Government just doesn't work
- Thread starter Lerxst
- Start date
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
He seems pretty sincere
Which is why the power elite won't let him into power. They will corrupt the process or failing that they would kill him
There is a strong possibility that the democratic process is now not able to fix the situation because it has been coopted by the corporate elite who use it for their own ends
It falls to popular movements to apply the necessary pressure to bring about change; that's not gonna be a popular idea with some people because movements require more commitment and support than just visiting a polling booth every X amount of years
ACD posted a really good interview with Chris Hedges earlier in the thread which covers this stuff. He knows what he's talking about and has the experience to back it up.
Although i like a lot of what Ron Paul says I fundamentally disagree with him. The history of the US has been one big struggle between the individual and the private financial/corporate interests over control of their own lives. At the moment the private monied interests are in control but it looks like a strong resistance is developing. I don't think Ron Paul could stop the private interests; at best he could curb them.
A fundamental change is needed to deliver a killer blow to corporate power. A system change that would see the means of production owned by the workers; one where profit is not the primary focus, but rather sustainability and meeting the needs of everyone not just a small elite or a rapidly shrinking middle class
Judging from history i suspect Ron Paul in power would be a temporary set back for the elites before they climbed back into the driving seat
Which is why the power elite won't let him into power. They will corrupt the process or failing that they would kill him
There is a strong possibility that the democratic process is now not able to fix the situation because it has been coopted by the corporate elite who use it for their own ends
It falls to popular movements to apply the necessary pressure to bring about change; that's not gonna be a popular idea with some people because movements require more commitment and support than just visiting a polling booth every X amount of years
ACD posted a really good interview with Chris Hedges earlier in the thread which covers this stuff. He knows what he's talking about and has the experience to back it up.
Although i like a lot of what Ron Paul says I fundamentally disagree with him. The history of the US has been one big struggle between the individual and the private financial/corporate interests over control of their own lives. At the moment the private monied interests are in control but it looks like a strong resistance is developing. I don't think Ron Paul could stop the private interests; at best he could curb them.
A fundamental change is needed to deliver a killer blow to corporate power. A system change that would see the means of production owned by the workers; one where profit is not the primary focus, but rather sustainability and meeting the needs of everyone not just a small elite or a rapidly shrinking middle class
Judging from history i suspect Ron Paul in power would be a temporary set back for the elites before they climbed back into the driving seat
Last edited:
Lerxst
Well-known member
- MBTI
- INFJ
After watching that Chris Hedges interview (and before, but he helped solidify things I already thought) I'd have even more trouble voting for Ron Paul now. I'd love the fact that he's a thorn in the side of corporate interests and wasteful government, but he's another ultra-conservative in a landscape already filled to the brim with conservatives.
As Hedges pointed out, we've purged Liberals from the picture in the US; their roles have been marginalized and their influence takes the form of lip service. Regardless of individual beliefs, we need a dissenting opinion to balance us back out - opposite reactions, yin and yang, etc. That's really the one reason I just can't bring myself to vote for Ron Paul... ever.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
I think 'anarcho-capitalism' would likely be a fast track to fascism; competition would see powerful groups using mercenaries, violence, bribery etc to entrench their power and they would create or develop a from of government to better control the population
I strongly believe anarchist communism is the way to end this frustratingly repetitive and depressingly predictable tug and pull between the people and the monied elite
I do however like how Ron Paul goes completely off script! For someone to speak out against the behaviour of the military industrial complex...that does take balls and its good that someone is voicing some of these perspectives out there
Because of my views i find myself in the bizarre position of agreeing with the libertarians on the right on some things for example the legalisation of cannabis. But where Ron paul might advocate deregulation i just see that as a way to empower the corporations even more
I recognise that not many people are yet willing to try anarchist communism so the more realistic alternative is that government in some way curbs the power of the power elites.....as i distrust governments and any centralisation of power however this solution sticks in my craw and still leaves the door open to future incursions of concentrations of wealth (and power)
The debate is a moot point anyway as the system would always be rigged to prevent someone as off message as Ron Paul from winning....a fact that people of all political persuasions should be angry about
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
Is that for me or for everyone?
