
"Peace is War and War is Peace" (1984)
Excerpts from Google AII:
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is not a critique of socialism itself, but a warning against how totalitarianism can corrupt and betray socialist ideals. Writing as a committed democratic socialist, Orwell used the novel to illustrate how a state can weaponize perpetual wartime psychology, manipulate language, and enforce psychological terrorism to preserve absolute power for its own sake. --- 2. War and Peace: The Slogan "War is Peace" The paradox "War is Peace" serves as a core structural pillar of Oceania's stability. Orwell reveals that the global superpowers (Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia) remain trapped in an intentional, endless conflict. --- Economic Deprivation: In the fictional framework of Emmanuel Goldstein's book within the novel, the primary purpose of modern warfare is to use up the products of industrial machinery without raising the general standard of living. If the masses became prosperous and educated, they would quickly realize the ruling elite is useless and overthrow them. (-FJ comment: It's the Part Maudite (Accursed Share))
The Slogan’s Meaning: War is peace because a continuous state of external conflict creates an artificial internal stability. It keeps the populace emotionally exhausted, constantly frightened, and entirely dependent on the protection of Big Brother. ---
Ultimately, Orwell’s masterpiece is a cautionary warning that power is not a means to an end; power is the end itself. ,He asserts that any ideology—whether it calls itself socialist, capitalist, or nationalist—can morph into a nightmare if it is allowed to strip individuals of their right to objective truth, independent thought, and basic human empathy
My premise - Avoid accumulation of State Power! It's an unproductive and ultimately self-defeating "means to an end".
American Constitution provided for Presidential "War" Powers and "Peace" powers. The War on Terror (still in effect) created permanent War and War Powers. A fatal corruption for "Oceana".
Thersites Zabelle has thrown out the suitors. They made a mess of her blog palace. For that I cannot condemn her. They violated the Law of Zeus (Xenia) first.
She has no interest in any POV that disagrees with hers and her fellow sailors. She disallows even BB-Idaho! Why? BB-Idaho is a polite and erudite commenter. To my knowledge, he's never been snarky, impolite, or acted like a troll on her site. Therefore, we can only deduce her banning on the fact that he's not a boot-licker on her blog.
In a way, I'm flattered that he took the time to do this. I must REALLY get under his skine/mpress him!
My take on this is that Thersites and his other personas, don't like uppity women with strong opinions. That's been a male problem since our ancestors fell out of the trees. The patriarchy would like us to "know our places."
No, you never trolled me on my blog. And no, I haven't forgotten, have you? I tried posting reasonable comments in the past, which most times you simply didn't post, and several times you posted under your own identity, but altered the supposed contents so as to make me look stupid. You also stole identities and posed as them to make stupid comments. I always left clues when posing under in a stolen identity... like with Gert (mentioned above) I would invert his avatar so that people knew it wasn't really him.
We've all played our dirty tricks. I'm trying to move beyond them. I trolled you in a retaliatory manner in you examples. Like I told you at the time, I'm a tit-4-tat man. You tit, I tat.
The times of vicious blogging I'm speaking of started in the late 90's not 2010's+ Before "moderation" and during the transition to blog moderation. And I love strong women with strong opinions. I married one.
And I hate to disappoint but the wankfiles were established during my feud with some right wing bloggers who accused me of "being" the Left wing blogger "Socrates" from FPM due to my having multiple sock puppets with unique identities. They recognized the pattern that I had copied, and I was making fun of their preferred presidential candidate whom I called Mitt Obamney (see earliest posts). I simply repurposed it to parody you back in our "open fighting" period.
She only still lets me post because of our long past anti-troll history. She was one of a coalition of about 18 right-wing bloggers who collaborated at Farmers Letters and had blog ownership rights to edit/post. We disbanded after the more vicious trolls were lured/driven off. She switched to WordPress so that she could ban individual bad actors. I deleted the jointly owned Farmers Letters blog in 2011, and re-purposed/ started afresh.
Dave, What you posted is why nothing in this country can be accomplished, blame the other guy because I have done all that can be done and it's not my fault.
Eliminate all lobbyists and no politician can accept any money or favors including the $200,000 speech and corporate jet to St. Thomas. Fund all campaigns from public funds and none of that money can go to the candidate. Establish term limits for all elected officials and SCOTUS.
And since you know democrats would support campaign finance reform which I don't blame them after the last billion dollar mistake do you think they would support it now?
Les, I have always supported a sensible tax policy and believe Everyone should pay Their Fair Share. If we had the stones to eliminate government corruption we could afford to fund more public assistance but that is far to disruptive for most to support it. Why not just raise taxes on the 49% who pay FIT and bilk the less 1% who pay 40% of all taxes. Before greed, was that before the industrial revolution or the beginning of civilization.
Skud posted... "Dave, What you posted is why nothing in this country can be accomplished, blame the other guy..."
I'm at a loss Skud. Dems for decades have been trying to do exactly what you say you want... get private money out of elections, rein in lobbyists and make campaigns transparent. Only one group of politicians has been steadfastly opposing those goals. Stating a fact is not blaming the other guy.
