Four more years!

[GreatUrduPoet]

The notion that everyone has an equal chance of success in a capitalist society is ludicrous. The capitalist system works to create wealth through the exploitation of surplus value.  A worker creates more goods than he could possibly need, and the excess is sold on the market.  In this sense, the working class will continue to be at a disadvantage because the value of their labor will go straight to the top. That is an inequality that is built into the capitalist model and it is the reason why in capitalist countries with less government protection, you find a much larger gap between the wealthy and the poor because the system is built to create that gap.

Doesn't the value of a workers labor go directly to him in the form of a paycheck by which he is compensated exactly the amount his labor his worth?

Had to respond quickly so some of this is a repeat:

Labourers don’t get paid for their work. They are paid for their labour time. In a capitalist system, a worker sells their labor to an owner who buys their labor from them at the lowest possible price so that they can make the highest amount of profit (I suppose this how "the amount his labor is worth" is determined) and the only people who are in a legitimate position to decide the terms of this relationship are the owners/shareholders, while the laborer gets absolutely no say, despite the fact that the owner is appropriating the product of their labor and selling it on the market for their own personal profit. This is textbook exploitation. There are ways to make this less exploitative - so, for instance, there might be mechanisms put in place where labor has some kind of bargaining power (i.e. unions). This allows labor to play some role in deciding the terms of the relationship but whatever they get (pensions, vacations, etc.) the relationship will always be a shameful, exploitative, and altogether barbaric one, as long as labor does not get to profit off their own work.

Sheesh...this Marxism thing sure is tiring! That's probably why only the very young and the politically immature have the energy for it.

[SMiLE Brian]

Stop throwing insults at rockandroll, and debate his ideas with substance for once.

[GreatUrduPoet]

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

Yeah? Which of the Nixon-founded Agencies do you work for? The EPA or the DEA? Real domestic policy savants.

Those agencies are needed to combat pollution and drug/gun crimes.

They're doing such a great job of it. Just ask small organic farm owners, Mexican border town residents or Brian Terry's parents.

[SMiLE Brian]

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

Yeah? Which of the Nixon-founded Agencies do you work for? The EPA or the DEA? Real domestic policy savants.

Those agencies are needed to combat pollution and drug/gun crimes.

They're doing such a great job of it. Just ask small organic farm owners, Mexican border town residents or Brian Terry's parents.

Would you feel better without them with the cartel having free reign in the southwest US? These cartels are so powerful as "shadow nations" in mexico that the US government has to fight them to ensure "the general welfare" of the people as layed out in the preamble of the Constitution.

[GreatUrduPoet]

Stop throwing insults at rockandroll, and debate his ideas with substance for once.

Or you'll do what? The Marxist/Capitalist debate ended in 1989. The Socialists can never win when the people are informed and motivated.
Hence the last election here...where a fraud was given a second term by the citizens of "The People's Republic Of Honey Boo-Boo-istan".

[GreatUrduPoet]

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

Yeah? Which of the Nixon-founded Agencies do you work for? The EPA or the DEA? Real domestic policy savants.

Those agencies are needed to combat pollution and drug/gun crimes.

They're doing such a great job of it. Just ask small organic farm owners, Mexican border town residents or Brian Terry's parents.

Would you feel better without them with the cartel having free reign in the southwest US? These cartels are so powerful as "shadow nations" in mexico that the US government has to fight them to ensure "the general welfare" of the people as layed out in the preamble of the Constitution.

I'd feel better if the Justice Dept./ATF/DEA hadn't provided the weapons to the drug cartels TO shoot up the Southwest US with.

[SMiLE Brian]

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

Yeah? Which of the Nixon-founded Agencies do you work for? The EPA or the DEA? Real domestic policy savants.

Those agencies are needed to combat pollution and drug/gun crimes.

They're doing such a great job of it. Just ask small organic farm owners, Mexican border town residents or Brian Terry's parents.

