[Tainari88]

Another Red Scare is Coming:

They are always saying that Capitalism is the HEAVEN ON EARTH. It is not. The Red Scare is the fall back. They never talk about bullshit all the time. If you are a socialist you are Anti-American. If you don't spout some backing for banksters and Hedge Fund gangsters you are Anti-American.

The Congress of the USA is in the 20% or so percentage approval rating but you keep hearing about how Americans are living better than anyone else. This false narrative will continue. The USA loves inequality. They love tiny amounts of people doing well and huge amounts of people living on the edge of survival. It is a lot of problems. No one wants to deal with it.

What is your opinion?

The reality of what is wrong with capitalism? Hear this:

[Beren]

If you are a socialist you are Anti-American.

At first I took that at face value from you.

[Tainari88]

At first I took that at face value from you.

Who and what is being an American anyway? Lol. The Native Americans were told they were foreigners in North America and were denied voting till the 1950s. From 1776 til the 1950s....you are not an American all that time even though your ancestors lived in that land for thousands of years. It is all insane anyway.

Black people in the USA denied the vote. With counting jellybeans and literacy tests and poll taxes and etc. It is crazy.

Women are not human beings with political thoughts and Susan B. Anthony and the Suffragette Movement.

A bunch of unincorporated territories never getting to vote but war happens and is drafted to die in USA wars they are not allowed to vote in. Then the USA goes out and spouts bullshit about being democratic and inclusive.

Are the only people unaware of how hypocritical it all sounds in reality? Are people who never study USA history at all, and yet defend a system they never bother to study well. They don't know what socialism is, or scientific socialism, they don't know what rules the Department of the Interior implements or does, and how they cope. They don't know what corporations based in the USA wind up acting on, and how the banking industry boards run around manipulating other nations' economies in the world in the USA's government's name. They don't know. But they believe naively that somehow none of these bad decisions will bring dire consequences. Economically, socially, psychologically, physically and politically.

And being apathetic and uninformed and tired yet not doing anything to change the reality is not a solution.

What this thread is addressing is to realize that if you believe in your system despite knowing it is dysfunctional and never take action to change it because you believe in the POWER OF MYTH? You are part of the problem. Not the solution.

The duty of responsible adult citizens in all nations in the world is to look for solutions that make sense and work for their own societies. Adapting it to work for the circumstances and the problems present. Not to hide your head in the sand and live in denial.

[Beren]

Who and what is being an American anyway?

America is being American, I guess.

[Tainari88]

America is being American, I guess.

The Mexicans resent the estadounidenses appropriating the word American. All of the Americas have Americans in that territory labeled 'The Americas". From Canada to Tierra del Fuego it is all the Americas. Again, the Americans steal the term and want to be the ones defining who is American.

It is insane. The USA should start addressing the reality of its failed political decisions and trying to improve life for everyone. If it can't? Then don't cry and whine when the entire thing becomes violent, ugly and bankrupt. Again you let the crisis happen? Be responsible. Come up with solutions. No solution? Then don't expect there to be a bright future. A bright future is about finding solutions. Not perpetuating old lies no one believe in anymore.

[annatar1914]

@Tainari88 , you said;

The Mexicans resent the estadounidenses appropriating the word American. All of the Americas have Americans in that territory labeled 'The Americas". From Canada to Tierra del Fuego it is all the Americas. Again, the Americans steal the term and want to be the ones defining who is American.

Some time ago, before the North American Civil War primarily, people in the USA imagined that the whole New World would eventually become one single Nation of States, based on the principles of the American Republic, the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Some might still think this way. Can you imagine an Pan-American United States of America?

It is insane. The USA should start addressing the reality of its failed political decisions and trying to improve life for everyone. If it can't? Then don't cry and whine when the entire thing becomes violent, ugly and bankrupt. Again you let the crisis happen? Be responsible. Come up with solutions. No solution? Then don't expect there to be a bright future. A bright future is about finding solutions. Not perpetuating old lies no one believe in anymore.

Politicians become cynics who take bribes from special interests. It would be nice to take money out of the equation as a beginning towards solving problems.

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88 , you said;



Some time ago, before the North American Civil War primarily, people in the USA imagined that the whole New World would eventually become one single Nation of States, based on the principles of the American Republic, the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Some might still think this way. Can you imagine an Pan-American United States of America?



Politicians become cynics who take bribes from special interests. It would be nice to take money out of the equation as a beginning towards solving problems.

