I drink your milkshake! a metaphor for capitalism
- Thread starter rickyb
- Start date
watching a video about why do 40% of americans support trump after hes 
ed up so bad, and it sounds again like stockholm syndrome. she also says the family structure is authoritarian and the kids identify with the authority figure rather than themselves. i think she said a majority of religions in america are like this too, where you obey. not only that alot of the religions are bizzare like evangelicals, jewish. india population is 1.3 billion, brazil is 200 million, brazil has 120,000 deaths, india has 60,000 deaths. america population is 330 million but 190k deaths. america is wealthiest country in the world, and yet it has so many deaths. brazil and india 3rd world.
ed up so bad, and it sounds again like stockholm syndrome. she also says the family structure is authoritarian and the kids identify with the authority figure rather than themselves. i think she said a majority of religions in america are like this too, where you obey. not only that alot of the religions are bizzare like evangelicals, jewish. india population is 1.3 billion, brazil is 200 million, brazil has 120,000 deaths, india has 60,000 deaths. america population is 330 million but 190k deaths. america is wealthiest country in the world, and yet it has so many deaths. brazil and india 3rd world.this guy mentions historians dont even write their own books quite often they have one ghostwriter so you see identical text in multiple books. they dont even read their books. and then he said something about the books being vetted which cleanses them of all controversy LOL
Last edited:
sometimes you have to wonder why people dont want to work. does this system disincentivize people from working? for example my neighbour doesnt want to do a regular job, she'd rather be a housewife which is work. ive only worked a minority of jobs where bosses didnt unjustly abuse their power.
i just remembered him. this guy was influential in occupy and coined the phrase "we are the 99%". he just died. he wrote a book called debt the first 5000 years and bull jobs. he said something about america being extremely corrupt which stuck with me over the years.
“Huge swaths of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they believe to be unnecessary. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound." - David Graeber
jobs. he said something about america being extremely corrupt which stuck with me over the years.“Huge swaths of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they believe to be unnecessary. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound." - David Graeber
ralph nader lists off some of the way america is not capitalist. they both define it as a corporate state as the state has so much economic intervention.
ralphnaderradiohour.com
robinson: ...Really, most socialists begin with a sort of revulsion at hierarchy and class. Ownership is a big part of it;who owns, right? Who gives the ordersand who takes the orders? The socialists foundationally have seen the narrow concentration of ownership as something that is revolting to the sense of justice. The reason that public ownership has always been such a big part of what socialists have pushed for is because it’s not just government ownership, right? Because it’s democratizing ownership. It’s making sure that, the classic definition is the people who work in the factories ought to own them. There ought to be a democratic economy. Democratizing the economy has really been the foundational principle of socialism. That’s something you do hear running through today.
Ralph Nader:Let me interrupt you here, we have to get concrete here,because that’s the only way you can communicate what you’re trying to communicate. Let me ask you some very rapid questions. They always divide socialism--and we assume it’s Democratic Socialism--it’s not monarchical socialism--with production, production of goods and services and distribution of the wealth, the profits, the taxation revenues, et cetera. All right, so let’s start with production. Would you call public banking, which is an increasingly, widely supported effort where all the state and local funds are now being managed by Wall Street with humungous fees, to be basically managed by public banks like the North Dakota state[-owned]banks that have been very successful, clean, and honest, over the last hundred years. Would you say that’s socialism?
Nathan Robinson: Yeah,I’d say that’s in keeping with socialist values, yeah. I think that’s something that a lot of socialists have pushed for.
Ralph Nader:We now have one third of America public lands not counting off-shore, which would double that. Is that socialism? It’s owned by the public, administered by the Department of Interior.
Nathan Robinson: Yeah, but the addition is that it has to also be democratically controlled, right? If it’s publicly-owned,but also,we have a dysfunctional democracy where people don’t exercise meaningful control over what their government does, that really undermines the claim to even having a public asset be a socialized asset.
Ralph Nader:But I think what you’re pointing out is the public lands are owned by the people but they’re controlled by timber companies, oil, gas, coal companies.
Nathan Robinson: Right, yes, exactly.
Ralph Nader:Okay, public airways.We own the public airways and give it away free,via the federal Communications Commission backed by Congress,to the radio and TV broadcasters who decide who says what and who doesn’t 24 hours a day. To what extent do you think that’s socialism, ownership by the people controlled by big business?
Nathan Robinson: Well you know the expression “necessary but not sufficient”, right? Public ownership is the beginning. But then as you say, if it ends up functionally controlled by big business, then the ultimate socialist value,which is public ownership--does the public and ownership of course is the right to decide;does the public have the right to decide to the extent that that right just exists on paper, you’re undermining its claim to conform with socialist values.
