The Sciforums Socialist Chatterbox

Welcome one and all to the new Sciforums Socialist Chatterbox. Whether it's insight into labor issues around the world or a policy for the new millennium one seeks, heaven knows the Socialists have got it for you. Thrills and gasps and even a few chuckles, we must bear in mind that nobody's perfect, so why should we expect perfection of the groups we marginalize?

Of course, the Socialists often marginalize themselves; I think they're aware of this in the face of the Spanish election--no longer purely oppositional, the Socialists now hold Spain. Significant, perhaps, as I haven't yet seen the triumphal ejaculation of New World enthusiasm I would have expected in the wake of the Spanish vote. Then again, this victory comes on a somber note, under a tragic cloud, and in the face of great challenges. And if there's one thing liberals are frequently accused of, it's taking things too seriously. So perhaps nobody wants to crow just yet, until they figure out just what the situation is.

Nonetheless, for those who would concern themselves with my personal politics, let me say that I judge Socialism and Socialist ideas in the present according to a very simple axiom, expressed by Oscar Wilde (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html):


"The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible."

He has a strong argument, one that I have some affection for. At its core it's well-intended, and it seems a reasonably-noble, if not altogether rationally attainable goal. Much must change about how humans view the world around them before such a goal becomes possible.

And so, naturally, I judge Socialism according to the impossible.

Beyond that, remember to laugh amid the gnashing of the teeth.

Lastly, in accord with Clive Barker, we shall choose an arbitrary point from which to begin our journey . . . .

Socialism has been making marked success in Latin America after free markets, and globalization have failed that continent. Brazil (Silva), Argentina (Kurcherner) (mind the spelling), Chile, and a socialist electoral victory in Uruguay expected this year. These countries are socialist nominally, but really they are just capitalism lite. In the less developed regions of the continent a more militant form of socialism has prevailed. Ecuador, Peru, and most famously Chavez in Venezuela. For the former countries this socialist tinge has actually been a good thing, economies are growing. But remember these nations don't face the threat of terrorism, and they have all experienced fascism first hand. Socialist gov't should spread, as a reaction to the terrorism thing, and economic slowdowns.

Interesting to note that no matter how socialist the government might be, there will probably always be a few malcontents that just don't think it's big enough. Terrorists are just never going to be happy, no matter what.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/sendero_luminoso.htm

They've moved into the serious narco-trafficking biz, much like FARC. Drugs and Terrorism. Nitro meet Glycerin. Kill em all.

Source: World Socialist Website (http://www.wsws.org)
Article link: http://wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/bvan-m18.shtml
Article title: "A voice for the international working class in the 2004 US elections"
Article date: March 18, 2004

The World Socialist Web Site carries the remarks of Socialist Equality Party presidential candidate Bill Van Auken. The 54 year-old Van Auken, a reporter for--you guessed it--the World Socialist Web Site, spoke to Socialists in Ann Arbor, Michigan, during the March 13-14 conference, The 2004 US Election: A Case for the Socialist Alternative.
The Socialist Equality Party is intervening in the 2004 election in order to provide a political voice and program for the international working class. We will insist throughout this campaign that there are no solutions to the immense problems confronting working people in the US outside of a policy and program that begin from uniting their struggles with those of workers and oppressed all around the globe against the world capitalist system.

Our election platform makes the point that, given the impact of US policies on the world’s 6.3 billion people, it would be entirely appropriate to propose that the election of the US president be opened up to working people all over the planet.

Millions upon millions of people around the globe find themselves subjected to dictates from Washington with no say in the matter. Decisions taken by the US government and by US-based banks and transnational corporations spell economic deprivation and hunger for masses of people in Latin America, Africa and Asia, while the Pentagon sets rules of engagement that mean death for men, women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and elsewhere.