I've mentioned many different ideas for reforming the current system on other threads for example: using RICO to punish the speculators, capping campaign fees for politicians, re-instating the Glass-Steagall Act, Tobin Tax, international effort to close tax havens etc
But to suggest these seriously is to fail to realise to what extent the political system has been hijacked by the monied interests; they are not interested in reforms. Instead they are increasing the powers of the state (which i've said all along that they would do) in order to tackle the resistance that they know is going to come from the people
Reforms won't work! Even if the banking cabal did a U-turn and decided to create reforms as a way of calming the angry populace, they would carry on their drive towards neo-fuedalism once the resistance had been appeased.
To solve the problem we need to take power off the money trust and put it back in the hands of the people which is why we need a total system change; there are many different opinions on how that should be done
Most people's idea of 'socialism' is when the government owns things, but really that is state capitalism and in reality the power elite has such a strong grasp on all the levers of power that any increased state would simply be used by the power elite to control the populace. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production and that is what we should strive to bring about
We, the workers, need to take ownership of the means of production. Some people are advocating ending fractional reserve banking and for governments to issue their own money; i would argue to get rid of money altogether and end the market economy.
All these things are 'actionable' it is just a matter of how much political will can be created among the population in order to unite them behind a movement. The movement is there in the shape of the Occupy Wall Street movement but some people are still being a bit slow in realising the importance of supporting the movement.
Many people seem to believe that capitalism can in some way be saved if we just make the right adjustments; its my opinion that that is completely wrong and that people should really start to look beyond that towards new ways of structuring our societies; along these lines i suggest anarchist communism.
Any other action, even if initially successful will regress at some point to the wealth/power imbalance we are currently seeing because that is the nature of capitalism.
The method for change should be peaceful non cooperation and direct action; groups of united workers should literally take physical hold of the nations utilities, resources and means of production; the workers run these things anyway so they have the expertise. For this to occur they need to be united with a common purpose. The occupy movement could provide that but at the moment it is focussed on building its support base. Support will grow for OWS because the economy is spiralling and life is going to get tougher for people. With OWS they have a rallying point.
Last edited:
- MBTI
- ISTP
- Enneagram
- 9
Indeed. I've come to the same conclusion re: history repeating itself (mentioned already earlier in the thread).
My concern with these concepts of collective representation in political and government matters is that people are inherently selfish and will tout their own variation of 'what's best for everyone'. I just don't believe human beings are evolved to a point where we can live in a truly socialistic state. The population inevitably grows too large and the need for central government kicks in to maintain the state.
But I'm an isolationist, so I'm usually not interested in talk of being a part of a collective.
My concern with these concepts of collective representation in political and government matters is that people are inherently selfish and will tout their own variation of 'what's best for everyone'. I just don't believe human beings are evolved to a point where we can live in a truly socialistic state. The population inevitably grows too large and the need for central government kicks in to maintain the state.
But I'm an isolationist, so I'm usually not interested in talk of being a part of a collective.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
Size is not an issue and needn't be a barrier to anarchist communism
People are capable of being selfish but people are also capable of being kind and compassionate; the trick is creating an environment which encourages the best and not the worst
Whats best for eveyone could be established by looking at the health and happiness of people. I think it could be argued that for all its brashness capitalism is not really making people healthy or happy. Oliver James's book 'Affluenza' takes an interesting look at the mental health of people from different countries around the world.
There is a slum in India which is often studied by city planners because despite the fact it has open sewers and is rat infested, overcrowded and dirty the people living there are often found in studies to be happier than people in more affluent places in the west. The reason being abstract ideas such as a sense of community.