Ralph Nader:Okay, let’s go to publicly-owned pensions, private pensions owned by the workers and public pensions owned by government employees, federal, state, local; trillions of dollars, is that socialism?
Nathan Robinson: Again,it depends. I mean I think so,but like public/private is a distinction that doesn’t necessarily capture socialist/capitalist, right? Because to the extent that socialism is about social ownership and economic democracy, you can have a technically private institution like a worker cooperative, right?that is more in keeping with socialist values than something that is technically in the public sector, technically government-owned,but that ordinary people don’t in practice end up having any meaningful control over or input into.
Ralph Nader:Okay, so a consumer cooperative like the food coops in St. Paul, Minnesota, is that a form of socialism where the consumers actually own the food stores?
Nathan Robinson: I try not to use terms like a form of socialism,like is this socialism? I tend to, I mean I think of socialism as a set of principles or values and you measure an institution by
whether it is in keeping with that core socialist set of values. I would say that yes, an institution like that is in keeping with a socialist set of values. Of course,if then it mistreats its employees then it departs from that socialist set of values.
Ralph Nader:How about labor-owned banks like Amalgamated Banks in New York and Washington that pays very much like a commercial bank in terms of fees and penalties? But it’s owned by the labor union. How would you categorize that?
Nathan Robinson: Again, part of its operations are in keeping with socialist values, right? Labor ownership is an important socialist value. But of course if then it’s replicating the extortion of the banking practices of any other commercial bank, that is a departure from socialist values. It’s less a matter of taking any given institution and putting it in the binary socialism slash not socialism box. But it’s more about saying, what are the socialist aspirations for how things should be run, and to what degree are these embodying these aspirations?
Ralph Nader:Okay, I’m leading you to a very, very important concluding question here,Nathan. Bear with me.Trillions of dollars of US government research and development has built over the years the major industries in the country--not just Silicon Valley,[but] biotechnology, nanotechnology, aerospace, pharmaceutical, containerization, on and on. Basically,it’s a one-way giveaway. The taxpayer sends the money to Washington, and the money is given to these companies without anything in return--no equity ownership, no royalties, zero. It’s a huge giveaway. How would you categorize that?
Nathan Robinson: Well, you know, that is what is commonly known as socialism for the rich, right, is that you have public assets working in the interest of a small number of wealthy elites. I don’t think any socialist is in favor of the public, the commons doing all of the work and then a small number of people reaping the rewards. But as you say, having public research than then the public benefits from, that is very much in keeping with the core socialist set of values.
Ralph Nader:What about Tennessee Valley Authority?
Nathan Robinson: Yeah, absolutely. I think commonly-owned and controlled power companies and utilities...in fact,when the “sewer socialists”took over cities in the early part of the 20th-century, that was a big part;municipal, utilities was a big part of the socialist push.
Ralph Nader:A thousand municipally-owned electric companies at least in the United States, three in Connecticut,actually of all places.
Why You Should Be A Socialist – Ralph Nader Radio Hour
robinson: ...Really, most socialists begin with a sort of revulsion at hierarchy and class. Ownership is a big part of it;who owns, right? Who gives the ordersand who takes the orders? The socialists foundationally have seen the narrow concentration of ownership as something that is revolting to the sense of justice. The reason that public ownership has always been such a big part of what socialists have pushed for is because it’s not just government ownership, right? Because it’s democratizing ownership. It’s making sure that, the classic definition is the people who work in the factories ought to own them. There ought to be a democratic economy. Democratizing the economy has really been the foundational principle of socialism. That’s something you do hear running through today.
Ralph Nader:Let me interrupt you here, we have to get concrete here,because that’s the only way you can communicate what you’re trying to communicate. Let me ask you some very rapid questions. They always divide socialism--and we assume it’s Democratic Socialism--it’s not monarchical socialism--with production, production of goods and services and distribution of the wealth, the profits, the taxation revenues, et cetera. All right, so let’s start with production. Would you call public banking, which is an increasingly, widely supported effort where all the state and local funds are now being managed by Wall Street with humungous fees, to be basically managed by public banks like the North Dakota state[-owned]banks that have been very successful, clean, and honest, over the last hundred years. Would you say that’s socialism?
Nathan Robinson: Yeah,I’d say that’s in keeping with socialist values, yeah. I think that’s something that a lot of socialists have pushed for.
Ralph Nader:We now have one third of America public lands not counting off-shore, which would double that. Is that socialism? It’s owned by the public, administered by the Department of Interior.
Nathan Robinson: Yeah, but the addition is that it has to also be democratically controlled, right? If it’s publicly-owned,but also,we have a dysfunctional democracy where people don’t exercise meaningful control over what their government does, that really undermines the claim to even having a public asset be a socialized asset.
Ralph Nader:But I think what you’re pointing out is the public lands are owned by the people but they’re controlled by timber companies, oil, gas, coal companies.