Our party will place these issues at the center of our campaign. We are striving through this intervention to forge, together with our comrades organized in Socialist Equality parties in Europe, South Asia, Australia and Canada, a genuinely worldwide movement against imperialism, based upon the independent political mobilization of the working class. (Bill Van Auken)Now, let's just pause here for a moment. At the outset, I must object because, while I understand, sympathize with, and in fact give whole endorsement to the idea that this is one human species together, the reality of the situation is that there are many nations to account for, and while the United States might presently occupy the station of de facto world empire, there exists a handful of dictators, at least, who would object to so direct a deference of authority. Among legitimate world leaders, such acknowledgment would be uneasy at best, and more expectedly absent. Such a challenge to patriotism and its uglier fraternal twin, jingoism, will not go over well.

And none of this discredits the idea of One World itself, but rather speaks plainly to the fact that human beings are not ready for that kind of association.

And so this plank of the platform seems rather strange to me, perhaps downright absurd to others. Then again, we don't pretend for a minute in the US that the Van Auken/Lawrence ticket has a chance. (There wouldn't even be a candidate without the organization the candidate works for.)

Nonetheless, the issue does have its merits. Including the world in our elections won't happen, but that's the point of a protest candidacy--to attempt to influence the discussion.
This year’s election takes places in the shadow of a global eruption of American militarism. Having waged two wars in two-and-a-half years, the Bush administration has now occupied Haiti, after carrying out a filthy coup d’etat which in its cynicism and brutality can be compared only to the gangster methods employed by Hitler’s regime in Europe.

A gang of gunmen led by well-known assassins and torturers from previous dictatorships was armed and financed by the CIA and unleashed upon the country. US officials threatened the country’s elected president, Jean Bertrand Aristide, with being massacred by these thugs. He was then bundled into an airplane at gunpoint and flown to Africa, where he was kept under house arrest. This was all justified because, in the words of Richard Cheney, Aristide had “worn out his welcome.”Did I mention the phrase, "protest candidacy"?

You know, Dennis Miller may have become a quivering, simpering twit when it comes to harsh condemnations of political views, but this invocation of Hitler is downright abusive of the idea. For me, the Bush administration is responsible for the death-blow to the efficacy of a Hitler metaphor when it applied "Hitler" jabs to Saddam Hussein, a known, practiced, and fluent Stalinist. It would have been well enough to say, "gangster methods employed by classic tyrants." That the Bush administration is responsible for disarming one of the most brutal metaphors of our age is inconsequential, though, except when we pause to consider that the only remaining value of such invocations is essentially the cuss value.
We reject the claim that all politics must be subordinated to the mantra of “Anybody but Bush” and insist that a Democratic victory in the presidential election will not shift the fundamental trajectory of American imperialism. That will be achieved only by means of a social revolution.A courageous stand on a contentious issue. The Socialists, obviously, are beggars this time out inasmuch as had they better support among the people, the Socialist candidacy wouldn't be so self-contained within candidate, employer, and publication. Whether or not this is an election cycle in which the various opposition groups can afford to scatter is a vital question; surely, they must hang together, or else they will hang themselves. (And it will be capitalists, I remind you, selling the rope at grossly inflated prices.)

For instance, I wanted Edwards, not Kerry. The Massacusetts Senator is a dangerous bet; he'll be weaker against Bush than Edwards would have been, and carries the baggage of the classic Washington politics that I dislike. There are some occasions that I trust his credibility where I wouldn't trust Bush's, or even Clinton's in his day. But it's not enough to make this a comfortable decision. However, all of that comes with the note that I'd rather it not be a Democrat. Obviously, I'd rather it not be a Republican, but if Clinton is as smart as everyone said he is, one of the reasons he acts the way he does is that he's pissed at Democrats for blowing it. Liberals tend to trust each other to understand certain subtleties; if Clinton was about the game I still think he was, the Dems just missed their cues and rolled over for the mother of all political sodomies and her enormous, seven-headed str--

... er ...

At any rate ....

That trust in subtlety, incidentally, is demonstrated by the opening call for the US elections to be opened to the world. Eventually that will happen, but probably not in this half of the century. It's a hard gamble, to flip one's appearance of credibility in hopes that the audience will finally, someday, get it.
The rise of Bush—the semi-literate sadist—and the influence wielded by elements like Wolfowitz and Perle, who before championing the war on Iraq were advocates of nuclear war against the Soviet Union, is the symptom, not the cause, of a deep-going and systemic crisis of American imperialism. "Semi-literate sadist" is fair, but barely. And it's a risk. Quite simply, he's got a point: the rise of G.W. Bush is symptomatic of the problem.