Oddly enough, there have even been efforts in Congress to limit SCOTUS terms. Guess which party has sponsored those bills? Once again, the Democrats.
Over the last 50 years, it's primarily been the Democrats who have worked to limit money in campaigns, identify donors, end lobbyist's powers AND limit SCOTUS terms.
So yes, I believe Dems would support those goals even now, and if they take the House in November, I believe they will soon pass a series of bills to achieve those aims. Which the GOP will oppose.
-FJ Supposed... "She switched to WordPress so that she could ban individual bad actors."
No -FJ, that's not true. She switched to Word Press so she could eliminate people like me, Ducky and RJ bringing real facts into the discussion and disrupting her desire to share "her truth".
Here's an example. After the 2012 presidential elections she opined that there were more votes in various counties in Ohio, than there were registered voters. When I responded with actual vote counts showing that not to be true, including the forms from the GOP Sec of State, she put me in my place.
She didn't care about my evidence she said. I could believe what I wanted. She knew... she had her truth, and that was that.
For most of her final years on blogger, the left was me and Ducky. Constitutional Insurgent, a libertarian was also there. She didn't have trolls attacking her mercilessly. She had me, Ducky and occasionally CI offering factual push back on her claims.
She left to avoid that and the proof is she blocked us immediately at Word Press. And she recently bragged about blocking Ducky instantly. She left so she would not have to deal with inconvenient facts.
could huxley's islanders in island have defended against invasion?
Even if they defended the island they could still have been successfully invaded. This wasn't the point.
The theme of Island wasn't "Prepare for war or be conquered". It was a template for a sane and compassionate society and individual. Huxley showed the vulnerability of such societies or individuals to the bullies and corpo-militartist strongmen by not having Pala have a standing military or corporate empire, which have the hierarchies that nurture strongmen for leaders.
Note that it made the case for defunding police and law enforcement by addressing and modifying antisocial human behavior at an early age.
Ultimately, Pala's downfall is engineered internally before the physical invasion even begins. Murugan, the young Raja who is heavily influenced by Western consumerism and Rendang's militarism, conspires with Colonel Dipa to exploit Pala's unmined oil wealth.
The door was opened by one of their own.
However, even IF they had a military, stronger ones with authoritarian leaders would have invaded eventually for their oil. Ring any bells?
Instead the book examines spiritual/social growth and the internal conflict individuals as well as societies face. The darkness and enemy are within.
Huxley avoided setting up a war scenario entirely to better illustrate his point. It was NOT so much about the importance of military resistance or deterrence, but of the corruption and betrayal that allowed the inevitable destruction wrought by militarism and greed that stands in contrast to sanity and compassion.
The central theme of Island can be condensed into incidents that keep popping up in America. Church shootings. Peaceful groups of human beings are vulnerable to the most savage authoritarian bullies of our species. The assholes of humanity can't let anyone mind their own business of caring for one another.
Funny M. I often got that feeling posting here as well. When I made a particularly salient point, my comment didn't pass moderation. Why do you think so many blocked posters come to Political Tea Leaves and post their complaints about Les, W, and others there? Because they're "blocked" here. They're frustrated because they have no means to voice their complaints.
Ducky was the best teacher I ever had. I owe 99% of what I know today of arts and culture because of him. I am anti echo-chamber.
I don't endorse Z's policies. I simply understand them. Z and I once had a mutual aquaintance, a minor celebrity comedian (right wing) who's blog was made unreadable by Left commenters because he didn't moderate. I understand why Shaw must moderate.
Some people take their blogs VERY seriously. Z and Shaw are but two examples. I, for one, do not take mine seriously. I don't care if they get destroyed. We used to have a saying, back in the blogger wars days. Burn the F.I.G.s (effigies).
IMO The only difference between your benevolent pacifist islanders and the assholes of humanity resource exploiters is the opportunity to screw the other guy over and get away with it. Plato's Ring (my cloak) of Gyges.
Did you see Nolan's Odyssey? I'm sure that the suitors began well intentioned and behaved. But as Penelope stalled, the "Law of Zeus" went sideways. By the time Daddy returned, it was all out war. All the charity (caritas) had been used up. Well intended motives get easily corrupted.
It's the central problem of Plato's "Republic" (guardianship corrupted and safeguards bypassed). It carries over into Plato's Magnesia (in the Nocturnal Council). And It's obviously present in the US Intelligence Community (USIC) today.
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
65 comments:
Socialism: The enemy of capitalism according to the capitalist class.
An economic system in which We the People recognize the interconnectedness and interdependence of all of existence and understand that the strength of the whole (the many) is far stronger and greater than the strength of any individual or individual entity.
Capitalism, with its focus on fierce individualism and wealth concentration and accumulation in the hands of the few seeks to limit the power of the people to insure that all levers of economic and political control rests with them, the capital class.
Compassion and empathy is the positive force behind socialism and drives it. Greed and power lust drives capitalism.
Since FDR neo-Nazis and extremist Republicans have the same habit of calling Democrats and people they hate "communists".
And that's not all they have in common.
Nazis and present era republicans are natural bedfellows. Cut from the same authoritarian cloth and nationalistic ignorance.