I'm not arguing we should have open sewers....i'm arguing that we need to take the best of what we have and combine it with the best that they have; cooperation instead of competition.
I also think that we should get beyond the idea of 'state' and instead see beyond national borders and think instead in terms of workers v's ruling class because the same dynamic is at work around the world.
Workers could run their own work places through workers councils, technology such as the internet could be used to pool resources, equipment and talent and because all the capitalist non jobs would dissapear there would be more people available to help with the jobs that ensure that everyones needs are met. 'many hands make light work' as they say; everyone pulling together would also mean that everyone would have to work much less hours. People would also be able to engage with the process however they wanted; by that i mean they could choose what work they wanted to do and therefore would be more likely to find themselves doing something to which they are suited than in a capitalist system where many people are unhappy with what they are doing but often feel trapped.
Essentially what i am saying is people could have more time, more personal freedoms, more community involvment, more say in the democratic process, more choice in what they do (both in work but also with their extra spare time), more autonomy, but less stress, less controls imposed on them and no bullying bosses
Last edited:
Phebe
Regular Poster
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 9
I think no government is 100% infallible 100% of the time. The only reason why the United States is having problems is due to the job issue, and the belief that our current political climate can change employment rates is pretty slim to none. And to be honest, we would have had this same problem no matter who was in charge, because we're at polar opposites as a country on how things "should" be run.
If we really look at it, the only reason OWS started was because a certain part of middle class were having difficulty finding jobs. But if you ask anyone who has been in certain areas of the country or who has lived in a ghetto, they would shrug their shoulders at you because it's always been this way. Joblessness and anger and people wanting change is only occurring because certain people aren't getting jobs. But where were the politicians when lower income people cried out for jobs? It's not all about drugs and crime. Usually drugs and heavier crimes are the end result of hopelessness; it's not due to certain races. Now, I think, everyone is in the same boat which is why people are beginning to protest. If the government ever had the ability to do *more* than just keeping the middle class happy, now would be the time.
But that's the problem, isn't it? They have never solved the problem of the poor. And now that the middle class is becoming poor, the situation is an emergency. What I think is needed is innovation. Outside of specific tech and science jobs, there are no innovative jobs for the middle class. Those smaller jobs have been taken over by automation in some cases, so we need some kind of industry that can begin paying top dollar ($18/hr or higher) for blue collar factory jobs. Before robots automated the lines, there were jobs that paid enough for someone to feed their families, even if they didn't have a college degree. Those jobs don't exist anymore.
Now I'm rambling. But my quick, to the point answer is this: We need an industry for unskilled laborers to feed their families. Something that will innovate the country as we know it, and change the common state of affairs. But we don't have that anymore. We've automated people right out of jobs, and there is no infrastructure for the lower and middle class masses who have little to no college education.
If we really look at it, the only reason OWS started was because a certain part of middle class were having difficulty finding jobs. But if you ask anyone who has been in certain areas of the country or who has lived in a ghetto, they would shrug their shoulders at you because it's always been this way. Joblessness and anger and people wanting change is only occurring because certain people aren't getting jobs. But where were the politicians when lower income people cried out for jobs? It's not all about drugs and crime. Usually drugs and heavier crimes are the end result of hopelessness; it's not due to certain races. Now, I think, everyone is in the same boat which is why people are beginning to protest. If the government ever had the ability to do *more* than just keeping the middle class happy, now would be the time.
But that's the problem, isn't it? They have never solved the problem of the poor. And now that the middle class is becoming poor, the situation is an emergency. What I think is needed is innovation. Outside of specific tech and science jobs, there are no innovative jobs for the middle class. Those smaller jobs have been taken over by automation in some cases, so we need some kind of industry that can begin paying top dollar ($18/hr or higher) for blue collar factory jobs. Before robots automated the lines, there were jobs that paid enough for someone to feed their families, even if they didn't have a college degree. Those jobs don't exist anymore.
