GreenEarthAl's Political Hullabaloo

[GreenEarthAl]

So, people ask me all the time why I act the way I act; do the the things I do. Why have I never owned a car? Why don't I watch tv? Why do I boycott all these corporations all the time and make websites against them and spend my time and money on it? Questions like that. Questions that take a long time to answer and which I never felt able to give a complete answer to.

So then I wrote this book. I just finished it on Monday night. It's a novel. It's fiction. It's set in the future. But it's my latest attempt to answer the question of why I do what I do.

I post this free preview of the first four chapters here because I have sharpened a lot of my views here on this forum. Most of the people I would want to really get into it with about this book don't seem to be here right now, but you[whoever you are] will do in a pinch I guess. So read a little bit and let's get it on.

This book will fuck your whole shit up!

Relations - Book 1: McEmpire (http://www.amprosoft.com/books/Relations/)

[hellojello]

do you think there's any merit in 'preaching to the converted?'

[D_Raay]

yeah really...

[GreenEarthAl]

do you think there's any merit in 'preaching to the converted?'

This was written largely for the unconverted.

I live in a city that has gone from one of the 30 largest cities in the U.S. to a city that's not even in the top 80. The unemployment rate here is double that of the national average. I've given manuscripts to some of the regular joes at my shitty job and gotten a wide range of reactions to it.

One kid who read the first trhee chapters looked up and said "Wow, you hate the whole world and everything in it!" I don't think he quite got the point yet. Mainly, I've gotten a lot of really neat replies and critiques though.

[Rancid_Beasties]

Yeah your stuff is good Al, even the converted can enjoy it. I will read this when its not so late so i understand it.

[EN[i]GMA]

I shall definitely read this.

[EN[i]GMA]

So, people ask me all the time why I act the way I act; do the the things I do. Why have I never owned a car? Why don't I watch tv? Why do I boycott all these corporations all the time and make websites against them and spend my time and money on it? Questions like that. Questions that take a long time to answer and which I never felt able to give a complete answer to.

So then I wrote this book. I just finished it on Monday night. It's a novel. It's fiction. It's set in the future. But it's my latest attempt to answer the question of why I do what I do.

I post this free preview of the first four chapters here because I have sharpened a lot of my views here on this forum. Most of the people I would want to really get into it with about this book don't seem to be here right now, but you[whoever you are] will do in a pinch I guess. So read a little bit and let's get it on.

This book will fuck your whole shit up!

Relations - Book 1: McEmpire (http://www.amprosoft.com/books/Relations/)


Blightly, Sazi, and all those fun people I take it?

[100% ILL]

The "Christians" have turned to socialist brain washing and world domination, and the only free people huddle in alcoves, have group sex and farm. This book is basically anti-christian propaganda.

[GreenEarthAl]

The "Christians" have turned to socialist brain washing and world domination, and the only free people huddle in alcoves, have group sex and farm. This book is basically anti-christian propaganda.

Good guess but no. Thanks you so much for reading some. It is very much appreciated.

Who are the Christian Socialists that you see? What's socialism to you?

[GreenEarthAl]

Nevermind that. I reread you and I'm guessing you're modifying brain washing with socialist as an adjective. I guess you're of the opinion that brainwashing through the ages was done by socialists. And I would be of the opinion that the best brainwashing of the ages is being done right now.

[Señor Stino]

maybe a bit pessimistic GEA, brainwashing is of all times

it just got easier with mass media, but then again, mass media like the internet can be the dissease and the cure in one, so...

ah btw, do not try to understand 100%ILL or ask him to clarify, he'll just drop bible quotes

[GreenEarthAl]

I have typically found myself able to communicate with 100% ILL just fine. I don't ask him not to use Bible quotes to communicate what he's trying to say and he doesn't ask me not to use the sources that put stock in to communicate my point of view.

Rather than dismiss him, I'll continue to go with appreciating him for taking the time to read or at least skim a chapter or two, even continuing past things that he apparently found objectionable. That's pretty open minded.

[100% ILL]

Good guess but no. Thanks you so much for reading some. It is very much appreciated.

Who are the Christian Socialists that you see? What's socialism to you?

No one has any individual rights. they gave them all up for the new way, the reorginization. The only difference is that religion is the tool used to manipulate the people.
The President of 1WG is a chaste 46yr old man who believes that sex even in the confines of marriage should be only for procreation. His mother thinks her son is the image of Christ. The fact that social classes are so prevelant in the "christian" dominated society. The Holy War that exterminated muslims etc. The part where the President makes everyone sware an oath that they believe the Bible and that they will not commit lustful sins by defiling their bodies, yet he is driven almost entirely by greed and pride. A Christian is not driven by pride or greed and does not seek self magnification. The book seems to depict a society where Christianity is forced upon people and the only alternative is death.

In all fariness I cannot draw an entire picture from the first four chapters. I cannot tell if you are attacking Christianity outright or are depicting what could happen if a corrupt world leader embraced his own interpretation of Christianity to manipulate the masses to his own benefit.

The attitudes diplayed by the charaters in the book are not christian attitudes yet you referr to them as christian.

Christianity is a belief that Jesus has callled all men unto him to be saved. It is the individual's choice whether or not they will. God wants people who will willingly worship him.

In all actuallity the 1WG in your book sounds a lot like the government that will be set up by the anti-christ in the book of Revelation. He will actually claim to be God and demand to be worshipped. He will control the global economy and all those who oppose him will face death.

[little j]

what could happen if a corrupt world leader embraced his own interpretation of Christianity to manipulate the masses to his own benefit.
i think this is more what he was tryin to convey...at least thats what i got out of it.
but it makes me wonder. what happens to the real christians? are they all killed or something? maybe brainwashed?
what a facinating, realistic, scary, so so interesting read alex.

please let me know where there is more to read.