Winston Churchill was far from liberal and progressive- but practical. We note-
"Winston Churchill did not invent modern Social Security, but as a young British Liberal government minister in 1908–1911, he helped pioneer early worker social insurance and labor exchanges. The specific term and federal program known as "Social Security" was created in the United States by President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he signed the Social Security Act in 1935" We note that the current leader is consumed by "I", even in his ERs
(Illiterate, inhuman, insolent, idiotic imbecile)
Per Google AI:
"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." - Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program" (1875)
"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the 'first' or lower phase of communist society." - Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (1917)
Marx and Friedrich Engels generally used the terms "socialism" and "communism" to mean the same thing.
Lenin Created the Timeline: Lenin formalized "Socialism" as a necessary, intermediate stepping stone. He argued that society could not jump straight from capitalism to full communism without a transitional phase to build up industrial abundance and reshape human behavior.
AI Overview:
Not all forms of socialism are a step to communism. While Marxist-Leninist theory views socialism as a transitional phase leading to a stateless communist society, many other forms of socialism—such as democratic socialism and social democracy—reject communism entirely and operate within democratic, capitalist frameworks.
Marxist Theory vs. Democratic Socialism
Marxist-Leninist view: Karl Marx described socialism as the lower phase of communism, acting as a temporary bridge where the state controls production before evolving into a classless, stateless society.
Democratic socialism: Seeks a socially owned economy and economic democracy through political freedom and democratic elections, stopping short of a one-party state or revolutionary communism.
Social democracy: Supports a capitalist market economy alongside a large welfare state, public services, and labor laws (common in Nordic countries), rather than abolishing private property.
The federal government under the Trump administration has acquired equity and quasi-equity stakes in roughly 30 private and public American businesses totaling billions of dollars. These deals—spanning sectors like semiconductors, critical minerals, and quantum computing—are tied to national security and domestic manufacturing initiatives.
While not communism, the administration's pivot toward taking equity stakes in roughly 30 private companies has drawn sharp criticism from both political sides and free-market experts:
State Capitalism and Cronyism: Critics argue that government intervention—where the state acts as both a market regulator and a corporate shareholder—distorts free-market competition and invites political favoritism or cronyism.Ideological
Contradiction: Free-market advocates and some lawmakers point out a rhetorical irony, noting that while the administration frequently denounces leftist or democratic policies as "socialist" or "communist," its own direct acquisition of corporate stock breaks sharply with traditional conservative and capitalist orthodoxy.
It turns out -FJ's Criminal hero is both a communist and fascist, and operating as a dictator as well.
No wonder he loves his Dear Leader.
Lots of avenues lay before society. Fickle humankind will dabble and tweak at will. With the wealthy and powerful pulling on, and controlling the strings. In ways that best benefit them.
The only thing that is cerain is that 250 years from now, if humankind is still alive, is that society will look nothing like it does today.
The only thing that is permenant iscontinual never ending change. Everything in existence is, in fact and reality impermanent.
Belief in Permanence is, and always has been, a delusion. As it will Always be.
I favour Commerce, not Capitalism. It's trade between individuals, not between individuals and corporate or State conglomerates. Socialism is a move towards fascist State conglomerates. I say we move in the direction towards Individual small business OWNERS, not State ownership and CONTROL. I'm a RADICAL progressive. I put the emphasis on SMALL business over BIG busines. Main Street over Wall STreet.
And I agree with you. The move towards giving the State an equity stake in a corporate conglomerate is the wrong direction.
btw - Democracy is merely a "brand name" for Capitalism. Want to be against Capitalism? Stop supporting Social "democracy" and start support laiisez-faire COMMERCE.
The "West" is an admixture of Athens and Jerusalem. Athens is Democracy (Individual freedom), and Jerusalem represents Capitalism (paying interest on Commoditized Capital). That is a tension, a "generation from opposites". When the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) says it wants to "democratize" a former communist satellite republic from the former USSR, it means it wants to "capitalize" it. To transform the equity in former State enterprises (factories, etc) into private interest bearing stock (commoditized capital).
Private Property means "Dominion/ Sovereignty" It has 3 aspects, only 2 of which individuals can agree upon and 1 which the "State/ Commons" insists upon controlling. And that is Jus abutendi
Jus abutendi refers to the right to consume or destroy a property, which is a core component of ownership in Roman and civil law, alongside jus utendi (right to use) and jus fruendi (right to the fruits). These rights together form the "bundle of rights" that constitutes ownership, allowing the owner to use, enjoy, and dispose of their property. While jus abutendi historically implied the right to abuse or destroy property, it is now subject to legal limitations today, such as rules against wasting resources or harming the rights of others.
And the abuse or wasting of SURPLUS resources is what gives meaning and significance in terms of "sovereignty" to the society writ large, The "Part Maudite (accursed share)
Before you can have socialism, you must have surpluses to give away. And you needn't go through the State Control of those surpluses to do it.
...as Communism ultimately seeks the abolition of the State.
Social bonds (socialism) is born of gift giving, not state confiscation and control of redistribution of surpluses.
The Greeks understoof this ritualized gift-giving as Xenia, and the violation of it led to the Trojan War (the receivers of it breaking the "Law of Zeus" (Chris Nolan's Odyssey) by abducting Helen while being "hosted" in Menelaus' home.
