http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … ofthetimes
More dones, more power. The police state is coming.
If starting a thread for discussion, I think it's helpful to at least give a synopsis of the link you're posting.
You say, nuff said, and yet I know nothing about what the link says. Not all of us want to open a thread only to find a link to an article.
I put those links there because if I don't I get ,,,,well not asked, demanded to provide it.
Now you complain that I provide it.
If I am going to post the link you can read the article yourself.
I don't see my post as a complaint. Sure, you can post a link if people want to read the article also, but simply posting a link and saying nothing about it may discourage more discussion. Some of us are simply stopping in and browsing and don't have time to read an article.
Every once in a while you might have to read, shouldn't be that hard for a writer.
I didn't know you were a pacifist and a dove... good for you.
A really terrifying expansion of the use of drones. If some other country targeted bad guys in the USA with similar type drones or weapons they would be labeled terrorists. I cant believe liberals are not up in arms demanding Obama be charged with war crimes etc, except I guess its a war or participation in a war that has no support by the people of the United States.
How many more troops...that he wasn't going to deploy....is he gonna deploy?
And yet you'll still claim that he;s a socialist!
Socialist = control, yes? What better way than force?
Not all socialists believe in an overarching government that concentrates all the productive forces of society into itself. The more accurate term for that would be state socialism or state capitalism (since the state is basically acting as the sole corporation of the nation).
Others believe businesses should be run as co-ops, rather than dictatorships. Others say still the state is a tool of the capitalist class and until it's gone, socialism will never happen.
There's a wide variety of viewpoints within socialism, and Obama does not fit any of them.
You really don't understand socialism do you!
No, actually you have it backwards. For a lot of Americans control = Socialism. More accurately, State control = Socialism, but State control would more accurately be called Fascism or Authoritarianism. Socialism according to Marx had NO state at all, thereby maximizing individual liberty, which ironically is what a lot of people who wrongly talk about Socialism supposedly want. Yes, Socialism is also meant to have a high level of social equality and sharing, it is in no way meant to be maintained through coercion or force. I suspect that most actual socialists might find Obama to be, to an extent, correct on the social scale but completely wrong on the liberty scale. By ideology, Socialists are as opposed to Obama's war policies as are Libertarians (think Ron Paul, for example).
Here's the statement about International Solidarity and Peace form the Socialist Party USA: "We condemn war, preparation for war, and the militaristic culture because they play havoc with people's lives and divert resources from constructive social projects. Militarism also concentrates even greater power in the hands of the few, the powerful and the violent." http://socialistparty-usa.net/principles.html
So, Socialism = NO control and there is no WORSE way than force.
But what we all think and say counts for nothing because their capitalist masters have told them another story.
I'm glad to see someone who has actually read Marx and understands that the state is seen as an obstacle to progress under his theory. I hate it when uninformed people call American liberals Marxists. It betrays their own ignorance.
It's funny because Capitalists should be as interested in Marx as anyone. His critiques of Capitalism were very astute, and one only improves a system by engaging its imperfections. Unfortunately, too many people seem far more interested in building unchallengeable fortresses around the objects of their faith. From their bastions, everyone outside is an enemy, so I don't think they really worry about the accuracy of their lobbed insults. It only matters that they lob them as fast as they can. In the time it takes someone to explain the difference between a fascist and a socialist they are able to reset their catapult and load a new stone.
Here's a question:
Can you show me a real life example.....not something he wrote....whereby Marxism improved the quality of life of a nation? Any nation?
First of all, I'm not really sure what would be wrong simply with "something he wrote." He was a philosopher. That's what he did. It's like asking what good Plato did outside of what he wrote.
Secondly, your question is a trap. Impossible to answer to someone who has already professed a hostility towards the ideology. No matter what one would answer you can simply speciously disagree and then either claim victory of some sort or force the other person to go down a never ending tangent of trying to convince you of something you'll never believe anyway. That's a silly game I personally won't play.
Thirdly, I don't know what it has to do with the discussion regarding the original post anyway.
Can you show me any nation where his ideas have been implemented, untrammelled by capitalism?
Have you ever considered that it might be the case that Marxism does not work precisely because there is a demand for free enterprise? Or does Marxism seek to destroy our natural tendencies?
And have you ever considered that the demand for slave labour and money by the few has suppressed any natural tendency for fairness in the market place?
Have you ever considered you are wrong....which you are.
Mine wasn't a rhetorical point, I genuinely want to know.