[100% ILL]

but it makes me wonder. what happens to the real christians? are they all killed or something? maybe brainwashed?

Pick (http://www.sfdt.com/flash/movie-pages/movies/2465.html) one

[little j]

i think the bigger focus in this story is the corporationdriven society.
there is no music
there are no movies
there is nothing that isn't a commercial.
people are walking commercials.
oh and another thing.
the sheer laziness of the children.
my god.
even the unemployeds dont walk anywhere they all scooter.

[100% ILL]

i think the bigger focus in this story is the corporationdriven society.
there is no music
there are no movies
there is nothing that isn't a commercial.
people are walking commercials.
oh and another thing.
the sheer laziness of the children.
my god.
even the unemployeds dont walk anywhere they all scooter.

And to think it all started with the McDonald's drive thru and the X-Box.

[little j]

the story is very 1984ush with the telescreens and stuff. the darqueops and stuff. (could be because im also currently re-reading 1984)

[GreenEarthAl]

This book is my attempt at a dystopian novel, like 1984 or Brave New World and such. I had trouble keeping to the traditional pessemistic ending, but still...

Mostly though, as I said, this book is an attempt to explain who I am, what I believe and why I put so much energy into trying to prevent the things that I see as harmful to people.

I personally am not a practitioner of Christianity or a strong advocate of it, so I didn't feel obligated to write a rantingly pro-Christian book. But in my day to day struggles I do get a LOT of help from various religious people including deep believers in the message of Chrsit. I absolutely did feel an obligation to convey a sense of what has been so good and rewarding for me in working with those people. I do feel grateful for my Quaker roots (and Quakers are Christians) and so they are in there. And I have a good friend who works with PaxChristi and he works tirelessly within the Catholic Church and sometimes it seems like he's fighting an entire Catholic church that keeps telling him "Sorry, there's no room or time within the diocees to get bogged down with all of this concern for the poor and hungry of the world," so he is represented in a lot of ways by the lone surviving member of the Children of the Rose society.


The president of the 1WG is by no means supposed to be the Darth Vader of the story or anything like that. If anything, the story is meant to caution people that we are ALL participating in activities that are going to make the world suck. And I do believe that there are nefarious people who will use Christianity and Patriotism to recruit people into inaction while they do their deeds. So too do I believe that the Relations industry will work doubletime to make us feel that consumerism will fulfill our needs whil they work to see more and more of our real needs unfulfilled at the same time. Our schools and families will be gently pulled appart while our access to the strip mall will be easier than ever.

[bb_bboy]

I'm still in the first chapter, but I like how you segue between the stories of each individual. I think the passages read well spereately and as a cohesive piece of literature. I've had instances of the syntax feeling mechanical, but I don't think it is overwhelming.

At points I feel as though you've taken modern, somewhat tired societal cliches and simply put them in a setting 'X' number of years down the road and extrapolated a bit here and there. I think the character development is good thus far; however, I am afraid that they, along with their faults, will prove to be predictable. I am not yet far enough along to say that with any determination.

I like the pace in chapter one. It works well to introduce us to the characters and ideas you want to address. Does this crescendo and decrescendo throughout the story? I am just asking because while I like the pace at this point, I could see it taking its toll on my interest after a while. Perhaps I should read more before asking stupid questions ...

All in all I like it so far. I wish I had more time to read it right now. I am sometimes uncomfortable reading something that someone has written and is asking for commentary about because I sometimes feel like I am doing discredit to the expreience of reading it just to read it. I do look forward to reading more soon. And by the way, thanks for the hot girl on girl action.

[bb_bboy]

At points I feel as though you've taken modern, somewhat tired societal cliches and simply put them in a setting 'X' number of years down the road and extrapolated a bit here and there.

Follow up to my last message: just because they seem like cliches doesn't mean that I don't think the issues are relevant. I just wanted to make that clear.

[valvano]

I live in a city that has gone from one of the 30 largest cities in the U.S. to a city that's not even in the top 80. The unemployment rate here is double that of the national average. I've given manuscripts to some of the regular joes at my shitty job

1. why do you still live in this city if its gone down the toilet....why not move elsewhere?

2. if you job is as you say it is, why not get a new one? create your own business? do something different?

3. have you wondered why your city's economy suck? could it be the extremely high taxes in NY, the high level of unionism up there has killed your competive edge, or what? you can blame capitalism, bush, etc all you want, but at sometime you do have to look in the mirror?
:o

[EN[i]GMA]

I too have a question.

How did you get Nas to star in your book?

[GreenEarthAl]

valvano - I chose to continue to live in my city because it is where I have built strong relationships with friends and neighbors. I also am a proponent of the stay and fight strategy. I am one of those that feels that if every leftie just moves to the most socialist country they can find, eventually we will run out of places to hide. I think one can stand and make a reasonable fight anywhere. This book, for example, I can write living here, just as I could write it somewhere else.

I agree that Americans --and New Yorkers in particular-- are over taxed. That's part of what the book is about. Government spending that I object to will probably be the exact opposite of what government spending you object to but we'll both probably agree in our objections to how much the government spends. I'm guessing we would also probably both be happy to see things happen that increase tax revenues and decrease the tax burdens on individual citizens and especially as a percentage of their income, though, again, we'll probably differ wildly on the implementation of such.