Would you feel better without them with the cartel having free reign in the southwest US? These cartels are so powerful as "shadow nations" in mexico that the US government has to fight them to ensure "the general welfare" of the people as layed out in the preamble of the Constitution.

I'd feel better if the Justice Dept./ATF/DEA hadn't provided the weapons to the drug cartels TO shoot up the Southwest US with.

That program had a good purpose on paper, sell marked guns to cartels to eventually trace them later. The cartels would be caught with the marked guns and thrown in jail. The program was really to show the problem with gun smuggling from gun shops in the southwest. It is honestly more shameful for american citizens to sell guns to gangs for cheap cash than the government trying a novel program to stop the violence and save lives.

[SMiLE Brian]

Stop throwing insults at rockandroll, and debate his ideas with substance for once.

Or you'll do what?

Debate you....

[Bean Bag]

I'd feel better if the Justice Dept./ATF/DEA hadn't provided the weapons to the drug cartels TO shoot up the Southwest US with.

That program had a good purpose on paper, sell marked guns to cartels to eventually trace them later. The cartels would be caught with the marked guns and thrown in jail. The program was really to show the problem with gun smuggling from gun shops in the southwest. It is honestly more shameful for american citizens to sell guns to gangs for cheap cash than the government trying a novel program to stop the violence and save lives.

Different program SMiLE Brian.  You're referring to George W's plan.  Yes, it was "noble" in spirit, but it didn't work -- so the Bush Administration ended it.  The obama team however, reinstated the program -- but, get this -- without the "marking" or tracing aspect.  That key aspect was conspicuously REMOVED from the program.

Now... that's some crazy sh-t right there folks.  Evil.

[SMiLE Brian]

I'd feel better if the Justice Dept./ATF/DEA hadn't provided the weapons to the drug cartels TO shoot up the Southwest US with.

That program had a good purpose on paper, sell marked guns to cartels to eventually trace them later. The cartels would be caught with the marked guns and thrown in jail. The program was really to show the problem with gun smuggling from gun shops in the southwest. It is honestly more shameful for american citizens to sell guns to gangs for cheap cash than the government trying a novel program to stop the violence and save lives.

Different program SMiLE Brian.  You're referring to George W's plan.  Yes, it was "noble" in spirit, but it didn't work -- so the Bush Administration ended it.  The obama team however, reinstated the program -- but, get this -- without the "marking" or tracing aspect.  That key aspect was conspicuously REMOVED from the program.

Now... that's some crazy sh-t right there folks.  Evil.

What I read was the guns were allowed to go to mexico instead of arresting the gun smugglers  in an attempt to build a stronger case. The guns were traced from the dealers, so the "unmarked" guns were already on record.

[Bean Bag]

I'd feel better if the Justice Dept./ATF/DEA hadn't provided the weapons to the drug cartels TO shoot up the Southwest US with.

That program had a good purpose on paper, sell marked guns to cartels to eventually trace them later. The cartels would be caught with the marked guns and thrown in jail. The program was really to show the problem with gun smuggling from gun shops in the southwest. It is honestly more shameful for american citizens to sell guns to gangs for cheap cash than the government trying a novel program to stop the violence and save lives.

Different program SMiLE Brian.  You're referring to George W's plan.  Yes, it was "noble" in spirit, but it didn't work -- so the Bush Administration ended it.  The obama team however, reinstated the program -- but, get this -- without the "marking" or tracing aspect.  That key aspect was conspicuously REMOVED from the program.

Now... that's some crazy sh-t right there folks.  Evil.

What I read was the guns were allowed to go to mexico instead of arresting the gun smugglers  in an attempt to build a stronger case. The guns were traced from the dealers, so the "unmarked" guns were already on record.

In an attempt to implicate the dealers?  That's what a lot of people are thinking.  We may never get to the bottom of this.  Obama evoked "executive privilege."  Understandable that he did.  Many believe this program was reinstated and altered as I stated to create a national narrative on "how easy is to get guns here in America, and then have them wind up in Mexican drug cartels."