I can't really answer your question because we have different ideas of fairness. I believe in fairness under the law, but I do not consider holding more wealth than others as being unfair.
It all depends on how that wealth was acquired.
You'd obviously baulk at a wealthy thief but what about a businessman acquiring wealth through sharp practices?
Examples would be helpful. My goal is to prove you are yanking our chains... so you better be making sense.
Marx wasn't in any way opposed to free association. The examples of 'socialism' that we have had have been characterized by high-levels of planning and high levels of State control. This sort of hyper-planning for the sake merely of being efficient wasn't really the point Marx wanted to achieve.
Marx did talk about planning but it was meant to be social community planning not State planning and it wasn't really meant merely for basic needs and efficiency it was meant to provide enough so that everyone's natural tendencies WOULD be fulfilled (by free association and the ability for people to control their own labor)
Being contrary to natural tendencies is a criticism that can probably be levied against Capitalism as well. People working crappy jobs to buy junk that will sit around in their garages for 20 years...It's not necessarily supposed to be that way, it's just the messiness between reality and ideals.
That's just my impression anyway. Socialism is a big tent and I'm hardly the expert.
But then Marx saw the state necessary to enforce the interim period between capitalism and the stateless society. Further government control would fit that bill then.
However, I don't believe what we see in the west is the result of any consistent ideology other than statism, or more bluntly, violence. Socialist, capitalist, fascist ideologies are used as far as they are useful, to provide an illusion of difference. Obama is presented as the saviour of little people, an all round good guy who's moving forward. Reagan was presented as the thrifty brave capitalist. But when you break it down, Obama and Reagan's domestic and foreign policies are shockingly similar! It is indeed folly to call Obama a socialist as I don't believe him or his handlers have ever had an idea in their life if it didn't personally benefit them.
I would like to see my question answered.
Likewise can you direct me to any nation currently enjoying and prospering under the guidance of Marx?
Yes....you are dutifully ignoring my questions.
That means you know you have no answers.
Here's an answer: Marxist Communism has yet to work because greedy sons of bitches (a.k.a. businessmen, oil tycoons, Conservatives) can't stand the idea of not being propped up on pedestals over everyone else, so they throw money at people to make Communism sound like cannibalism, just so they can continue to throw money at people to get their way.
So, you think communism worked out just fine for Russia? If you look into it and research the result of years of Communism you will see that the people became incapable of dealing with freedom once they got it back to some degree. Just like the slaves of the civil war era; once freed, many had a hard time adjusting to being free. Why? because Freedom is a huge responsibility.
To be able to deal with freedom one must learn how to guide one's own will. It is all about personal will. America demands that each person has the opportunity to guide his own will. Without that freedom and the opportunity to guide ones own life, one is
How many times can I say that word to explain to you the importance of having individual freedom and self command? until you and people like you, get it. My advice is to stop focusing on the rich and the corporations and the stuff you can't change and try to enjoy the little amount of freedom we still have.
There IS a way to change those corporations but you need to know how; get this book: It Takes a Pillage by Nomi Prins.
Here is another: The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant.
I hope you are getting along with your parents. Try to make amends with one of them.
Russia did not govern like Marx envisioned the "temporary dictatorship of the proletariat" would. It's also interesting to wonder what would have happened if Stalin had not taken control.
But calling Russia Communist again betrays your ignorance of Marx's writing. Whether you agree with Communism or not, it's good to use concepts accurately. Marx specifically claimed the state's only function was oppression, and under Capitalism, the oppression was done by the bourgeois. Under the temporary "dictatorship of the proletariat", the state would exist to oppress the bourgeois to ensure they were would not regain power and to aid in the transition to a communist society.
Marx then claimed that the transition to Communism would be slow because people's psychological attitudes would need to adjust to a radically different conception of life. When Stalin instituted a dictatorship of one person, it's obvious Russia never had a chance to even try a communist transition.
And then Stalin showed up. Threw a monkey wrench in the whole works. Who let that happen?
So which was it?
Capitalism? Or that evil Stalin who made USSR Communist?
Which they will always be viewed as by the way.
Do your history. Stalin came after the revolution and took it away from communism and not the way round you claim.
I didn't claim anything.
What is in the books or some specious source?
Well you said that Stalin made the USSR communist which he did not, he moved it away from communism.
The history of how things really happened and not the history that the opponents of communism and socialism would like us to believe.
Yes indeed, what is in the books and not some specious source such as that saying that Stalin made the USSR communist.