I have, indeed, spent a lot of time analyzing why my region's economy suchs and come to, perhaps, different conclusions than you.

bb_boy - The book makes a concerted effort to introduce characters in an interesting way throughout. And reconnect with characters in a way that keeps the reader off balance and engaged. And most of the "main characters" don't get introduced for quite a while. I made a real effort not to have "one issue" characters, and not to have strict "good guys" and "bad guys". It is a book full of people, hopefully all of whom, the reader can understand who they are and why they behave the way they do.

Sexuality plays a big role in the book because I believe that sexuality is a major factor in human behavior. A part of the web of neurosis that we've errected over ourselves.

[bb_bboy]

You said errected. Hehe he.

[EN[i]GMA]

Alright, my literary critique of the first chapter:

To many characters to fast. You don't allow the setting to really sink in before adding all those characters. When Noura died at the end I didn't feel any emotion, I just went "Which one was Noura"?

I don't know how major these characters are going to be but this seems to be a short book so anything more than 4 or 5 big characters would be difficult read, at least I think.


And just to throw this out there, you would say humans are inherently good, correct?

[Señor Stino]

gea, do you think americans are overtaxed, because of the way the gov. spends that money,
(so if it would be spend in other sectors like healthcare and education, you wouldn't say american citizens are overtaxed)

or do you just think people shouldn't have to pay that much on income taxes, as a libertarian idea?

you told us that the book takes place in the near future, is this how you really see the near future,or is it more of a prophetic idea ?

and is it in any sense a critic on north american society, or has this nothing to do with it?

thanks if you'd answer my questions

[EN[i]GMA]

Obviously this is meant to be anti-capitalistic, but I feel you misrepresent capitalism by using it to mean mercantilism. They aren't the same thing.

[DroppinScience]

GEA,

You are the savior of this political board! You save us all from the bible-thumpers and the constant blog posts.

P.S. - I'll take a gander at what you wrote soon. Your stuff is always well thought out. (y)

[EN[i]GMA]

GEA,

You are the savior of this political board! You save us all from the bible-thumpers and the constant blog posts.

P.S. - I'll take a gander at what you wrote soon. Your stuff is always well thought out. (y)

I shall second that motion.

[phinkasaurus]

i have started your peice, and I love it. I am still in chapter one, but I wantt o find more of your writings. any more books? I also linked to the site in my blog. I will let you know more of my houghts once I finish.

[Qdrop]

halfway through chapter 3...

very depressing....but very enthralling.

thanks alot, Al....i'm not getting anything done at work today....

soon i shall be torn from the laboring class and relegated to the unemployed class......

but at least i'll have the manpower hour, right? ;)

[EN[i]GMA]

Strangely enough, this book reminds me of Atlas Shrugged.

Have you read that GEA?

[Qdrop]

ayn's novels were too fuckin long....

i prefered her shorter manifestos.......

i have alot of em...

[EN[i]GMA]

ayn's novels were too fuckin long....

i prefered her shorter manifestos.......

i have alot of em...

I have Anthem which I'll read here in a little while.

Atlas Shrugged was long, boring, repetitive but made some good points so it was worth it.

[Qdrop]

AL...i finished.
pretty fun read......again, very depressing.
guess that's the point.

soooo........do you truly envision this future?...at least on some level?

or is it really meant to be a modern day fable.....aiming at current trends and the dangers you think they hold?

[GreenEarthAl]

SCIENCE -=- Thanxs! (y)

Phink -=- Hey, double thanks. Have I met you before?

Enigma -=- I don't think the book mentions capitalism, socialism or communism much. I don't think there are any parts in the book where I specifically advocate for or against any of those. The book was already way too technical as it is. There are lots of places where the Establishment calls anybody at all on the left "communists", but that's pretty much the way it is. The book is an endictment of exploitation, and as the author I had the artistic license to detail specifically people being exploiters. Exploiters have shown up in every economic system we've tried so far and there a great many of them at the top of this pseudo capitalistic pyramid we have now. Since the book is intended to portray a continuation of current trends, it does tend to call itself capitalist and christian and compassionate, but it calls itself those things for the experess purpose of getting the people to be quiet and strengthen the system.

[GreenEarthAl]

QDrop -=- Thanks for reading. I wrote the book to explain why I rail against all of the things I rail against. So this book represents what I think will happen if I do nothing, and if I inspire no one else to do anything and if no one else inspires anyone else, etc. So I guess the best way to put it is that the book is the iceberg I see us heading for if we do not decide to change course.

At least we'll have the Manpower Hour.

[EN[i]GMA]

SCIENCE -=- Thanxs! (y)

Phink -=- Hey, double thanks. Have I met you before?

Enigma -=- I don't think the book mentions capitalism, socialism or communism much. I don't think there are any parts in the book where I specifically advocate for or against any of those. The book was already way too technical as it is. There are lots of places where the Establishment calls anybody at all on the left "communists", but that's pretty much the way it is. The book is an endictment of exploitation, and as the author I had the artistic license to detail specifically people being exploiters. Exploiters have shown up in every economic system we've tried so far and there a great many of them at the top of this pseudo capitalistic pyramid we have now. Since the book is intended to portray a continuation of current trends, it does tend to call itself capitalist and christian and compassionate, but it calls itself those things for the experess purpose of getting the people to be quiet and strengthen the system.

Sounds good.

I managed to finish it and I must say, it's depressing but very good none-the-less.

[GreenEarthAl]

Enigma2 -=- I've never read any Ayn. I've read a lot about her but haven't had the chance to read her actual work.


Señor Stino -=- I think Americans are over taxed relative to the rest of the world and relative to what portion of one's income it makes any logical sense to be taxed. I think much of that is because we have so much debt servicing to do to pay for money we've spent in the past. I think a lot of it is is for military welfare and such. But I think that it is by design. I think we overspend on purpose because it is an effective means of population control. The book explains that more later.