Nathan Robinson: Right, yes, exactly.
Ralph Nader:Okay, public airways.We own the public airways and give it away free,via the federal Communications Commission backed by Congress,to the radio and TV broadcasters who decide who says what and who doesn’t 24 hours a day. To what extent do you think that’s socialism, ownership by the people controlled by big business?
Nathan Robinson: Well you know the expression “necessary but not sufficient”, right? Public ownership is the beginning. But then as you say, if it ends up functionally controlled by big business, then the ultimate socialist value,which is public ownership--does the public and ownership of course is the right to decide;does the public have the right to decide to the extent that that right just exists on paper, you’re undermining its claim to conform with socialist values.
Ralph Nader:Okay, let’s go to publicly-owned pensions, private pensions owned by the workers and public pensions owned by government employees, federal, state, local; trillions of dollars, is that socialism?
Nathan Robinson: Again,it depends. I mean I think so,but like public/private is a distinction that doesn’t necessarily capture socialist/capitalist, right? Because to the extent that socialism is about social ownership and economic democracy, you can have a technically private institution like a worker cooperative, right?that is more in keeping with socialist values than something that is technically in the public sector, technically government-owned,but that ordinary people don’t in practice end up having any meaningful control over or input into.
Ralph Nader:Okay, so a consumer cooperative like the food coops in St. Paul, Minnesota, is that a form of socialism where the consumers actually own the food stores?
Nathan Robinson: I try not to use terms like a form of socialism,like is this socialism? I tend to, I mean I think of socialism as a set of principles or values and you measure an institution by
whether it is in keeping with that core socialist set of values. I would say that yes, an institution like that is in keeping with a socialist set of values. Of course,if then it mistreats its employees then it departs from that socialist set of values.
Ralph Nader:How about labor-owned banks like Amalgamated Banks in New York and Washington that pays very much like a commercial bank in terms of fees and penalties? But it’s owned by the labor union. How would you categorize that?
Nathan Robinson: Again, part of its operations are in keeping with socialist values, right? Labor ownership is an important socialist value. But of course if then it’s replicating the extortion of the banking practices of any other commercial bank, that is a departure from socialist values. It’s less a matter of taking any given institution and putting it in the binary socialism slash not socialism box. But it’s more about saying, what are the socialist aspirations for how things should be run, and to what degree are these embodying these aspirations?
Ralph Nader:Okay, I’m leading you to a very, very important concluding question here,Nathan. Bear with me.Trillions of dollars of US government research and development has built over the years the major industries in the country--not just Silicon Valley,[but] biotechnology, nanotechnology, aerospace, pharmaceutical, containerization, on and on. Basically,it’s a one-way giveaway. The taxpayer sends the money to Washington, and the money is given to these companies without anything in return--no equity ownership, no royalties, zero. It’s a huge giveaway. How would you categorize that?
Nathan Robinson: Well, you know, that is what is commonly known as socialism for the rich, right, is that you have public assets working in the interest of a small number of wealthy elites. I don’t think any socialist is in favor of the public, the commons doing all of the work and then a small number of people reaping the rewards. But as you say, having public research than then the public benefits from, that is very much in keeping with the core socialist set of values.
Ralph Nader:What about Tennessee Valley Authority?
Nathan Robinson: Yeah, absolutely. I think commonly-owned and controlled power companies and utilities...in fact,when the “sewer socialists”took over cities in the early part of the 20th-century, that was a big part;municipal, utilities was a big part of the socialist push.
Ralph Nader:A thousand municipally-owned electric companies at least in the United States, three in Connecticut,actually of all places.
the real labour day, may 1st. we dont celebrate may 1st officially in canada either.
www.teenvogue.com
That brings us to May Day, the true workers’ holiday, and to Loyalty Day, a faux “holiday,” the existence of which supports the theory that Labor Day was conceived as a dampener on leftist political organizing. In most other countries, May 1 is celebrated as May Day, or International Workers Day, and its history is intimately connected with U.S. workers’ long fight for the eight-hour workday.
In 1888, the American Federation of Labor chose May 1,1890, as the date for a massive demonstration advocating for the eight-hour workday; with that in mind, in 1889, the first Congress of the Second International, a federation of socialist parties and labor unions, also called for a global day of protest on May 1, 1890, in honor of the Haymarket Martyrs, eight Chicago anarchists who were arrested for a crime they did not commit (four of them were hanged). One of the martyrs, Albert Parsons, and his wife, Lucy, an accomplished anarchist writer and orator, had been deeply involved in the fight for the eight-hour day; they led tens of thousands of unemployed workers down the streets of Chicago on May 1, 1886, as part of a nationwide general strike, three days before the fateful May 4 rally that led to his and his comrades’ unjust arrest and execution.