It is interesting but both North America and South America believed in unions of many nation-states working together to become very powerful by trading with each other and creating a united front to compete with Europe for trade routes and power. Simon Bolivar was Venezuelan but wanted a Bolivarian union of South American states. He wound up being buried in Colombia. He liberated many nations in South America. He came from a relatively wealthy class and was a polyglot and very good at many things, politics, war, nation-building and he also thought that too many leaders fighting for control would lead to disorganization.

The USA had its manifest destiny stage. There were arguments about what to do about ruling nations the USA had invaded and won the invasion and now they had to try to rule that country. The USA invaded Mexico City and took over the Palacio Nacional, but they realized that ruling a nation like Mexico would be a long war and it weakens a nation's reserves. You stretch yourself too thin you wind up losing your grip on what you have control over. Spain learned that lesson and so did France and Belgium and the UK and the Netherlands and the Portuguese too. All imperial nations have to realize, if you try to keep a tight control on bigger and bigger territories and the nation you invaded speaks another language, follow a different history and are organized in totally different ways and you want to impose by force your will? It is going to take enormous efforts. They wound up abandoning that and leaving those ambitions behind @annatar1914 . Augusto Sandino fought hard enough to force the USA to abandon Nicaragua as the place to build the Panama Canal Zone. Panama was part of Colombia and they had to fight Colombia and spend a lot of money campaigning for Panama's independence. Then Panama wanted to control their own canal. And the USA did not want that and wound up fighting the same people they supported before. Such are the contradictions of ruling from afar and being far too ambitious for your own imperial racist good.

A scene from the movie Walker with Ed Harris playing the lead role: The historian deals with this guy well...hee hee hee. American greedy men trying to take over the world. It still it is like that. Lol:

[annatar1914]

It is interesting but both North America and South America believed in unions of many nation-states working together to become very powerful by trading with each other and creating a united front to compete with Europe for trade routes and power. Simon Bolivar was Venezuelan but wanted a Bolivarian union of South American states. He wound up being buried in Colombia. He liberated many nations in South America. He came from a relatively wealthy class and was a polyglot and very good at many things, politics, war, nation-building and he also thought that too many leaders fighting for control would lead to disorganization.

The USA had its manifest destiny stage. There were arguments about what to do about ruling nations the USA had invaded and won the invasion and now they had to try to rule that country. The USA invaded Mexico City and took over the Palacio Nacional, but they realized that ruling a nation like Mexico would be a long war and it weakens a nation's reserves. You stretch yourself too thin you wind up losing your grip on what you have control over. Spain learned that lesson and so did France and Belgium and the UK and the Netherlands and the Portuguese too. All imperial nations have to realize, if you try to keep a tight control on bigger and bigger territories and the nation you invaded speaks another language, follow a different history and are organized in totally different ways and you want to impose by force your will? It is going to take enormous efforts. They wound up abandoning that and leaving those ambitions behind @annatar1914 . Augusto Sandino fought hard enough to force the USA to abandon Nicaragua as the place to build the Panama Canal Zone. Panama was part of Colombia and they had to fight Colombia and spend a lot of money campaigning for Panama's independence. Then Panama wanted to control their own canal. And the USA did not want that and wound up fighting the same people they supported before. Such are the contradictions of ruling from afar and being far too ambitious for your own imperial racist good.

A scene from the movie Walker with Ed Harris playing the lead role: The historian deals with this guy well...hee hee hee. American greedy men trying to take over the world. It still it is like that. Lol:

@Tainari88 , I had forgotten 'Walker', lol...

At the time I was young and pretty right-wing even for the period, I remember that I even admired Oliver North. But then, I also liked Pam Grier and the original ''Miami Vice'' TV show. I lived in the Caribbean in the 1980's for a while, so my impressions on things still had to sort themselves out.

[QatzelOk]

It is interesting but both North America and South America believed in unions of many nation-states working together to become very powerful by trading with each other and creating a united front to compete with Europe for trade routes and power. Simon Bolivar was Venezuelan but wanted a Bolivarian union of South American states. He wound up being buried in Colombia. He liberated many nations in South America. He came from a relatively wealthy class and was a polyglot and very good at many things, politics, war, nation-building and he also thought that too many leaders fighting for control would lead to disorganization.

The USA had its manifest destiny stage....

This is true, but it doesn't PROVE that being a large country is better. It only proves that the smaller countries of Latin America have been invaded (and worse) by the huge USA and its huge band of allies. The hugeness of the USA is not necessarily something to admire or imitate. It's like admiring the machine gun of an assasin.

Perhaps what is needed is an international commitment to defend small nations against large ones. This might be in everyone's best interests since large empires always seem to create bad results for cultures and for the environment.