It is definitely a critique on western civilization (the civilization I happen to have grown up in and feel qualified to critique). I is set 40 years in the future. It deals with a lot of themes of North Americanism and Libertarianism and environmentalism and such.

Just because I think we're overtaxed doesn't mean I support the latest rounds of tax-cuts by any means. I think we are just shifting taxation and degraduating it. We have been rapidly doing that since the 1980s when we had a top tax bracket of 66+%. And we are not so much "tax"ing the poor as we are just clobbering them with fees and penalties and higher rates.

[GreenEarthAl]

Yay. I'm so enthused that several people read all four posted chapters. I posted another chapter for readers of this thread.

Chapter 5 (http://www.amprosoft.com/books/Relations/RelCh05.shtml)

And I put the chapter covers on the chapters so people can see sorta what the characters look like. Thanks for all this feedback. Peace & Love.

[EN[i]GMA]

I shall read Chapter 5 tommorow.

I must say, I liked your style. The disjointed narrative coupled with the character switching made it an interesting read.

And on the topic of Rand and more specifically, Atlas Shrugged, you need to read it. It's so very similair to yours but so different in that it isn't libertarianism that causes the problems, but socialism. It really goes to show the flaws in either extreme and the need for practicallity over rampant ideology.

Socialism and anarcho-capitalism but sound great on paper but in practice, they're shitholes.

[Señor Stino]

interesting GEA, also nice of you to post another chapter

anyway, I don't think high taxation is "bad" in definition, in , for example, the scandinavian countries, taxation burdens on people are even higher than in US, and it does not make those people unhappy, they know the money will be spend in a responsible way.

for some public expenses, there is just no one better to make them than the State, i believe

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']Socialism and anarcho-capitalism but sound great on paper but in practice, they're shitholes.

socialism is working great in many european countries.

capitalism looks like shit on paper and in real life, yet it's still the dominating system...

GEA: I don't think we've met, I don't know too many people in Buffalo. You ever been through Chicago?

[EN[i]GMA]

socialism is working great in many european countries.

capitalism looks like shit on paper and in real life, yet it's still the dominating system...

GEA: I don't think we've met, I don't know too many people in Buffalo. You ever been through Chicago?

Hilarious.

First of all, that's hardly socialism as they still use the free-market as a crutch to prevent their countries from falling into the pits of death that follow any attempts at collectivisation a la China, Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba and every other bastion socialism.

And how is capitalism failing?

[GreenEarthAl]

Libertarianism is not intended to be a 'cause' of problems in my book. Rather, it is one more tool that gets used to manipulate the well intentioned into doing the bidding of the system. The point of the book is that the system we live in is fundamentally flawed and it puts material objects and capital resources first and does not put a high priority on people or other living things.

The Libertarians in the book saw themselves as trying to help the world. The Establishment liked Libertarianism when it deregulated business, but didn't care for it when it sought to give individual citizens personal liberties.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']Hilarious.

yes it is...


GMA']First of all, that's hardly socialism as they still use the free-market as a crutch...

socialism by it's nature does not preclude the use of a "free market". there are differnet variations and levels of socialism. From the few state run entities, like health care, post office, education, or military; altway to fully state owned society, ala communism.
remember FDR's work programs that helped to pull the u.s. out of the depression? that's socialism while still retaining a free martket.


GMA']...to prevent their countries from falling into the pits of death that follow any attempts at collectivisation a la China, Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba and every other bastion socialism.

all of those countries have more or less severe dicatorships or oligarchies hidden under the mantle of socialism or communism. the sociast countries like england and holland, the scandinavian countires, all function well with varing degress of success.

side note: communism is belived (by communists mostly) to be the highest stage of socialism, not an alternate form of economic and sociatal order.


GMA']And how is capitalism failing?
meanwhile, on planet earth:
the largest and most advanced military ever on the planet involved in a war for oil and power, the planet is threatened by nuclear wars, terrorist attacks, massive pollution, there are countless homeless and unemployed, hungry and dieing people all over the world, whole continaets desvistated by international trade agreements and self seving diplomacy. all of this over profit and power. accumulation. the root of capitlaism.

all benifit from capitalism as a means of advancing society have long since been realized. it's time to move on.
how is capitalism succeeding?

[Rancid_Beasties]

Socialism, in its purest form, has often used free market capitalism to prop itself up ie in the New Economic Policy of Russia post WW1 peasants were allowed to trade and sell their own grain much like in a capitalist system. Socialism has no strict guidelines, it is the necessary step before communism can be put into place. It usually intales a controlling government that helps turn the inevitable opposition to communism into forced compliance. Like say Lenin, he created war communism in an attempt to strengthen the economy so that communism might work, and so he could wipe out his major opposition the peasant class. Once communism came in, the state was supposed to "wither away" (in the words of Lenin and Marx), but thanks to Stalin it only got stronger, and this was the case in all of the socialist countries

In any case communism would only work in a country with material abundance and so far none of the countries that have attempted communist revolutions have above 3rd world conditions prior to becoming socialist. In fact I would argue that all of those countries did benefit economically from socialism. Look at their economies before hand...Russia was bankrupt, china, cambodia and vietnam were largely peasant communities with no heavy industries.

I get a bit peeved when people write off communism as a philosophy simply because they dont have a grasp of definitions.

[phinkasaurus]

I get a bit peeved when people write off communism as a philosophy simply because they dont have a grasp of definitions.


me too...

[100% ILL]

Why live in a capitalist country when you prefer socialism?