If you had ever seen the fences....meant to keep people in....you would know the real answer.
Get some life experience. Being and anime character balancing a pencil on your nose doesn't pay much.
In which socialist country are they?
Admit it, you, along side most of your fellow countrymen are brainwashed into believing that something is what it patently isn't.
The youngster wanted to talk Communism.....go and look John.
I had been to East Germany. A place so nice they had to fence people in.
Ah yes! The German Democratic Republic, which was neither democratic nor a republic and most definitely wasn't socialist or communist.
A right wing tyranny!
Have you ever actually read any Marx? Not just right wing précis but what he actually said?
It was fascist, fascism was a movement begun by Mussolini, Hitler's ally.
An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
The key word being "nationalism" which is right wing and opposed to left wing "Internationalism".
- what is the difference whether we are nationalist or internationalist. I do not think it defines our internal politics.
What is England? Does it define the internal politics there?
I doubt it.
Stop trying to confuse the issues.
No, the USA is distinctly nationalist.
Right is still right and left is still left no matter how hard you try to move the left to the right.
What is the difference if we are nationalist or internationalist? how does marxism fit into this conversation? we are naturally prone to Marxism here? well, that is not a good conclusion for the reasons stated above. Our internal politics do not reflect Marxism. Most think that Marxism is socialism.
You yourself said that we are not a socialistic country at all. You are so confusing.
Nationalism is ingoing - the nation first. Internationalism is out going, treat the whole world the same.
Marx knew the importance of internationalism. It would end wars and poverty, unlike nationalism which promotes those things.
I have discovered you are Utopianistic.
You base your thinking on that which can NEVER BE... because it is not based on Human Nature. Instead it based on pie in the sky theories, surmises and conjectures and WISHFUL THINKING.
PS The precepts set forth in The Constitution of the United States/ Declaration of Independence were ahead of their time, obviously.
As Jaxson Raine recommended to Mr. Z , study and contemplate these two documents and the Federalist Papers.
I am sorry the corporations started finding the loopholes and bending the government to suit their greed. Its not fair, but we can stop it with close policing and surveillance of the actions of the powerful rich. A president cannot be intimidated, must love the people and do what is right for the country. Even to the point of being willing to die for the citizens.
In my opinion.
No, I don't think the UK is particularly international though our geographical position makes us more so than the US.
Just because there are no particularly internationalist countries does not mean that we shouldn't aim for that goal.
Can you point me to the bit in the constitution where it says you must interfere in the internal politics of other countries please?
Can you point her to the part that says they shouldn't?
Why id the Constitution a problem here?
The constitution is a problem because what is essential a very liberal document has been taken over by the sort of people to whom liberty is a swear word.
Are you sure you have an unbiased view John?
It certainly doesn't seem that way.
Are you sure you have an unbiased view?
It certainly doesn't seem that way.
Oh I am sure we both have our opinions and that doesn't make either of us right.
OK then you don't think that the US constitution is basically a very liberal document - I will have to disagree with you there.
If, as you claim, you are right, what is the foundation of your belief?
I didn't claim anything. It is what it is.
People perceive it gives them freedoms and they are correct.
But they ignore the freedoms it gives to others.
Sorry....what freedom is someone supposed to be denied?
Well lets look at the amendments because that's where it's really happening.
The first grants freedom of religion, and doesn't say "unless you are Muslim".
The Fifth grants the right to due process with no provisos.
The Sixth Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel. With no provisos.
The Eighth Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. Do you not consider strapping somebody to a gurney and taking several hours to kill them "cruel and unusual"?
It doesn't take several hours for the condemned to kiss the baby, just a few minutes and then sleepy time.
In theory yes, in reality there have been cases of it taking several hours or even being stopped and started again the following day.
See Josak's reply and link. Apologies for flippancy.
"there have been cases of it taking several hours or even being stopped and started again the following day."
I read almost all of the accounts and not one mentioned having to start over the next day, the longest period that it took anyone to die was 2 hours. I wonder what the victims of these killers had to endure?
Well I'm sorry that the list Josak copied didn't have that one particular case and can you point me to the place in the constitution where it says that perpetrators must be made to suffer far more than is needed, that just killing somebody isn't enough!
You are thinking they deliberately did that?
As in why would they do that?
One particular case? Of all the executions you're upset about one particular case?
No, but you were. I think the death penalty in the USA is unconstitutional irrespective of how long it actually takes to remove somebody's life.