On the other hand, cooperation between the nations is essential in defending the unique governments and cultures of verious regions of Latin America (and many other culturally-rich parts of the world) from the genocidal business model of capitalism. So for the general thrust of the OP, I agree with needing more cooperation between nations. More balancing of the giant claw of Uncle Sam and his Corporate CrusadesTM.

► Show Spoiler

And I appreciated the movies you provided in the OP. It makes this thread feel a bit like a course lecture, with mandatory pre-readings to provoke discussion.

[Tainari88]

This is true, but it doesn't PROVE that being a large country is better. It only proves that the smaller countries of Latin America have been invaded (and worse) by the huge USA and its huge band of allies. The hugeness of the USA is not necessarily something to admire or imitate. It's like admiring the machine gun of an assasin.

Perhaps what is needed is an international commitment to defend small nations against large ones. This might be in everyone's best interests since large empires always seem to create bad results for cultures and for the environment.

On the other hand, cooperation between the nations is essential in defending the unique governments and cultures of verious regions of Latin America (and many other culturally-rich parts of the world) from the genocidal business model of capitalism. So for the general thrust of the OP, I agree with needing more cooperation between nations. More balancing of the giant claw of Uncle Sam and his Corporate CrusadesTM.

► Show Spoiler

And I appreciated the movies you provided in the OP. It makes this thread feel a bit like a course lecture, with mandatory pre-readings to provoke discussion.

Q, I have always thought that the unaligned nations in African liberation movements hold the key to how to cope with the force and power of these big, aggressive empires.

Small nations have always been vulnerable in the face of invasions. If you study the history of small island nations it is a study of aggressive tactics. Sicily for one and many others.

I have never been pro-large nation-states. But you must realize that cooperating and sharing a huge and diverse geographical region if done peacefully and with the end goal of mutual respect and cooperation has huge advantages. The issue becomes trying to dominate and the class conscious and economic monopolies, greed and corporate dominance of said places. That is the issue. Being left alone. They never want to leave the small places alone. It is all about interfering. Period.

Again, one analyzes why they are there in the first place? It is mostly to lie, cheat and steal their way into power. Instead, they should consider the possibility of trading, growing and learning and respecting what is possible and what is present in the other societies that might improve the outside group's way of living or being. Learn from other cultures, experiences, and interests and absorb that human knowledge into the vast library of the richness of human experiences made to grow knowledge and not diminish it.

Who knows when human beings and their cities and endeavors will finally result in mutually respectful and worthy of admiring relationships? And not exploitation and control and lack of real curiosity?

It is all up to how human cultures evolve and develop and if they finally get the message that dominating the world is not possible. But sharing the world and all its knowledge stored in every difference of point-of-view is.

[Steve_American]

I have a theory that is related to the OP.

Before 1914 or 1918 just about every culture or nation state believed that the world is a dog eat dog place.
Between WWI and WWII, some nations believed that still, but some others were thinking that this didn't mean force and invasions. That it meant using trade to continue the dogs eating other dogs.
Then came nuclear weapons. This was a game changer in the minds of almost everyone.
I really believe that nobody raised after 1945 can understand the mind set of most people before 1945.
Back then the world was like a game of cutthroat poker. Any rich player could always bet so much that the other players had to drop out. There was no way to not be in the game, and no way to keep richer players from joining into your local game.
The Aztecs were playing the 'game' with their neighbors, and so have no right to complain when the Spanish joined the game.
Everyone understood this from childhood.
We, today, don't really grok this state of mind.

I have said that before WWII Japan had rejected the lesson learned by some nations that war and invasions were just too costly for the winners to make them worthwhile. So, they invaded China. The US was a long time friend of China's, and it was trying to use means 'short of war' to convince Japan to stop invading its neighbors. The US finally joined the UK and Dutch to embargo oil. (The Dutch then held what is now Indonesia as a colony.) Japan reacted to this in a totally stupid way, and it attacked the US. For this error it was the place where nuclear weapons were 1st used to demonstrate the stupidity of war and invasions between large nations.

Some people in the US Gov. continue to think that invasions of small weak will pay in the long run. Here I mean for the nation as a whole. Some people sucker those people into invading nations, knowing the US will not benefit as a whole, but they (the weapon makers) will benefit, so they keep these wars going.

When will enough people realize that modern weapons [nuclear, sub-machine guns, and improvised explosive devices, etc.] make both war and occupations too costly to ever be a benefit to the invading nation as a whole? When enough people grok this, wars and occupations will come to an end.