Now I'm rambling. But my quick, to the point answer is this: We need an industry for unskilled laborers to feed their families. Something that will innovate the country as we know it, and change the common state of affairs. But we don't have that anymore. We've automated people right out of jobs, and there is no infrastructure for the lower and middle class masses who have little to no college education.
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 4w5
Yes, but the U.S. does not have a multitude of raiding barbarians, among other things, to threaten it. Machiavelli thought that Christianity brought down the Romans, but the U.S. was birthed in Christianity. Finally, it is not that the U.S. doesn't have the capacity to pay its national debt- it just doesn't have the political will at the moment to do away with it. There is no actual crisis facing us other than a slumbering electorate, but even with that I don't see any indication that the system will end anytime soon for any reason.
Would you prefer to deal with the mafia to dealing with the government?
myself
Permanent Fixture
- MBTI
- INFJ
I'm interested in providing a better world for my children to grow up in.
We need clean water, peace and justice.
Presently, the water is being polluted, justice is not being served, we fund a war machine.
Just don't be afraid once the Crisis is revealed to you.
We don't need to worry so much as we need to forgive the folks that brought us here.
We don't need to blame anyone anymore, we just need to make some adjustments and clean up the mess.
We don't need career politicians working for paid interests, we need public servants guided by wisdom.
None of this can happen if we are crippled by fear.
Fear keeps us bound to the current system, fear is the method of control.
Love conquers fear. Love must be the motivation.
Whether or not people catch on, we can only be held accountable for ourselves.
Let us not waste the time we have been given.
Let's leave this place better than we found it.
...
http://www.freemanch.com/the-top-ten-reasons-why-the-mafia-is-better-than-the-government/
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
The problem is not as simple as a lack of jobs or a slumbering electorate
The problem is not even an American problem; the problem is global which is why there is protest going on all around the world
The problem is how the corporations have usurped the political process and are currently enslaving humanity
Yes their behaviour is destroying jobs, yes their grip on the political system has left many feeling dissillusioned with the political process, which has lead to voter apathy, but these are just symptoms of a much larger problem
Even if you are not a socialist there are still grave concerns for anyone who believes in democracy.
The banking crisis has been created through the criminal behaviour of the bankers and instead of making their businesses fail the politicians (who are in the pay of the bankers) are instead squeezing the public
The corporations are also behind the many wars we are seeing and the destruction of the environment
I think people are fully justified in calling for:
1. A greater say in the democratic process
2. The criminal bankers to be punished
3. A fairer distribution of wealth that ensures more people are employed and have a stake in society
4. A less corrupt political system
5. An end to the endless wars
...that's before anyone even needs to mention socialism
The problem is not even an American problem; the problem is global which is why there is protest going on all around the world
The problem is how the corporations have usurped the political process and are currently enslaving humanity
Yes their behaviour is destroying jobs, yes their grip on the political system has left many feeling dissillusioned with the political process, which has lead to voter apathy, but these are just symptoms of a much larger problem
Even if you are not a socialist there are still grave concerns for anyone who believes in democracy.
The banking crisis has been created through the criminal behaviour of the bankers and instead of making their businesses fail the politicians (who are in the pay of the bankers) are instead squeezing the public
The corporations are also behind the many wars we are seeing and the destruction of the environment
I think people are fully justified in calling for:
1. A greater say in the democratic process
2. The criminal bankers to be punished
3. A fairer distribution of wealth that ensures more people are employed and have a stake in society
4. A less corrupt political system
5. An end to the endless wars
...that's before anyone even needs to mention socialism
acd
Well-known member
- MBTI
- infp
- Enneagram
- 9w8 sp/sx
- MBTI
- .
- Enneagram
- .
Given the turn around in Congress on SOPA and PIPA due to a massive outcry urged on by various internet organizations, how do you feel now?
Did you congressional representatives change their tune any bit?