And this, understandably, is why the SEP distrusts the ABB idea. Nader is down on the list of "Reasons Why Al Gore Isn't President," and I think the actual Socialists themselves know this. Despite the rhetoric, a WSWS reporter is getting coverage in his employer's journal while running for President of the United States--ABB is apparently not so unpalatable to the many who would, in better times, throw in their lot. Kerry is polling strong enough to beat Bush, though the turn of events required to offset that strength is not particularly dramatic.

But it bears well to reiterate that the Socialists ought to consider, in wake of the Spanish victory, reserving for future necessity the harsh oppositional language that tends, among broader audiences, to mask the more vital and occasionally brilliant political gems that Socialism can bring to the spectrum.
As for the tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children who were killed in this war—now acknowledged by even some of the administration’s closest supporters as unnecessary from the standpoint of the weapons of mass destruction pretext—they merit not even a mention in the presidential debate of the two capitalist parties.

What separates the Democrats and Republicans on these questions are largely issues of tactics—how best to advance the interests of US imperialism on the world stage. On the most essential issue of US foreign policy—the use of overwhelming American military might to reorganize the world in the interests of US-based corporations and banks and to further the massive accumulation of wealth by the country’s super-rich—there is fundamental unity.Natural selection has a way of dealing with manufactured housing ("mobile homes") in the northern hemisphere--it's called a tornado. Beyond that, you don't just drop a building into place; you must prepare the grounds, build a foundation, and all manner of construction-labor metaphors goes here.

ABB has not produced a poor alternative in Senator Kerry. Certes, there are others I would like to see standing off with Mr. Bush, but the lack of a poor alternative does not mean the presence of the best.

I've lived under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Poppy Bush, Clinton, and now Dubya. Note that the only "honest" one in the bunch is considered the weakest president of the period, and beyond that the most endearing are Saint Ronald of Bel Air (Champion of Grenada), who was perhaps senile while in office, and the village klutz--Ford's legacy is his value in physical comedy; cf Chevy Chase on SNL, The Simpsons, That 70s Show, &c.

That's not saying much, and it's part of what's symptomatic about the Rise of Bush. Van Auken's blistering indictments of the Bush administration and admonitions against Kerry are effective inasmuch as they preach to the converted. It's a pep-rally rhetoric that plays well among the faithful. But if the Socialists expect their important message to have broader appeal in an age of sickness, they must bear in mind the condition of the broader audience, else it just won't play in Peoria.

And he goes on.

And on.

And on.

But always returning thematically to a subtly wise but radical-sounding position:
Our party’s intervention in the election advances an opposed perspective, one that consciously expresses the objective forces within capitalist society that gave rise to the massive international protests. These are to be found in the intensifying global integration of capitalist production that has emerged over the past quarter century. While deepening social inequality, these processes have also strengthened the objective unity of the international working class.

This objective unity must be made politically conscious. Social equality cannot be achieved in the US so long as transnational corporations and banks oppress and exploit working people in Latin America, Africa and every other part of the world. Moreover, the liberation of the masses in the former colonial and oppressed countries from destitution and war can be achieved only in alliance with the American working class in a common struggle to put an end to imperialism.

The issues posed by the US elections are world issues and require a world solution. The election campaign waged by the SEP must become the means for the most conscious sections of the working class internationally to intervene in the political situation here at the very center of world imperialism, as part of a worldwide offensive against war and for the socialist reorganization of society.I find his use of "opposed" instead of "oppositional" perspective curiously and perhaps accidentally apt. The platform is definitively opposed to itself within the very rhetoric of its oppositional voice. Yes, the issues posed by the 2004 general election are world issues and require world solutions, but I just don't think folks are ready to cast aside national boundaries just yet. And while I support the worldwide offensive against war, it might do the SEP candidate well to remember that people don't like to think of worldwide social restructuring. Much of the world opposes the Americanizing of nations; Americans frown at the notion of an ideologically-homogenous world (e.g. "Islamism") and downplay the significance of world-paradigm issues in our own heritage (e.g. Christianity, Capitalism); the Communist Revolution has all but failed. (Even the Fourth International seeks to "resurrect" the revolution, in other words, call a Second Revolution. In other words, the Old Communist Revolution is dead; the worldwide proletariat is a hash-pipe musing.