Meanwhile, I'm pointing out that ACC is a threat to every person and every nation on Earth.
That fighting wars now is as stupid as Japan was in WWII. What does a nation gain with a war that brings about the extinction of humans from the inevitable resulting 5 dec. C increase in temps, and the world this will create?
.

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88 , I had forgotten 'Walker', lol...

At the time I was young and pretty right-wing even for the period, I remember that I even admired Oliver North. But then, I also liked Pam Grier and the original ''Miami Vice'' TV show. I lived in the Caribbean in the 1980's for a while, so my impressions on things still had to sort themselves out.

Yes, I have noticed you do have right wing tendencies. I say you need to be far more leftist. But retain traditional things you believe in like your faith and other things. But imperialistic approvals is the worst thing for planet Earth. Wanting to dominate the world is for fools really. The Earth is really in charge here, we are just guests for a while.

Capitalism never respected nature, it is a system that is mostly one step above slavery and often drops back into the slave state when it wants to expand quickly and the workers are the ones that pay the ambitious ones like Jeff Bezos and his Amazon.com anti-union Empire.

[Tainari88]

I have a theory that is related to the OP.

Before 1914 or 1918 just about every culture or nation state believed that the world is a dog eat dog place.
Between WWI and WWII, some nations believed that still, but some others were thinking that this didn't mean force and invasions. That it meant using trade to continue the dogs eating other dogs.
Then came nuclear weapons. This was a game changer in the minds of almost everyone.
I really believe that nobody raised after 1945 can understand the mind set of most people before 1945.
Back then the world was like a game of cutthroat poker. Any rich player could always bet so much that the other players had to drop out. There was no way to not be in the game, and no way to keep richer players from joining into your local game.
The Aztecs were playing the 'game' with their neighbors, and so have no right to complain when the Spanish joined the game.
Everyone understood this from childhood.
We, today, don't really grok this state of mind.

I have said that before WWII Japan had rejected the lesson learned by some nations that war and invasions were just too costly for the winners to make them worthwhile. So, they invaded China. The US was a long time friend of China's, and it was trying to use means 'short of war' to convince Japan to stop invading its neighbors. The US finally joined the UK and Dutch to embargo oil. (The Dutch then held what is now Indonesia as a colony.) Japan reacted to this in a totally stupid way, and it attacked the US. For this error it was the place where nuclear weapons were 1st used to demonstrate the stupidity of war and invasions between large nations.

Some people in the US Gov. continue to think that invasions of small weak will pay in the long run. Here I mean for the nation as a whole. Some people sucker those people into invading nations, knowing the US will not benefit as a whole, but they (the weapon makers) will benefit, so they keep these wars going.

When will enough people realize that modern weapons [nuclear, sub-machine guns, and improvised explosive devices, etc.] make both war and occupations too costly to ever be a benefit to the invading nation as a whole? When enough people grok this, wars and occupations will come to an end.

Meanwhile, I'm pointing out that ACC is a threat to every person and every nation on Earth.
That fighting wars now is as stupid as Japan was in WWII. What does a nation gain with a war that brings about the extinction of humans from the inevitable resulting 5 dec. C increase in temps, and the world this will create?
.

Steve, they don't want to acknowledge what is the reality. That the future will require mass cooperation between nations in a friendly and fair manner to survive the onslaught of problems. It is going to be like the pandemic, if you don't take care of the least of the nations the bigger ones wind up getting another consequence as aa result.

It is everyone cooperating or everyone perishing for squabbling and holding on to class conscious privileges that in the long run don't work.

Life has a way of making humans do what has to be done to grow as a species. If we don't have the stamina for it? Life is going to teach it to us. That is the way of the world. You either adapt or don't get beyond survival. You go back to struggle in the jungle.

That is the reality.

[QatzelOk]

Yes, I have noticed you do have right wing tendencies. I say you need to be far more leftist. But retain traditional things you believe in like your faith and other things....

This is the awful thing about the changing definition of words, and how this actually affects political philosophy.

In rich, Western countries, the word "conservative" has gradually come to mean things like *the car industry, the nuclear solitary family in a bungalow, the suburbs, wars for freedom overseas, beers and barbecues and bad junkfood*

None of these things are conservative in any way, and neither is British-style capitalism-imperialism.

If you go back thousands of years, *sharing and group cohesion* are the traditional values. Yet when various nations (some of which are in Latin America and have large First-Nations populations living semi-traditionally) attempt to revert to what is a traditional society of sharing and group cohesion - *socialism*, suddenly "conservatives" want tanks and bombs to roll to crush this diversion from their fake "conservative" script of highways and multinational corporations.