And the media was poised, pen-in-hand to carry that ball over the goal line... But, it kind of blew up.  And Obama and Holder are pinching their buttcheeks tightly -- "nothing to see here.  move along."

Evil and smarmy.  What kind of people think like this?

[SMiLE Brian]

There should be a debate on firearms laws if straw purchases of heavy assault weapons are so common in the South Western US. Either the guns need to be banned or the laws tightened to prevent the cartels' massive campaigns of using people to buy firearms in massive quantities from gun stores.

[Bean Bag]

Ultimately that was the aim of the Administration.  To "get a debate going."  Really, to force a ban.  There's no debating with liberals.  They play for keeps.  The plan was to shut down the gun shows.

In other words, "lets stock the pool with sharks, spread some chum... and then get that swimming ban we wanted."

[SMiLE Brian]

Nutjobs with assault weapons also play for keeps every time.

[Bean Bag]

Nutjobs with assault weapons also play for keeps every time.

Which is why Obama armed them.  He's too is a nutjob.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Or you'll do what? The Marxist/Capitalist debate ended in 1989. The Socialists can never win when the people are informed and motivated.

I wanted to respond to this more for other posters than GreatUrduPoet who I don’t believe particularly cares to have a reasonable debate but since he does appear to value that notion that people should be informed, it only makes sense that I should clear a few things up here. I suppose the central argument that Poet makes here  when he notes that “The Marxist/Capitalist debate ended in 1989” is that the essential failure of the Soviet Union which was probably understood most dramatically in the United States when the wall fell signified the essential failure of socialism as a system and the clear superiority of capitalism.

The argument while a cliché now bears some investigation because, after all, what you discover when you investigate the matter is that it is built on nothing more than fanciful historical revisionism that has mostly been concocted by the major indoctrination systems of our time. First off, the notion that the Soviet Union was Marxist at all is an entirely false one. Remember that Marx articulates his particular economic system in chapter two of The Communist Manifesto as one that has no political power. And indeed, this position was represented in Russia in the years leading up to the revolution – most notably represented by figures such as Antonie Pannekoek, Emma Goldman and others who essentially pushed for the Marxist position, namely a relatively powerless society that was organized in terms of worker’s councils and trade unions.

By 1909, Lenin and Alexander had these members expelled from the Bolsheviks deeming it too left wing and from that point forward essentially ran the Bolshevik movement as a right wing version of communism, much to the dismay of the traditionalists. You see, ultimately when GreatUrduPoet notes that “only the very young and the politically immature have the energy for” Marxism, he unwittingly draws a crucial comparison – namely between himself and the leaders of the communist Russian revolution who happened to entirely agree with this point. So about a year after the Russian Revolution takes place, the traditional Marxists immediately objected to Lenin’s control noting correctly that Lenin did not represent a Marxist position. After all, socialism if it was anything, was workers in control over the means of production without any interference and there was none of that occurring whatsoever in Russia nor were there any plans for it to occur and more over, Lenin’s purposeful destruction of the factory councils as soon as he entered power, reaffirmed his opposition to Marxist socialism in practice. Lenin responded to the criticisms by publishing a book of his own writings called Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder and in that book he essentially criticizes Marxism and socialism, targeting the central figures in particular such as Pannekoek and Sylvia Pankhurst for their Marxist beliefs. So again, GreatUrduPoet and the leaders of the Russian communist movement are in total agreement about Marxism.

Within a few years Lenin was outright calling the economic system what it was – state capitalism. He stated that state capitalism was "one of the principal aspects" of the New Economic Policy of the Soviet Union. By that time Lenin had enough power that he could afford to be honest. The ultimate failure of the Soviet project was not a failure of Marxism. It was never Marxism nor was it intended to be – the leaders of the movement hated Marxism, hated the Marxists, attacked them in print and outright opposed in practice the very tenets that Marx suggests. The fact that it was more of a capitalist system suggests that it was a loss for capitalism.