Unrelated, but important... notice -FJ that you're allowed to post here. Sometimes we agree with you, often not. Sometimes you get pretty snarky with people, sometimes not.
But you can post here and I for one, even in disagreement with you, believe it makes us better. Besides, you introduced me to Žižek. A new philosopher is always good to read.
You made a good effort at the Mothership and were summarily rejected. She has no interest in respectful dialogue with any of us. Or anyone else who challenges her, or the beliefs of the rest of the crew.
PE is not, nor does it desire to be an echo chamber. Honest, evidence based disagreement and discussion is what we want.
As Lone Cactus would say... Carry on... you're dismissed.
No Democrat is advocating Communism. That's the new meme the floundering Trump regime is pushing because they have nothing else to sell their gullible dupes.
Gas prices are horrible; food prices are horrible; Americans are being killed by Trump's ICE goons; Americans have lost their health insurance, the Strait of Hormuz is still closed as a result of Trump's war of choice with Iran; income inequality is at a terrible problem for Americans. While economic output and average incomes have grown, the vast majority of those gains have concentrated at the top of the economic ladder rather than flowing evenly to middle- and lower-income families.
And Trump's solution to our economic and military problems is to paint DC statues gold, destroy the Reflecting Pool, and destroy the East Wing of the WH to build his golden ballroom; and Trump is selling early access to his social media posts for $100,000 a month. Critics are raising alarms over paying customers seeing market-moving statements from a sitting president before the public.
None of that mess helps the American people.
Laiisez-faire is but a word to identify a completely unregulated free wheeling market where the capitalists can do whatever their greedy hearts desire to increase capital accumulation even more in their slimy greedy hands and portfolios.
Minus man must be a very wealthy person, or, so conditioned and blind he accepts without question the capitalist naratives.
Or, you have a tax system that supports the general welfare rather than selfish individualism and the MIC and war machine. An entity that drives wealth accumulation to the capitalists of death and destruction.
Ignorance, delusion, and greed reigns supreme in the reichwing fascist trump administration and republican party.
A spectre of eventual economic collapse and deep social dislocation and suffering awaits America under current fascist capitalist policies and control under trump and the reichwing republican party.
My favorite philosopher is a communist (Slavoj Zizek). Communism is an utopic "end" (social harmony and dissolution of the State). Socialism is the disgusting "mess" between capitalism and communism. And capitalism is the disgusting "mess" on the way to a utopic "Commerce" (social harmony and the dissolution of the State). And around and around the circle we do go...
So yes, democrats are advocating their utopic vision of society (communism). I have the same vision, but a different path... one that avoids totalitarian State control that Democrats and Republicans in the One Party State Global Corporate Capitalist Uniparty ceaselessly advocate.
As for me? I look forward to a democratic left leaning congress. Then the criticism of leftwing lunacy (Ukraine war, support for Zionism, allowing lobbying to continue, etc) can begin in earnest. For first we must shut down the fascist republican evils before attacking leftwing lunacy where it exists.
I have to admire -FJ's insight and noble vision.
"I have the same vision, but a different path... one that avoids totalitarian State control."
And the unspoken part:
"Yes, and... I am MAGA, and Trump's blatant corruption, cronyism, nepotism, authoritarian policies, unaccountable secret police shooting protesters, sending non-violent immigrants to be abused and neglected in privatized concentration camps, his violent insurrection, summary executions on the open sea, ill-considered war of aggression on Iran with its growing list of war crimes, and other criminal abuses of power and violations of the law and betrayals of our country are OK by me, because none of of this is remotely totalitarian in my mind."
...as opposed to the technofeudal market of Amazon.com where Jeff Bezos DIRECTS every transaction in a totally regulated marketplace and takes his cut of the value transacted.
The General welfare is the surplus (part maudite/ accursed share). No Les, taxing individuals for building more monasteries for Lamas to pray in isn't a solution to improving social relations.
Zabelle has thrown out the suitors. They made a mess of her blog palace. For that I cannot condemn her. They violated the Law of Zeus (Xenia) first.
...and when Zeus (government) himself violates his own laws, as with Covid and Trump-Russia, it should come as no surprise that a "housecleaning" results.
My blog only censors one thing. Doxxing.
In French philosopher Georges Bataille’s theoretical framework (outlined prominently in The Accursed Share), the concept corresponding to societal care or standards of living is framed through his general economy rather than a legalistic "general welfare" clause. Bataille argues that the Earth constantly receives an excess of solar energy that creates a biological and economic surplus. Societies must figure out how to expend this unrecoverable surplus.
The Role of Welfare and Luxury in General Economy
Absorption of Surplus: Modern industrial societies attempt to channel excess wealth into social improvements, higher wages, expanded leisure, and public welfare.
Concealed Luxury: Demands for social equality and better living standards mask a structural economic necessity: they act as non-military safety valves to consume excess resources.
The Failure of Utility: When a society refuses to consciously recognize unproductive luxury or expenditure, excess energy-surplus finds catastrophic outlets, historically manifesting as destructive mechanized warfare.