The lack of comprehension that modern life conserves NOTHING is a huge flaw of most modern people living under the warm-but-infected blanket of their fake commercial reality.

They can't understand that any kind of real conservativism is going to be less consumptive, and more egalitarian.

They can't understand something that would cost their mass-media sponsors profits.

Our brains have been deep-fried into compliance by commercial interests with huge propaganda budgets.

[annatar1914]

@Tainari88 ;

Yes, I have noticed you do have right wing tendencies. I say you need to be far more leftist. But retain traditional things you believe in like your faith and other things.

These days I tend not to even consider what ''Left'' or ''Right'' is anymore, I just want to know what is true and what is false.

But imperialistic approvals is the worst thing for planet Earth. Wanting to dominate the world is for fools really. The Earth is really in charge here, we are just guests for a while.

Indeed, we are supposed to be Stewards and Caretakers of everything that is entrusted to us.

Capitalism never respected nature, it is a system that is mostly one step above slavery and often drops back into the slave state when it wants to expand quickly and the workers are the ones that pay the ambitious ones like Jeff Bezos and his Amazon.com anti-union Empire.

I agree. But it'll limp along for a long time until people stop believing in that fallacy akin to that of a Gambler; that they too can be a Capitalist, or live like one, under the Capitalist system.

[ckaihatsu]

These days I tend not to even consider what ''Left'' or ''Right'' is anymore, I just want to know what is true and what is false.

'Left' is in the direction of *social equality*, while 'right' is about social *hierarchy*, especially according to pre-existing wealth and heredity.


3-Dimensional Axes of Social Reality

Spoiler: show

[Unthinking Majority]

Laissez-faire capitalism is trash, and so is full-blown communism. This is not my opinion, it's backed by every statistic you can imagine on nationwide socioeconomic outcomes.

Non-American western countries have all figured out a good compromise between the 2 systems and have flourished socioeconomically. At least half of Americans are stupid, and about 35% of them have caveman intelligence. Maybe when most of the anti-vaxxers die off from COVID and LA and San Francisco are conquered by the homeless hordes things might turn around a bit.

The problem with China is so much communism, because they aren't really communist, it's totalitarianism. But China is free to act however they wish and western countries are free to make counter-actions in response. If they want to eff around I'm prepared to make sacrifices for national security, like paying a bit more for cheaply made crap at Walmart.

[annatar1914]

'Left' is in the direction of *social equality*, while 'right' is about social *hierarchy*, especially according to pre-existing wealth and heredity.


3-Dimensional Axes of Social Reality

Spoiler: show

@ckaihatsu ,

You literally did not get what I'm talking about, but that's okay I guess, lol.

I'm talking more about not being hung up on a label for what I think, which originated as a symbolic reference point dating back to the seating arrangement of delegates to the national assembly during the French Revolution.

Unless you go back even further, to the left side and right side of God on Judgement Day, the Sheep and the Goats. To me, this is furthest ''Left'', just past Ayn Rand and Libertarianism;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... Iy9jqlg57M

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu ,

You literally did not get what I'm talking about, but that's okay I guess, lol.

I'm talking more about not being hung up on a label for what I think, which originated as a symbolic reference point dating back to the seating arrangement of delegates to the national assembly during the French Revolution.

Oh, okay, so that was just a fun little tidbit from history, but now it's all over and everyone loves the 2-party system, huh -- ?

Unless you go back even further, to the left side and right side of God on Judgement Day, the Sheep and the Goats. To me, this is furthest ''Left'', just past Ayn Rand and Libertarianism;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... Iy9jqlg57M

So, like, about 3 blocks past Ms. Rand and then, like, what, 2 lefts and then a right, past libertarianism, and hold the mayo.

[ckaihatsu]

Laissez-faire capitalism is trash, and so is full-blown communism. This is not my opinion, it's backed by every statistic you can imagine on nationwide socioeconomic outcomes.

Non-American western countries have all figured out a good compromise between the 2 systems and have flourished socioeconomically. At least half of Americans are stupid, and about 35% of them have caveman intelligence. Maybe when most of the anti-vaxxers die off from COVID and LA and San Francisco are conquered by the homeless hordes things might turn around a bit.

The problem with China is so much communism, because they aren't really communist, it's totalitarianism. But China is free to act however they wish and western countries are free to make counter-actions in response. If they want to eff around I'm prepared to make sacrifices for national security, like paying a bit more for cheaply made crap at Walmart.

Please just admit that you don't mind buying cheap good-quality goods at Walmart, even though workers in China have to sacrifice their entire lives, living in dormitories, for it.

And no, that's not really communism, no matter what *anyone* from China says.