That is what most first world nations have decided. It's a decision I agree with, especially given how close we have come to executing people on false pretenses even in recent history.
I'm not concerned about any case, and your opinion on the death penalty of our country is irrelevant.
So you're telling me "stuff the constitution"! Nice.
Stuff the constitution? I am telling you your opinions are irrelevant.
This is a forum where people present their opinions, going around saying their opinions are irrlevant defeats the point of being here at all, try using your brain.
They might be if you did not execute British citizens.
Don't know if any are or have been executed but makes no difference. If you are found guilty of a crime and its penalty is death its going to happen, and your opinion of that result is irrelevant.
It might behoove citizens of any nation not to go to the US and commit a capital crime.
With the high incidence of wrongful arrests and convictions it might behove UK citizens to steer well clear of the US entirely.
I agree, stay away, we will arrest and put you to death. We are clearly crazy here.
You'd probably skip the arrest bit and just shoot to kill!
John have you ever been diagnosed as a paranoid?
Because you see the absolute blackness in everything.
How many British subjects do you think this happens to?
Sorry, but it's built right into the fifth amendment. Due process of law can be used to remove someone's right to life, liberty, or property.
Due process of law is a right granted to citizens specifically to defend against abuse from the government. Using the Fifth to justify a government action is simply bizarre.
The fifth states that the government can take away the life of a citizen through due process, and protects citizens from having their life taken without due process(which is why NDAA is unconstitutional).
Read it, it's right there. The death penalty is not unconstitutional.
But the eight defends against cruel and unusual punishments.
So do you have an issue with the way people are killed, or are you saying that all death sentences are cruel and unusual?
An issue with the way the death penalty is carried out in the USA, it is cruel and unusual.
So putting someone to sleep and then injecting lethal drugs while they are in that state is cruel and unusual?
Really, I guess you like the way Iran does it better?
Ok, then you don't think the death penalty is unconstitutional, just the way it is carried out?
I'm sure we could think up a solution that would always instantly kill someone with no pain, that should satisfy John's criteria.
Why would you think that? You don't behead people in the US do you?
I didn't say i thought that I was trying to get your solution.
The basic point was adherence or evasion of the constitution by citizens of the USA.
You've got it there.
That of course does not make me in favour of the death penalty.
I am. I'd rather we kill murderers than let them out after 20 years and have them kill another innocent person. Actions have consequences and all that.
Your statistics to back up the claim that killers will kill again if not killed themselves please.
If it happens once, it's too much. You don't think it ever happens?
Sorry, I think when someone violates the right to life, they should lose theirs. I can't believe we are so soft on people who end the life of an innocent person.
But when the state ends the life of an innocent person, what then?
I doubt that even you would fail to agree that it is not constitutional to murder an innocent person.
Randall Adams is more than enough proof for me that the death sentence is wrong even if painless simply because it is irreversible.
Kenneth McDuff is reason enough for me to believe execution is needed!
He was on death row that was turned into life then for some reason he was paroled and went on to murder more women!
Well the problem there is obvious and it's not the existence or otherwise of the death sentence it's the release of convicted murderers.
What is more important? Protecting the life of the innocent person wrongly accused, or protecting the life of an innocent murdered by a released murderer?
I would say an innocent person...
I am against the death penalty, but I also believe a life sentence for murder should be just that.
They are both innocent, who is more important?
My problem with a life sentence is the burden it places on innocent people.
If they are both innocent then the only logical answer to your question is they are both equally important.
What burden does a life sentence impose on innocent people?
Do you think this only occurs in the US John?
Do not innocent people wind up incarcerated in the UK?
I've done a lot of study on this, it is actually cheaper to house a murderer for life that to pay for all the appeals that must be fought through.
As far as I'm aware a death sentence in the USA is far more expensive than a life tariff.
You think a couple of hundred dollars in chemicals is more expensive than a lifetime of food,lodging and healthcare?
Look up the costs for yourself.
It's far more than the cost of the chemicals - unless of course you are advocating the ending of due process.
What is expensive is the massive process involved in last minute appeals, lawyers, security, etc. etc. feel free to check the facts, Google is your friend.
Well, I certainly don't believe it is okay if an innocent person is executed for murder. Ever.
There is no reason to choose between them, life in prison should be life in prison and then the case can be overturned if evidence arises. It's pretty simple. You can't fix dead though.
The problem is we don't have enough room. Now, maybe if we stopped putting people in for doing drugs. Our system is such a joke.