Key Elements of Bataille’s View
Acknowledge Deprivation First: Extreme regional poverty must be addressed as an imbalance tied directly to localized surplus elsewhere in the global economy.
Beyond Production: A conscious general economy balances basic material necessities with the absolute requirement to squander or gift excess energy without subordinating every human act to future production.
Capitalism subordinates every human act to future production. That's the problem with it. Even modern "philanthropy" does so.
Les, We need to take the money out of elections and the graft lobbyist provide to sitting politicians. Unfortunately both parties are in on the get rich quick scheme. Maybe the DSC has the right approach. Get rid of congress, close all prisons and fire all police. After all spending well over a billion dollars to lose an election shown the influence of the rich.
My question to you is won't imposing high taxes on corporations increase prices for everyone on everything.
The law of Zeus... an early golden rule, mas o menos. Look, people came with a take. But excepting Ducky, who doesn't seem to comment from our earthly orb, no one called her unAmerican, a traitor, evil, an America hater, etc. Yet all of those terms got applied to anyone who dared contradict the MAGA far right view point. And it was the same at AOW.
Looking at your comment, I can see Zeus [Ms. Z and AOW] violating their own role of hospitality, and the attendant rules, almost daily.
You get way more latitude here, as does Skud, then I got at either of those blogs. Sure we respond back at/to you, but again, you can post. Under some pretty loose guidelines.
Your very first comment, trite and without any evidence as to me ever taking about tax dollars being used for building monasteries for Lamas to pray in is why I never read your drivel abd BS.
Lamaism was one of Bataille's examples of how an organized society can use it's part maudite (accursed share/ surplus). It does so at the expense of its' own defense.... which is the failure in Aldous Huxley's "Island" (foreign invaders).
And you are a Buddhist, so its' a lesson explicitly for you to learn.
Trump is also, in many ways, the opposite path to State control. The Deep State hates him, because he impedes their control of everything agenda.
I was there in the "early days" Dave. My own blog was established as a coordinated defense against some very vicious and destructive trolls. I became :"the trolls troll" with many identities, to lure them away from their blogs. You wonder what gave me the idea for multi-personality blogging? At FPM there was a troll named Socrates, who did the same thing. At the time, I had only one identity, "Homer" (yes the Odyssey, not the Simpsons). And he would "gang attack" certain posters with them. The power of the mob, so to speak.
btw - Do you know Gert? He and I are friends now. he blogs as Zwaremetalen239. He's a Palestinian activist, did some prison time in the UK and has moved back to the continent (He's Belgian, originally). He was one of the original attackers. He's also a chemist with a very VERY high IQ.
Skud proposed... "We need to take the money out of elections and the graft lobbyist provide to sitting politicians."
What would you propose Skud?
Some history... After Watergate the Dems passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) building on a previous law which included public funding of presidential campaigns. You've got to have some money to run a campaign, right?
In 1992, the Dems tried to expand the limits of the FECA and public financing to Congressional races. The GOP vetoed it. In 1993-1994, ultimately a GOP filibuster ended a change for a larger reform bill. McCain-Feingold passed in 2002. Then came Citizens United from the conservative SCOTUS and the flood gates opened.
So we had a law, McCain-Feingold, a bi partisan approved law, that was helping, but the SCOTUS Citizens United rule made it possible to systematically dismantle it. Bit by bit. Again, a case to effectively dismantle and end a bi partisan law, was brought by conservatives, to a conservative SCOTUS to end that law.
Since then, the GOP has blocked every major attempt to rein in spending, use public money for campaigns, disclose large donors, etc.
You, and Les are right. Money is a huge problem in the US political world. However, by and large, the efforts to limit money in campaigns, identify large money campaign donors and provide public money to candidates has come primarily from Democrats.
Since we know Democrats will support real campaign finance reform, what suggestions do you have that will change the mind of conservatives and bring them on board?
Please, Thersites... Enough nonsense.
The authoritarian Criminal President Trump is about as opposite of state control as a dictator is. Refusing aid to states that didn't vote for him, election interference, secret unaccountable police, concentration camps, media control, extorting law firms, and news organizations, arresting and censoring dissidents is ALL ABOUT control of everything.
And the failure in Aldous Huxley's "Island" was not foreign invaders, but the moral failure of leadership. (Ring any bells?) It was a greedy Raja, who rejected the values of his countrymen and betrayed them by welcoming a neighboring dictator and oil company to take over their island.
It's about how greed, power lust, and capitalism can destroy Paradise.
Maybe you need some "Moksha Medicine" to help you get the point of the book?
Island parrots were trained to say, "Karuna!" (Compassion/empathy) to remind the Islanders of their faith. You know, the "the fundamental weakness of Western civilization" according to Musk. It's the path to a sane and peaceful society or individual.
I have to wonder how many other books go over your head, only for you to support your confirmation bias.
I'm thinking another book where Thersites missed the point would be 1984.
He probably thinks its a critique of socialism, but it was written by a socialist.
It's about how a one-party modern dictatorship CONTROLS the media, employs mass and intrusive surveillance, and tortures anyone caught asking questions or dares to engage in critical thinking. It rewrites history and redefines words and concepts to limit thinking itself.