[Qdrop]

Why live in a capitalist country when you prefer socialism?


cause they enjoy all the materials and freedoms that capitalism has provided for them personally.
how ironic... ;)

[phinkasaurus]

cause I do not have the money (thanks, capitalism) or the means (thanks again) to get out yet. when I do, you can bet your sweet ass i'll be out of this hypocritical, gas guzzling, militant, bigoted country.

if you can pay my plane ticket and get me a job and a room, I'll bounce today.

[100% ILL]

cause I do not have the money (thanks, capitalism) or the means (thanks again) to get out yet. when I do, you can bet your sweet ass i'll be out of this hypocritical, gas guzzling, militant, bigoted country.

if you can pay my plane ticket and get me a job and a room, I'll bounce today.

Ha ha ha! Yeah right.

[Qdrop]

if you can pay my plane ticket and get me a job and a room, I'll bounce today.

now THAT'S socialism!
:D

[EN[i]GMA]

yes it is...

This is just to much, it really is.




socialism by it's nature does not preclude the use of a "free market". there are differnet variations and levels of socialism. From the few state run entities, like health care, post office, education, or military; altway to fully state owned society, ala communism.
remember FDR's work programs that helped to pull the u.s. out of the depression? that's socialism while still retaining a free martket.

Aside from health care, education, military, transportation, "vital industries", post office and essential services, what is there left?

Let me type this up for you:

Unemployment Rate 1929-1940

1929 3.2
1930 8.7
1931 15.9
1932 23.6
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2
1940 14.6

Oh thank you FDR, you managed to make our unemployment not-better! How ever can we repay you! Taxes you say?

GNP Per Capita

1929 $857
1930 772
1931 721
1932 611
1933 590
1934 639
1935 718
1936 787
1937 846
1938 794
1939 847
1940 916

How helpful of him. It only took the largest war in history a third of our nations youth being drafted to help pick up the economy. The New Deal was great! Espescially that that second recession caused by it in 1938!

Personal Consumption Expenditures

1929 $78.8
1930 70.9
1931 61.3
1932 49.3
1933 46.4
1934 51.9
1935 56.3
1936 62.6
1937 67.3
1938 64.6
1939 67.6
1940 71.9

How did FDR bring us out of the great depression if he never brought personal expenditure levels up to a pre-Great Depression level?

Answer: He didn't.


The New Deal is the biggest waste of money in this nations history. It did nothing for this country but increase our government to Herculean proportions, destroy the Constitution and ruin the free market.

Keynesian economics are bullshit. The government cannot spend it's way out of a depression.

Listen, FDR had to deal with overproduction from the farmers who were a signifcant voting bloc. He instituted price controls on their food, raising prices to keep farmers in business. Since farmers were paid so much, they grew even more food, causing the surplus to worsen (And showing the government's inability to deal with economics). To deal with this surplus and undercutting of the government's ludicrious price controls, the government started paying farmers not to grow food. This caused rampant unemployment for sharecroppers and caused a food shortage, as not enough food was being produced to feed the populous and excess food WAS BEING DESTROYED TO MAINTAIN THE ALREADY MOUNTAIN HIGH PRICE CONTROLS.

During the worst fit of starvation in our nations history, the government raised food prices and burned crops. And you think this helped?

And the New Deal expenditures were used not to help, but to pad the pockets of voters. In the Western states, the states least affected, the most money was diverted. The south, in which the depression was the worst, got less money because they were already solid Democratic voters. How magnanmious of him.

All FDR did was cartelize the economy and than restrict output. He raised the minimum wage, which destroyed jobs and caused unemployment, he institued higher prices to pay for these higher wages which decreased consumer demand and in turn decreased profits and caused MORE unemployment.

The jobs he created weren't magically created, they were taken from the free market, destroyed by government intervention.

And God forbid if you do something illegal like make more clothes than the government says your textile factory is allowed, regardless of whether or not your starving to death due to the food price controls, because if you do, the government will send their agents after you.

A tailor was jailed, convicted and improsed for making a suit of clothes for 35 cents when the price control was 40.

Do I really need to go on?

Read this book and your perspective will change:

How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo



all of those countries have more or less severe dicatorships or oligarchies hidden under the mantle of socialism or communism. the sociast countries like england and holland, the scandinavian countires, all function well with varing degress of success.


side note: communism is belived (by communists mostly) to be the highest stage of socialism, not an alternate form of economic and sociatal order.

A communist is a socialist with a gun, as the saying goes.



meanwhile, on planet earth:
the largest and most advanced military ever on the planet involved in a war for oil and power, the planet is threatened by nuclear wars, terrorist attacks, massive pollution, there are countless homeless and unemployed, hungry and dieing people all over the world, whole continaets desvistated by international trade agreements and self seving diplomacy. all of this over profit and power. accumulation. the root of capitlaism.

all benifit from capitalism as a means of advancing society have long since been realized. it's time to move on.
how is capitalism succeeding?

The military has nothing to do with capitalism as it's a government institution.

The Manhatten Project created nuclear weapons, not the free market.

Terrorism has nothing to do with capitalism, as a matter of fact, they destoyed the World Trade center, possibly the most "capitalistic" building imaginable.

Starving and unemployed? Like the 6 million Ukranians starved by Stalin's collectivisation of the farms? When it comes to starvation, collectivism reigns supreme. True there's no unemployment in socialistic society, because you either work or die. If you live in a "good" socialist country, they'll take care of your lazy ass with free food and housing. Eventually enough people realize this until the economy fails. Wait a few years, you'll see what I mean.

Internation Trade Agreements are decidedly MERCANTALIST and therefore, uncapitalist. Capitalism has nothing to do with using the government to do your work with it's guns, that's mercantilism. Perhaps we have a common enemy in that.