Not stats but some interesting reading.
Indeed, very interesting reading! Do you realise that there are people on that list who only served around ten years before being released!
Who sanctioned their release, or who give them such minor sentences in the first place?
There is no reason to let people out who would have received the death penalty. In Australia after they abolished the death penalty it was replaced with "at her majesties pleasure" so a person can only be released if the Queen writes a letter demanding it.
Obviously that system is unsuited to the US but capital punishment being altered to "for term of natural life without possibility of parole" is fine too and has the added advantage of being reversible if it turns outt hey were innocent.
(We have come pretty close to executing innocent people in modern times and who knows if we have executed innocents.)
I have to agree with that, there are painless methods of execution but we don't use them.
Even the guillotine is better than lethal injection and pure nitrogen inhalation is apparently utterly painless and undetectable.
The problem I think is getting to the understanding that whomever was in charge wasn't smart enough to know that the O-F-F switch has to be put into the O-N position and vice-versa for things to operate properly.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/some-ex … executions
Dozens there to begin with,
Thanks Josak. My reply was a little flippant, I had other things to attend to and intended to make a better response.
Though I am against the death penalty I have switched from thinking that hanging was the most barbaric form of execution to thinking it was the most humane. It was said of Pierrepoint, the British hangman, that he could get a man from the condemned cell to dead in a few minutes or even seconds, certainly less time than it takes to set somebody up for electrocution or poisoning.
That thing about Muslims is the individual..not the Amendment. As for the death penalty, it has been around for how long? In how many different forms?
And the US are the only guilty party there?
Where does it further state in that Constitution that the nation shall be perfect in the sight of all?
I find it fascinating that the US is apparently the most evil society on the planet. I look, but never see forms about the things China does, or North Korea, or the race hatred Iran has for Israel.............
But by all means bet the US and it's people over the heads with little silver hammers daily.
That will set everything to rights, right?
But it's all a part of your constitution, which is generally ignored unless the right to play Rambo is challenged.
Ok we will just burn it then.
Happy? No...I am not sure you can be made happy.
The Constitution is as good a document as could be made particularly at the time.
That's what Amendments are for.
You miss my point entirely! I think your constitution is great - wish we had one, but then if we did it would be ignored or corrupted just the same as yours is.
I still find it fascinating that apparently the US is the only problem, or the only one we care to address.
Did we make a mistake not bowing to Jolly Old King George and leaving the tea on the boat?
Is that how you feel?
You misunderstood or I misunderstood you to be saying people had freedoms they shouldn't have.
Says you, Not me. For the above reasons.
Have you ever checked out the federalist papers? They are a time capsule and a magnifying class into the thinking and reasoning that went into our government. They were based on the mistakes of history and the reality of human nature.
(they are very interesting. hard to read at first. just keep trying.)
England has lost a lot of its identity with international and European appeasement. Yes, we can and should have our own identity, as everything is connected. Do you want your economy and foreign policy tied to what another country says it should be? Trust me, these have a dramatic impact on your internal policies.
I agree with your comment, EA:
It is human nature to care about its own. Its own home, town, city, state, country in that order. We care about the world in the context of that order. When a country is healthy it can help the world which we have always been able to do. When we cannot feed those at home, we can't help anyone else.
Actually, true conservatives don't really like nationalism either. They prefer state rights or local rights over national rights.
Greedy so-called communists do the same. How can it truly be communist when your leaders live like a king?
Speaking of drones...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … Xzu3Ea269o
And what does Marx and the USSR have to do with the original intent of the forum? Hmmmm?
This is a political forum. Marx will always come up in every discussion .
by James Smith4 years ago
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be...
by Peeples4 years ago
What is the big deal about socialism?Can someone explain to me why Americans (USA) typically say "socialist" in a negative way. I've been doing some research and many of these "socialist" societies...
by couturepopcafe6 years ago
Yesterday in Kansas, President Obama has taken ownership of his socialism by declaring outright that he IS a socialist. Hold on to your pocketbooks, folks. In his declared effort to save the middle class, don't be...
by Charles James7 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by Peter Freeman6 years ago
Recently there have been some long-tailed debates held in the comments section of certain Hubs. Particularly in the Hubs written by James Watkins and John Holden. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a...
by Elliott_T7 years ago
I'm a Capitalist - what that means to me is that the closest thing to an ideal economy we can achieve is one where the government has almost no interference in the private business sector whatsoever. I think you can put...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.