Ring any bells?
But, hey, "Proles (the poorly educated) and animals are free". How MAGA is that?
We need sensible tax policy that supports the people needs and effectively maintains the infrastructure of the nation
.
Do some research skud into the tax policies and marginal rates during America's actual greatest growth years. Before Ronnie Raygun's trickle down economics scam and BS.
You Know, Before greed and total focus was placed on the selfish self interests of the capital class elites.
Google AI:
could huxley's islanders in island have defended against invasion?
In Aldous Huxley's 1962 novel Island, the pacifist residents of the utopian island Pala could not have defended themselves against the military invasion led by Colonel Dipa from the neighboring military dictatorship of Rendang.
Their inability to resist was a deliberate thematic and structural choice by Huxley. He designed Pala's society to prioritize decentralized cooperation, spiritual mindfulness, and scientific humanism, which left them fundamentally incompatible with—and defenseless against—the mechanics of modern warfare.
Structural Vulnerabilities of Palanese Society
Absolute Pacifism: Pala deliberately avoided maintaining a standing army, stockpiling modern weaponry, or developing military infrastructure. They prioritized psychological and spiritual well-being over defense spending.
The "No-Defensive-Alliance" Policy: Guided by the Raja’s philosophy, the Palanese consciously chose isolationism. They refused to form military or political pacts with major Western or Eastern power blocs, leaving them entirely without international allies when the invasion struck.
Refusal to Industrialize For Warfare: Pala selectively imported modern Western technology (like medicine and agricultural science) but aggressively rejected heavy industrialization, resource extraction (specifically their oil reserves), and consumerism. Because they did not build factories to process their oil, they lacked the domestic industrial base required to manufacture weapons or armored vehicles.
Ideological Incompatibility with War
Huxley argues in the text that a society cannot prepare for total war without corrupting its own utopian values. For the Palanese to build an effective military deterrent, they would have had to adopt the very societal evils they spent a century eradicating:
Authoritarian Hierarchy: Preparing for an invasion requires military centralization and strict obedience, which would destroy Pala's decentralized Mutual Aid Associations.
Psychological Conditioning: Palanese education trained citizens to recognize and neutralize aggressive impulses through mindfulness ("Karuna" and awareness). To fight a war, they would need to condition citizens to hate, dehumanize an enemy, and endure trauma—reversing their entire psychological paradigm.
The Downfall
Ultimately, Pala's downfall is engineered internally before the physical invasion even begins. Murugan, the young Raja who is heavily influenced by Western consumerism and Rendang's militarism, conspires with Colonel Dipa to exploit Pala's unmined oil wealth.
The novel concludes with armored cars rolling into the island, the execution of the reformist Prime Minister, and the immediate dismantling of the utopia. By showing their total lack of defense, Huxley delivers a heartbreaking thesis: a genuinely sane, peaceful, and enlightened society cannot survive in a world dominated by aggressive, militaristic, and resource-hungry nation-states
Thersites
I was there in the "early days" Dave. My own blog was established as a coordinated defense against some very vicious and destructive trolls. I became :"the trolls troll" with many identities, to lure them away from their blogs. You wonder what gave me the idea for multi-personality blogging? At FPM there was a troll named Socrates, who did the same thing. At the time, I had only one identity, "Homer" (yes the Odyssey, not the Simpsons). And he would "gang attack" certain posters with them. The power of the mob, so to speak.
THIS YOU?
Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 11, 2012 7:32 AM
Thersites has left a new comment on your post "US ADMIRAL: MR. OBAMA "FANTASTIC" PRESIDENT":
...but will Harry Reid stop beating his wife?
Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 18, 2012 3:44 PM
Thersites has left a new comment on your post "US ADMIRAL: MR. OBAMA "FANTASTIC" PRESIDENT":
But the REAL question is, "Does Harry Reid beat his wife?"
Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 18, 2012 8:09 AM
Thersites has left a new comment on your post "RYAN A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE?":One of these days Harry Reid will stop beating his wife and THEN we can have a real debate about the issues...
...but then, Harry Reid will NEVER. stop beating his wife, will he?Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 13, 2012 5:14 PM
Baggage":
Unlike Harry Reid, Paul Ryan, at least, doesn't beat his wife.
Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 14, 2012 6:55 PM
Thersites has left a new comment on your post "Paul Ryan: Big Spending Conservative":
Harry Reid. Wifebeater.
Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 15, 2012 8:15 AM
Thersites has left a new comment on your post "Paul Ryan's Trouble With The Truth: HE TOOK STIMU...":
I just wish that Harry Reid could control himself and STOP beating his wife!
Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 17, 2012 7:45 AM
Thersites has left a new comment on your post "RYAN'S THE ONE":
Harry Reid beats his wife... and the Democratic conspiracy to prevent the electorate from learning of the president's drug addiction...
Posted by Thersites to Progressive Eruptions at August 12, 2012 11:17 AM
I never trolled you on your blog. Why did you do that to me on mine? I haven't forgotten (I have forgiven). Obviously, you have.
Yes W, Orwell was a socialist. A Peace socialist, not a War socialist...