That first unofficial May Day parade was followed by bloodshed and a sham trial, but the Second International’s efforts to honor their sacrifice had a global impact. Now, May Day is a recognized holiday around the world, celebrated by many radicals as a day of action and solidarity. The U.S. is an outlier in its refusal to formally recognize May Day, let alone International Workers’ Day.
But its implementation of Loyalty Day is even more insidious: In 1955, at the peak of the anti-communist Red Scare helmed by Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy, Congress passed a resolution deeming May 1 “Loyalty Day.” The explicit aim was to counter the impact of May Day rallies around the globe. Three years later, in 1958, it was enshrined as an annual holiday (albeit without any real perks) and has been reaffirmed via annual proclamations issued by every president since Eisenhower.
Even that was a half-cocked effort, though; from 1921 to 1958, May 1 was officially known as “Americanization Day” — a “holiday” of forced patriotism conceived after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and a renewed current of militancy within the American labor movement. Its name and intent only changed in the late 1950s as the specter of communism haunted the chambers of government and the House Un-American Activities Committee hunted down leftists and suspected sympathizers in a scarlet inquisition.
Labor Day Is a Government Scam
Even if the holiday wasn’t always intended to be a rip-off, it sure is now.
That brings us to May Day, the true workers’ holiday, and to Loyalty Day, a faux “holiday,” the existence of which supports the theory that Labor Day was conceived as a dampener on leftist political organizing. In most other countries, May 1 is celebrated as May Day, or International Workers Day, and its history is intimately connected with U.S. workers’ long fight for the eight-hour workday.
In 1888, the American Federation of Labor chose May 1,1890, as the date for a massive demonstration advocating for the eight-hour workday; with that in mind, in 1889, the first Congress of the Second International, a federation of socialist parties and labor unions, also called for a global day of protest on May 1, 1890, in honor of the Haymarket Martyrs, eight Chicago anarchists who were arrested for a crime they did not commit (four of them were hanged). One of the martyrs, Albert Parsons, and his wife, Lucy, an accomplished anarchist writer and orator, had been deeply involved in the fight for the eight-hour day; they led tens of thousands of unemployed workers down the streets of Chicago on May 1, 1886, as part of a nationwide general strike, three days before the fateful May 4 rally that led to his and his comrades’ unjust arrest and execution.
That first unofficial May Day parade was followed by bloodshed and a sham trial, but the Second International’s efforts to honor their sacrifice had a global impact. Now, May Day is a recognized holiday around the world, celebrated by many radicals as a day of action and solidarity. The U.S. is an outlier in its refusal to formally recognize May Day, let alone International Workers’ Day.
But its implementation of Loyalty Day is even more insidious: In 1955, at the peak of the anti-communist Red Scare helmed by Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy, Congress passed a resolution deeming May 1 “Loyalty Day.” The explicit aim was to counter the impact of May Day rallies around the globe. Three years later, in 1958, it was enshrined as an annual holiday (albeit without any real perks) and has been reaffirmed via annual proclamations issued by every president since Eisenhower.
Even that was a half-cocked effort, though; from 1921 to 1958, May 1 was officially known as “Americanization Day” — a “holiday” of forced patriotism conceived after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and a renewed current of militancy within the American labor movement. Its name and intent only changed in the late 1950s as the specter of communism haunted the chambers of government and the House Un-American Activities Committee hunted down leftists and suspected sympathizers in a scarlet inquisition.
says US was probably the most protectionist country up to wwII. after WWII it had half hte worlds wealth, and held a conference with other countries where it dictated the economic rules which was free markets for everyone except for US. US continued its heavy state interventionism.
this guy is 23, makes 25k a year which is just a bit less than median income in america, and has slept in his car (not sure why he drives a 25 yo firebird when you broke as hell?), ate 1x per day, slept on his bros couch. now he eats up to 2x a day :S he dropped out of college in the 5th year i guess because of what he chose and how much money college costs in america.
www.worldstarhiphop.com
Perseverance 101: This 23 Year Old Details How He Lives On $25K Per Year In Greater Baltimore!
Jerone Gillespie, 23, earns $25,000 a year between driving for Uber and Lyft and working in a tax preparation office. When the pandemic hit, Gillespie stopped driving for Uber and Lyft to keep himself safe, and he relied solely on his tax job for income. He earns $14.50 an hour as the manager of...
was watching chomsky videos on russia "socialism". he defines socialism as worker controlled jobs and he said they destroyed it within a year or 2 after the revolution or coup as he calls it. the russian govt and american govt, the 2 major propaganda systems in the world continued to call it socialism for their own reason although it had nothing to do with empowering workers. he was saying something about pure democracy in russia and we dont hear about that in the west only the socialism.
Similar threads
- Locked