Nor was it a victory for capitalism in the sense that the United States happened to be on “the winning side” in this scenario. There’s never been a genuinely capitalist system in the United States, whether you are looking at the largely interventionist and protectionist policies of Alexander Hamilton or the major advancements of both the 19th and 20th century: the railroads, the automotive industry, aviation, weapons, computers, satellites, which were all largely created as a result of public investment, rather than private industry.

So to suggest that the “Marxist/Capitalist debate ended in 1989” is nothing short of pure fantasy, mostly perpetuated by indoctrination systems. Take for example, why the Soviet Union was widely understood as a Marxist/socialist nation when it so clearly was not. Well, the reason why is because it benefited the two most powerful, elite institutions in the world for people to believe in such a myth. It was important for the Soviet Union to perpetuate the myth that they were a socialist state because it made the Russian people falsely believe that even as they were living in a total hellhole that they were in a system that was largely working for their benefit. And simultaneously, it was important for the United States to perpetuate the myth that Russia was a socialist system because genuine socialism represents a legitimate threat to the wealthy elite who essentially run the country and therefore it was essential to concoct a negative model that could be called socialist. When the two great indoctrination systems (US and Soviets) were pushing the same lie, it is no surprise that so many people should believe the myth while being blinded to both the historical and documentary record that so easily undermines it.

Ultimately I do agree with GreatUrduPoet on a central point here and that is that wonderful things can happen when people are informed.

[Bean Bag]

I'm no fan of Alex Jones, but I love the Obamaphone Lady!
http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-wakes-up-obama-phone-lady/

It's settled, this really is the twilight zone.  The two of them sitting down -- crazy!  Is this some kind of joke, the whole world's in on it... 'cept me?

Apparently she thinks Obama won't even finish out his second term.  Wha???  Hey, don't scoff.  Remember -- she picked the winner and she said "Romney sucks."

[Mike's Beard]

Alex Jones sounds like Ned out of South Park.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Or you'll do what? The Marxist/Capitalist debate ended in 1989. The Socialists can never win when the people are informed and motivated.

I wanted to respond to this more for other posters than GreatUrduPoet who I don’t believe particularly cares to have a reasonable debate but since he does appear to value that notion that people should be informed, it only makes sense that I should clear a few things up here. I suppose the central argument that Poet makes here  when he notes that “The Marxist/Capitalist debate ended in 1989” is that the essential failure of the Soviet Union which was probably understood most dramatically in the United States when the wall fell signified the essential failure of socialism as a system and the clear superiority of capitalism.

The argument while a cliché now bears some investigation because, after all, what you discover when you investigate the matter is that it is built on nothing more than fanciful historical revisionism that has mostly been concocted by the major indoctrination systems of our time. First off, the notion that the Soviet Union was Marxist at all is an entirely false one. Remember that Marx articulates his particular economic system in chapter two of The Communist Manifesto as one that has no political power. And indeed, this position was represented in Russia in the years leading up to the revolution – most notably represented by figures such as Antonie Pannekoek, Emma Goldman and others who essentially pushed for the Marxist position, namely a relatively powerless society that was organized in terms of worker’s councils and trade unions.

By 1909, Lenin and Alexander had these members expelled from the Bolsheviks deeming it too left wing and from that point forward essentially ran the Bolshevik movement as a right wing version of communism, much to the dismay of the traditionalists. You see, ultimately when GreatUrduPoet notes that “only the very young and the politically immature have the energy for” Marxism, he unwittingly draws a crucial comparison – namely between himself and the leaders of the communist Russian revolution who happened to entirely agree with this point. So about a year after the Russian Revolution takes place, the traditional Marxists immediately objected to Lenin’s control noting correctly that Lenin did not represent a Marxist position. After all, socialism if it was anything, was workers in control over the means of production without any interference and there was none of that occurring whatsoever in Russia nor were there any plans for it to occur and more over, Lenin’s purposeful destruction of the factory councils as soon as he entered power, reaffirmed his opposition to Marxist socialism in practice. Lenin responded to the criticisms by publishing a book of his own writings called Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder and in that book he essentially criticizes Marxism and socialism, targeting the central figures in particular such as Pannekoek and Sylvia Pankhurst for their Marxist beliefs. So again, GreatUrduPoet and the leaders of the Russian communist movement are in total agreement about Marxism.