"Peace is War and War is Peace" (1984)
Excerpts from Google AII:
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is not a critique of socialism itself, but a warning against how totalitarianism can corrupt and betray socialist ideals. Writing as a committed democratic socialist, Orwell used the novel to illustrate how a state can weaponize perpetual wartime psychology, manipulate language, and enforce psychological terrorism to preserve absolute power for its own sake.
---
2. War and Peace: The Slogan "War is Peace"
The paradox "War is Peace" serves as a core structural pillar of Oceania's stability. Orwell reveals that the global superpowers (Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia) remain trapped in an intentional, endless conflict.
---
Economic Deprivation: In the fictional framework of Emmanuel Goldstein's book within the novel, the primary purpose of modern warfare is to use up the products of industrial machinery without raising the general standard of living. If the masses became prosperous and educated, they would quickly realize the ruling elite is useless and overthrow them. (-FJ comment: It's the Part Maudite (Accursed Share))
The Slogan’s Meaning: War is peace because a continuous state of external conflict creates an artificial internal stability. It keeps the populace emotionally exhausted, constantly frightened, and entirely dependent on the protection of Big Brother.
---
Ultimately, Orwell’s masterpiece is a cautionary warning that power is not a means to an end; power is the end itself. ,He asserts that any ideology—whether it calls itself socialist, capitalist, or nationalist—can morph into a nightmare if it is allowed to strip individuals of their right to objective truth, independent thought, and basic human empathy
My premise - Avoid accumulation of State Power! It's an unproductive and ultimately self-defeating "means to an end".
American Constitution provided for Presidential "War" Powers and "Peace" powers. The War on Terror (still in effect) created permanent War and War Powers. A fatal corruption for "Oceana".
Thersites
Zabelle has thrown out the suitors. They made a mess of her blog palace. For that I cannot condemn her. They violated the Law of Zeus (Xenia) first.
She has no interest in any POV that disagrees with hers and her fellow sailors. She disallows even BB-Idaho! Why? BB-Idaho is a polite and erudite commenter. To my knowledge, he's never been snarky, impolite, or acted like a troll on her site. Therefore, we can only deduce her banning on the fact that he's not a boot-licker on her blog.
Also, Thersites is so obsessed with P.E., that he put up a parody of it.
In a way, I'm flattered that he took the time to do this. I must REALLY get under his skine/mpress him!
My take on this is that Thersites and his other personas, don't like uppity women with strong opinions. That's been a male problem since our ancestors fell out of the trees. The patriarchy would like us to "know our places."
No, you never trolled me on my blog. And no, I haven't forgotten, have you? I tried posting reasonable comments in the past, which most times you simply didn't post, and several times you posted under your own identity, but altered the supposed contents so as to make me look stupid. You also stole identities and posed as them to make stupid comments. I always left clues when posing under in a stolen identity... like with Gert (mentioned above) I would invert his avatar so that people knew it wasn't really him.
We've all played our dirty tricks. I'm trying to move beyond them. I trolled you in a retaliatory manner in you examples. Like I told you at the time, I'm a tit-4-tat man. You tit, I tat.
The times of vicious blogging I'm speaking of started in the late 90's not 2010's+ Before "moderation" and during the transition to blog moderation. And I love strong women with strong opinions. I married one.
And I hate to disappoint but the wankfiles were established during my feud with some right wing bloggers who accused me of "being" the Left wing blogger "Socrates" from FPM due to my having multiple sock puppets with unique identities. They recognized the pattern that I had copied, and I was making fun of their preferred presidential candidate whom I called Mitt Obamney (see earliest posts). I simply repurposed it to parody you back in our "open fighting" period.
She only still lets me post because of our long past anti-troll history. She was one of a coalition of about 18 right-wing bloggers who collaborated at Farmers Letters and had blog ownership rights to edit/post. We disbanded after the more vicious trolls were lured/driven off. She switched to WordPress so that she could ban individual bad actors. I deleted the jointly owned Farmers Letters blog in 2011, and re-purposed/ started afresh.
ps - Z is old-fashioned GOP. I'm an Independent. Despite her current postings, she's very Neoliberal. I am NOT.
Dave, What you posted is why nothing in this country can be accomplished, blame the other guy because I have done all that can be done and it's not my fault.
Eliminate all lobbyists and no politician can accept any money or favors including the $200,000 speech and corporate jet to St. Thomas.
Fund all campaigns from public funds and none of that money can go to the candidate.
Establish term limits for all elected officials and SCOTUS.
And since you know democrats would support campaign finance reform which I don't blame them after the last billion dollar mistake do you think they would support it now?
...and if I wanted to troll a strong Left-wing feminist, and act the misogynist, I would have used Stanley (from Streetcar named Desire)
Les, I have always supported a sensible tax policy and believe Everyone should pay Their Fair Share. If we had the stones to eliminate government corruption we could afford to fund more public assistance but that is far to disruptive for most to support it. Why not just raise taxes on the 49% who pay FIT and bilk the less 1% who pay 40% of all taxes.
Before greed, was that before the industrial revolution or the beginning of civilization.