Diplomacy has nothing to do with capitalism. The government should stay as far away from business as possible.

It's time to move on, so says you, living in your capitalist paradise while the collectivist masses starve to death under fascistic rulers needed under collectivism, that, through some miracle will melt away into the perfect utopia somewhere down the line, hopefully before killing everyone.

Yes, your society sounds great. Sign me up.

[EN[i]GMA]

Socialism, in its purest form, has often used free market capitalism to prop itself up ie in the New Economic Policy of Russia post WW1 peasants were allowed to trade and sell their own grain much like in a capitalist system. Socialism has no strict guidelines, it is the necessary step before communism can be put into place. It usually intales a controlling government that helps turn the inevitable opposition to communism into forced compliance. Like say Lenin, he created war communism in an attempt to strengthen the economy so that communism might work, and so he could wipe out his major opposition the peasant class. Once communism came in, the state was supposed to "wither away" (in the words of Lenin and Marx), but thanks to Stalin it only got stronger, and this was the case in all of the socialist countries

In any case communism would only work in a country with material abundance and so far none of the countries that have attempted communist revolutions have above 3rd world conditions prior to becoming socialist. In fact I would argue that all of those countries did benefit economically from socialism. Look at their economies before hand...Russia was bankrupt, china, cambodia and vietnam were largely peasant communities with no heavy industries.

I get a bit peeved when people write off communism as a philosophy simply because they dont have a grasp of definitions.


Oh yes, the problem isn't that every single country that's attempted collectivisation has turned into a despotic hellhole, it's that people didn't do it right.

It's only cost 100 million lives, let's give it another try! Maybe this time we'll get that magic form of socialism that doesn't result in mass murder. Right?

Ah yes, the magical "They weren't industrialized enough" argument. The problem is, the industrialized country has any need to become communistic as capitalism has industrialized their country and allowed them to live in a relative paradise.

It is the very definition of insane to do the same thing over and and over again and expect different results yet you want more socialism when all it's caused is death.

And you think you're so humanitarian.

[EN[i]GMA]

cause I do not have the money (thanks, capitalism) or the means (thanks again) to get out yet. when I do, you can bet your sweet ass i'll be out of this hypocritical, gas guzzling, militant, bigoted country.

if you can pay my plane ticket and get me a job and a room, I'll bounce today.


Hilarious. It's capitalisms fault that you're to lazy to get a job or to stupid to save your money.

Walk your ass to Canada, it isn't that far.

[EN[i]GMA]

now THAT'S socialism!
:D

He thinks he found irony in that post.

I thought it was a laugh riot.

[Qdrop]

GMA']He thinks he found irony in that post.

I thought it was a laugh riot.

i THINK i found irony?:o

[EN[i]GMA]

i THINK i found irony?:o

You knew what I meant.


:)

[phinkasaurus]

thanks for calling me lazy. you have no idea what i do and how much work or energy i expend.
i'd like to save moiney, but like most of the "middle class", i can't save money because all my income goes to my bills.

and i can't just stop earning that meager income and walk to canada. it's considerbly farther than that. not that I don't walk. cause I do. I don't own a car, and I live in chicago because of it's excellant public transpo.

also, stalin's russia was the begining of a departure from marxist thought and a direct capitulation to capital, continued all the way through the collapse of "soviet" russia. same with china after (during late) Mao, Cuba from the beginning. if you want to see real communist/socialist transformation look at Nepal and Peru right now, true peoples' wars.

and if WWII brought us out of the depression, nothing to do with FDR's programs, then perhaps war is the best thing for a struggling economy? It would seem the current adminsitration would agree with you.

and diplomacy (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=diplomacy&x=13&y=9) is the means of interaction between two states, i.e. governments, and as such will always be a part of govenrment. until we have only one state that is.

I see exploitation inherent in a capatalist free market. I am guessing you do not.
according to the "free market", if your product or service is better it wins out, right? but waht about the MEGA CORPARATIONS of today? they have more money and power than a little mom/pop operation, so they can influence consumption or visibilaty in the market. so the better product becomes the one you can see more of or consume more regularly.
EX: McDonalds. The #1 producer of fast food hamburgers. Are they best hambirgers in the market? I think most would say no. IMO, think the diner down the way from my house, with it's grilled home made burgers are much better. Do they have the largest share of the free market? Have you heard of Lorraines? So how does the free market rationalize that? They spend more on advertising so their product is better?

the free market is not beholdent to quality of labour or product. it is ruled by money and the trade of money between parts of the market. therefore, quality of product will always suffer.

and to head of your rebuttale:
yes, quality of product was horrible in a lot of russia's history. I do not hold russia up as a model of socialist success. nor china, nor any country to go through the revoutionary process. they all attempted, made great advances, and eventually succombed to world capitalist pressure. I don't think that means it can't happen. it'll be difficult and tough and will take a shift in the way people think, fundamentally, about their relation and responsibiltiy to their fellow man.

i hope humanity can make that shift.
so I will sign you up for my new world, because I want you to be with us, when a world filled with repect and tolerance exists.


**not spellchecked out of respect for the reader's intellegence**

[EN[i]GMA]

thanks for calling me lazy. you have no idea what i do and how much work or energy i expend.
i'd like to save moiney, but like most of the "middle class", i can't save money because all my income goes to my bills.


and i can't just stop earning that meager income and walk to canada. it's considerbly farther than that. not that I don't walk. cause I do. I don't own a car, and I live in chicago because of it's excellant public transpo.

I just found it interesting that you would blame the system.


also, stalin's russia was the begining of a departure from marxist thought and a direct capitulation to capital, continued all the way through the collapse of "soviet" russia. same with china after (during late) Mao, Cuba from the beginning. if you want to see real communist/socialist transformation look at Nepal and Peru right now, true peoples' wars.