Within a few years Lenin was outright calling the economic system what it was – state capitalism. He stated that state capitalism was "one of the principal aspects" of the New Economic Policy of the Soviet Union. By that time Lenin had enough power that he could afford to be honest. The ultimate failure of the Soviet project was not a failure of Marxism. It was never Marxism nor was it intended to be – the leaders of the movement hated Marxism, hated the Marxists, attacked them in print and outright opposed in practice the very tenets that Marx suggests. The fact that it was more of a capitalist system suggests that it was a loss for capitalism.

Nor was it a victory for capitalism in the sense that the United States happened to be on “the winning side” in this scenario. There’s never been a genuinely capitalist system in the United States, whether you are looking at the largely interventionist and protectionist policies of Alexander Hamilton or the major advancements of both the 19th and 20th century: the railroads, the automotive industry, aviation, weapons, computers, satellites, which were all largely created as a result of public investment, rather than private industry.

So to suggest that the “Marxist/Capitalist debate ended in 1989” is nothing short of pure fantasy, mostly perpetuated by indoctrination systems. Take for example, why the Soviet Union was widely understood as a Marxist/socialist nation when it so clearly was not. Well, the reason why is because it benefited the two most powerful, elite institutions in the world for people to believe in such a myth. It was important for the Soviet Union to perpetuate the myth that they were a socialist state because it made the Russian people falsely believe that even as they were living in a total hellhole that they were in a system that was largely working for their benefit. And simultaneously, it was important for the United States to perpetuate the myth that Russia was a socialist system because genuine socialism represents a legitimate threat to the wealthy elite who essentially run the country and therefore it was essential to concoct a negative model that could be called socialist. When the two great indoctrination systems (US and Soviets) were pushing the same lie, it is no surprise that so many people should believe the myth while being blinded to both the historical and documentary record that so easily undermines it.

Ultimately I do agree with GreatUrduPoet on a central point here and that is that wonderful things can happen when people are informed.

But what happens when the people are informed but don't care or listen and have already made up their minds based upon this indoctrinated idea of a "free market" or the "left" being weak and the "right" being strong? .... How do you inform those who care not to be informed?

As I see it, the only relevance "right" or "left" has is if you are a corporate CEO and need to pick politicians to bankroll so they'll get your corporation more government subsidies....

[Bean Bag]

But what happens when the people are informed but don't care or listen and have already made up their minds based upon this indoctrinated idea .... How do you inform those who care not to be informed?

As I see it, the only relevance "right" or "left" has is if you are a corporate CEO and need to pick politicians to bankroll so they'll get your corporation more government subsidies....

What do we do?  We stop doing.  That's what I would do!  Who's job is it to do the informing anyway?  Informing of what?  Who's entitled to know -- who decides who doesn't know?

If we weaken/lessen government involvement in every damn aspect of human and business existence... they have no power to misinform.  No power to be futzing corporations.  No money to pass out... no power.  Shut'em down.  Shut down the gravy train.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

But won't SOMETHING take over from there? And please don't say "The Free Market"

You can take apart the puzzle and cut the pieces into different shapes, but you put the puzzle back together and it's still the same picture....

[Bean Bag]

But won't SOMETHING take over from there? And please don't say "The Free Market"

Can I say... free people?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

That's more like it 

[Jason]

Free markets and individual liberty will inevitably give way to perfect equality.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Free markets and individual liberty will inevitably give way to perfect equality.

and what of human history has lead you to believe this?

Better yet, if you don't mind: please tell me: you and a boatload of 1000 people arrive on a piece of land roughly the size of Los Angeles County all for your own with no one already there except for maybe a few indians.... What do you do? How do you set up a livable situation? How do you prevent any form of government or whatever you want to call it and authority from existing? .... I want to know what this society would be like and how it would function.