The "wankfiles" was a parody of one of the disputants blogs... he (Beamish) had named his blog "The Crankfiles"
I was supporting Ron Paul. They hated "Paulites". We were too anti-global anti-neoliberal capitalism for their tastes
Hopeless you are skud. You do want rea meaningful change. You simply want a tweaking of the capitalist class status quo.
Good luck with that. I want a revolution of sensible non capitalist alternative.
Skud posted... "Dave, What you posted is why nothing in this country can be accomplished, blame the other guy..."
I'm at a loss Skud. Dems for decades have been trying to do exactly what you say you want... get private money out of elections, rein in lobbyists and make campaigns transparent. Only one group of politicians has been steadfastly opposing those goals. Stating a fact is not blaming the other guy.
Oddly enough, there have even been efforts in Congress to limit SCOTUS terms. Guess which party has sponsored those bills? Once again, the Democrats.
Over the last 50 years, it's primarily been the Democrats who have worked to limit money in campaigns, identify donors, end lobbyist's powers AND limit SCOTUS terms.
So yes, I believe Dems would support those goals even now, and if they take the House in November, I believe they will soon pass a series of bills to achieve those aims. Which the GOP will oppose.
So what should we do?
-FJ Supposed... "She switched to WordPress so that she could ban individual bad actors."
No -FJ, that's not true. She switched to Word Press so she could eliminate people like me, Ducky and RJ bringing real facts into the discussion and disrupting her desire to share "her truth".
Here's an example. After the 2012 presidential elections she opined that there were more votes in various counties in Ohio, than there were registered voters. When I responded with actual vote counts showing that not to be true, including the forms from the GOP Sec of State, she put me in my place.
She didn't care about my evidence she said. I could believe what I wanted. She knew... she had her truth, and that was that.
For most of her final years on blogger, the left was me and Ducky. Constitutional Insurgent, a libertarian was also there. She didn't have trolls attacking her mercilessly. She had me, Ducky and occasionally CI offering factual push back on her claims.
She left to avoid that and the proof is she blocked us immediately at Word Press. And she recently bragged about blocking Ducky instantly. She left so she would not have to deal with inconvenient facts.
And the result is an echo chamber.
Anyways... FWIW.
could huxley's islanders in island have defended against invasion?
Even if they defended the island they could still have been successfully invaded. This wasn't the point.
The theme of Island wasn't "Prepare for war or be conquered". It was a template for a sane and compassionate society and individual. Huxley showed the vulnerability of such societies or individuals to the bullies and corpo-militartist strongmen by not having Pala have a standing military or corporate empire, which have the hierarchies that nurture strongmen for leaders.
Note that it made the case for defunding police and law enforcement by addressing and modifying antisocial human behavior at an early age.
Ultimately, Pala's downfall is engineered internally before the physical invasion even begins. Murugan, the young Raja who is heavily influenced by Western consumerism and Rendang's militarism, conspires with Colonel Dipa to exploit Pala's unmined oil wealth.
The door was opened by one of their own.
However, even IF they had a military, stronger ones with authoritarian leaders would have invaded eventually for their oil. Ring any bells?
Instead the book examines spiritual/social growth and the internal conflict individuals as well as societies face. The darkness and enemy are within.
Huxley avoided setting up a war scenario entirely to better illustrate his point. It was NOT so much about the importance of military resistance or deterrence, but of the corruption and betrayal that allowed the inevitable destruction wrought by militarism and greed that stands in contrast to sanity and compassion.
Ring any bells?
The central theme of Island can be condensed into incidents that keep popping up in America. Church shootings.
Peaceful groups of human beings are vulnerable to the most savage authoritarian bullies of our species.
The assholes of humanity can't let anyone mind their own business of caring for one another.
Funny M. I often got that feeling posting here as well. When I made a particularly salient point, my comment didn't pass moderation. Why do you think so many blocked posters come to Political Tea Leaves and post their complaints about Les, W, and others there? Because they're "blocked" here. They're frustrated because they have no means to voice their complaints.
Ducky was the best teacher I ever had. I owe 99% of what I know today of arts and culture because of him. I am anti echo-chamber.
I don't endorse Z's policies. I simply understand them. Z and I once had a mutual aquaintance, a minor celebrity comedian (right wing) who's blog was made unreadable by Left commenters because he didn't moderate. I understand why Shaw must moderate.
Some people take their blogs VERY seriously. Z and Shaw are but two examples. I, for one, do not take mine seriously. I don't care if they get destroyed. We used to have a saying, back in the blogger wars days. Burn the F.I.G.s (effigies).
I agree to disagree, W.
IMO The only difference between your benevolent pacifist islanders and the assholes of humanity resource exploiters is the opportunity to screw the other guy over and get away with it. Plato's Ring (my cloak) of Gyges.
Did you see Nolan's Odyssey? I'm sure that the suitors began well intentioned and behaved. But as Penelope stalled, the "Law of Zeus" went sideways. By the time Daddy returned, it was all out war. All the charity (caritas) had been used up. Well intended motives get easily corrupted.
It's the central problem of Plato's "Republic" (guardianship corrupted and safeguards bypassed). It carries over into Plato's Magnesia (in the Nocturnal Council). And It's obviously present in the US Intelligence Community (USIC) today.
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
Post a Comment