So Lenin's mass murders WERE part of Marxist thought? And I don't know enough about Nepal or Peru to comment.


and if WWII brought us out of the depression, nothing to do with FDR's programs, then perhaps war is the best thing for a struggling economy? It would seem the current adminsitration would agree with you.

WW2 didn't so much bring us out of it as cover it up. What brought us out of it was the return to free market capitalism after the war. It was officially over in 1947, 2 years after WW2.


and
diplomacy (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=diplomacy&x=13&y=9) is the means of interaction between two states, i.e. governments, and as such will always be a part of govenrment. until we have only one state that is.

A company isn't a state.


I see exploitation inherent in a capatalist free market. I am guessing you do not.
according to the "free market", if your product or service is better it wins out, right? but waht about the MEGA CORPARATIONS of today? they have more money and power than a little mom/pop operation, so they can influence consumption or visibilaty in the market. so the better product becomes the one you can see more of or consume more regularly.
EX: McDonalds. The #1 producer of fast food hamburgers. Are they best hambirgers in the market? I think most would say no. IMO, think the diner down the way from my house, with it's grilled home made burgers are much better. Do they have the largest share of the free market? Have you heard of Lorraines? So how does the free market rationalize that? They spend more on advertising so their product is better?

It doesn't matter the slightest fraction of a bit what is better. Betamax was better than VHS and you see what happend there.

What matters is what people buy. In a capitalistic society you vote with your dollars. It isn't McDonald's fault they are successful, it's the fault of everyone who buys food there. Your problem should be with the consumer, not the company.

And "best" is to subjectice to define.



No it won't. Great products quite often do better than poor ones.

[quote]
and to head of your rebuttale:
yes, quality of product was horrible in a lot of russia's history. I do not hold russia up as a model of socialist success. nor china, nor any country to go through the revoutionary process. they all attempted, made great advances, and eventually succombed to world capitalist pressure. I don't think that means it can't happen. it'll be difficult and tough and will take a shift in the way people think, fundamentally, about their relation and responsibiltiy to their fellow man.

So it requires humans to change. That's like me saying capitalism will have abosolutely no flaws if everyone just changed. And it's true. You can't say that x will work if people change. ANYTHING will work if people change. Serfdom would work fine if the masters were nice and the serfs were obediant but you don't hear any proponents of serfdom.


hope humanity can make that shift.
so I will sign you up for my new world, because I want you to be with us, when a world filled with repect and tolerance exists.

No thanks. Capitalism is working fine enough to suit me.

And stick with your job, you'll get a raise.

[Qdrop]

GMA']
It doesn't matter the slightest fraction of a bit what is better.

well, supposedly in a pure free market....the best quality product should rise above it's competition.

but in most cases....it is the one that best marketed to the public.


What matters is what people buy. In a capitalistic society you vote with your dollars. It isn't McDonald's fault they are successful, it's the fault of everyone who buys food there. Your problem should be with the consumer, not the company.


good point.
and i think it is the stupid consumers fault for not seeing through advertising for the propaganda that it is ....or for being more skeptical.


No it won't. Great products quite often do better than poor ones.

wait....your contradicting yourself now.
what about your VHS -Betamax comment above?



So it requires humans to change. That's like me saying capitalism will have abosolutely no flaws if everyone just changed. And it's true. You can't say that x will work if people change. ANYTHING will work if people change. Serfdom would work fine if the masters were nice and the serfs were obediant but you don't hear any proponents of serfdom.


an excellant point.

[GreenEarthAl]

Enigma has turned into the new freetibet while I was gone?

On the whole I tend to agree with phinkosaurus on a lot. And find myself in much the same condition. That being working full time and having all of my money going to bills, hoping to never get sick and run up any more medical bills.

It would be nice if it were a simple as moving to a socialist country, but they have a way of being systematically destroyed by the Establishment. No example of any alternative is permitted to exist. In South America they get School of the Americas (WHISC) treatment. In many other nations they are attacked with the Bretton Woods organizations.

I think its nice that Enigma has gone off on a quest to open his mind with the works of ye 'olde' conservatives and become the most rabbid free marketter ever. If you get a chance to read Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins I would recommend that. I'd appreciate hearing your opinion of it.

[EN[i]GMA]

Enigma has turned into the new freetibet while I was gone?

On the whole I tend to agree with phinkosaurus on a lot. And find myself in much the same condition. That being working full time and having all of my money going to bills, hoping to never get sick and run up any more medical bills.

It would be nice if it were a simple as moving to a socialist country, but they have a way of being systematically destroyed by the Establishment. No example of any alternative is permitted to exist. In South America they get School of the Americas (WHISC) treatment. In many other nations they are attacked with the Bretton Woods organizations.

I think its nic that Enigma has gone off on a quest to open his mind with the works of ye 'olde' conservatives and become the most rabbid free marketter ever. If you get a chance to read Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins I would recommend that. I'd appreciate hearing your opinion of it.


I'll be sure to check it out as I respect your opinion very much.

Seriously though, check out How Capitalism Saved America, it's a very good read whereas most conomics books are as dense as a forest.

And I wouldn't say I'm the most rabid free marketer ever. Those on the libertarian side think I'm to far left.

Ain't obscure political thought and economic terminolgy grand?

[EN[i]GMA]

well, supposedly in a pure free market....the best quality product should rise above it's competition.

but in most cases....it is the one that best marketed to the public.


Should being the key word. But as was pointed out by phink, it doesn't always happen.


good point.
and i think it is the stupid consumers fault for not seeing through advertising for the propaganda that it is ....or for being more skeptical.

It is. But they deserve the freedom to choose and even make the wrong decision.



wait....your contradicting yourself now.
what about your VHS -Betamax comment above?


No. Great products often do do better than poor ones. Coke outsells RC cola. But other time's they don't. Maybe RC Cola is better than Coke. It's really very subjective. Until we can definitively know what's "better" what's best is what the market chooses, even it's inferior in many respects.


an excellant point.

It's the truth. You can't expect people to change.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']It's the truth. You can't expect people to change.
i do expect society to evolve.
evovle past having to accumulate money and materials, having to be better than my neighbor at the expense of my neighbor.
is this unreasonable?

[EN[i]GMA]

i do expect society to evolve.
evovle past having to accumulate money and materials, having to be better than my neighbor at the expense of my neighbor.
is this unreasonable?

I really don't know.

[GreenEarthAl]

Okay. So... in terms of getting back to discussing the book.

Xu & Zhao Ning Xiang & Rou Ring Chen, the people who live on the boat in the Pacific. Does their existence seem plausible or possible? They are heirachical but in other ways they are closer to anarchy. (They're at the end of Chapter 2 and in Chapter 5) Could their way of life work? Only in fiction? Only on a small scale?


People like Sharon Shafer and Liz Cohen who believe that the wealthy and well educated are intended to do the thinking for everyone else; are they right? Considering they and people like them have gotten their way in the world, is the world better off? Is the author *ahem* just deliberately negative about what would happen if their ideas are put into place or is the story a reasonable extrapolation of the path that corporate greed has us on?

[EN[i]GMA]

Okay. So... in terms of getting back to discussing the book.

Xu & Zhao Ning Xiang & Rou Ring Chen, the people who live on the boat in the Pacific. Does their existence seem plausible or possible? They are heirachical but in other ways they are closer to anarchy. (They're at the end of Chapter 2 and in Chapter 5) Could their way of life work? Only in fiction? Only on a small scale?


People like Sharon Shafer and Liz Cohen who believe that the wealthy and well educated are intended to do the thinking for everyone else; are they right? Considering they and people like them have gotten their way in the world, is the world better off? Is the author *ahem* just deliberately negative about what would happen if their ideas are put into place or is the story a reasonable extrapolation of the path that corporate greed has us on?


I do think the boat is plausable, not likely, but it could happen. It really just takes the whole "Anarchy would rule if" thing down to a managable level.

I'm not so certain the book is a reasonable extrapolation because, even IF that sort of thing is the goal of business, it's actual application in society would be far more difficult than as you desribe. People are mostly lemmings, but if you do something to piss them off, that lemming mentality turns against you.

[Rancid_Beasties]

So lets see what i've missed whilst I was sleeping and all of you were yelling at each other :D Firstly, my country has a decent system of social welfare: public healthcare and housing, welfare payments etc etc
GMA']Oh yes, the problem isn't that every single country that's attempted collectivisation has turned into a despotic hellhole, it's that people didn't do it right.

It's only cost 100 million lives, let's give it another try! Maybe this time we'll get that magic form of socialism that doesn't result in mass murder. Right?

That is a problem, but it is not a problem that is caused by socialism. It is caused by the nature of human beings, that when one person assumes power for an entire country they think they can do anything they want, they devalue basic human life ie Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Milošević, Mao.

Maybe next time a socialist revolution comes around it could be in a manner where there are two opposing socialist governments that both survive, or a system of checks and balances that prevent despotism. Or maybe you could find a leader that wasn't fucked in the head...Lenin wanted revenge for the death of his brother, and for his own treatment as a socialist and was temperamental to say the least. Stalin and Mao were just nutters.

GMA']
Ah yes, the magical "They weren't industrialized enough" argument. The problem is, the industrialized country has any need to become communistic as capitalism has industrialized their country and allowed them to live in a relative paradise.

It is the very definition of insane to do the same thing over and and over again and expect different results yet you want more socialism when all it's caused is death.

Here it comes back to the point that humans are inherently selfish. People who benefit from a capitalist system will not complain about it, whilst they deprive those who are exploited by the system of a proper education. As such they are unable to see there are alternatives. This is further enhanced by the scare tactics and demonising of the socialist/communist school of thought. How are the exploited masses supposed to make their voices heard...well i guess its a good thing that some of us give a damn about them instead of burying our heads in the sand, or rather in the comforts of our own opulent lifestyle.

And Al, I totally agree that the world you describe in the book is possible. In fact its happened before in facist states and America appears to be heading that way so who knows. I dont think thats the major problem though..I think this world should stop considering themselves individual hostile countries and realise that we are all part of one global community...the pollution one country emits will effect everyone, terrorist acts in the US will hit not only US targets, but also arabs, europeans and many people sympathetic to the cause of the middle eastern countries. If we live comfortably, you can bet that somewhere else in the world somebody is starving, every extra dollar we make we are taking straight out of the pockets of third world nations already impoverished. Or we're destroying the environment, either way we should feel guilty just living in a capitalist society.

[GreenEarthAl]

hey Al,
when are we gonna see chapter 6+ ?

huh huh!!???

here t'is...
http://www.amprosoft.com/books/Relations/RelCh06.shtml

[nines]

Hey Alex i just found this thread. Another book? You're on FIRE! ;)
I just started Ch.1. I shall continue later. Gotta go to work.
xoxo

[phinkasaurus]

Green!
What happened to the link? I finished Ch.4 and now I can't keep going!
C'mon! I am jonesin'...

[GreenEarthAl]

Sorry. Complications due to chronic poverty.

It should be back now.