At some point, if the Socialists are to score more than the occasional odd victory from the oppositional and during crises, they must be prepared to hop down off the visionary pedestal and take their blows on the playground. Yes, that includes sacrifice of principle through compromise; but some days not losing is just as important as winning itself. Life is never so dualistic as our myths persuade us to believe.

Yay, socialism. How glorious, a life where everyone is equally miserable. Cliché, but true.

immane1

Do you by chance have a cement road in front of your house?

Socialism has been making marked success in Latin America'Tis true; we cannot forget Latin America. Although I think I, for one, generally do because Marxism has never really died down in the Western Hemisphere--as 15ofthe19 poins out with his FAS link. There is constantly a communitarian or pseudo-solidarity issue taking place in the American sweatshop. (Or "armpit" if we want to be even more derisive.)

It probably is just a paradigmatic issue with me that makes the Spanish victory seem so potentially pivotal; we in the US treat Socialism in our hemisphere like a humorously squalling child in the grocery store, as if we're glad that's not our kid. But to see the Socialists rise on the shoulders of the electorate in response to the Spaniard alliance with the US in the Iraqi Bush Adventure ... a minor but vital player takes another step toward center-stage.

Brazil, Argentina and Chile are not some little Suriname powers. These (especially Brazil) are integral to the world's economy. I think that the Argentine collapse has shown that reforms have failed, and Americans even recognize this. Socialism is everywhere, the US military is a socialist program, and Americans have spending like mad ($550 billion deficit?) That is socialism no matter how you slice it. It depends Tiassa what type of socialism are we talking about here?

That is socialism no matter how you slice it. It depends Tiassa what type of socialism are we talking about here?All of it's valid. I mean, most of us can agree that the National Socialism of infamy isn't really something we would include.

And no, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile are indeed not small powers. But that doesn't change the fact that Americans don't hold those nations in particularly high esteem inasmuch as nobody blinked when the US was accused of tampering with the Chavez government, but you can't laugh away such a charge if it came from, say the Spanish.

But it might be helpful to think of "sociaism" as the socialism of any government spending program and "Socialism" as the organized and occasionally doctrinal political force. Dunno. Maybe.

Where you can only get things done when you have money to do them and under socialism you don't get much money for they tax you over 50 percent of your take home pay and in some countries 75 percent! So it is true that you'll get education, doctors and other government things but you won't be making enough to own your own home. The people in charge of the government will have everything they want and need, look at some of the leaders of socialist run countries and see how they live compared to the rest of their country. Quite a BIG difference by my eyes.

Socialism is everywhere, the US military is a socialist program, and Americans have spending like mad ($550 billion deficit?) That is socialism no matter how you slice it.

Xev tried to make the same moronic argument a few months in the thread about the bastard socialists in Finland that write speeding tickets based on income. Only a dumbass would argue that public roads = socialism.

I had a kid that sat next to me in one of my poly-sci classes back in the day, and he would make those same stupid asshat arguments that the U.S. is already socialist because of common roads and military. I think he made an F, because he wasn't there for the next semester. Seems to be a convenient argument for those that don't understand the issue, but resent capitalists.

From Webster's
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Definition one.

If the military, roads and schools aren't socialist programs, what are they? It certainly isn't pay as you go.

Any attempt to create a national health program here is allways denounced as socialist.

At its root, socialism consists of pooling resources. Humans have spent most of their time on this planet living in little socialist groups. From what I know of it, most of the competition for resources was with rival tribes.

European social democratic governments are always on the brink of insolvency according to the right in this country. They've been on the edge of fiscal disaster for decades now, but it never seems to come. Maybe because their foreign policies don't rely on a massive parasitic military?

In the meantime, many of my fellow blue collar lower middle class Americans seem convinced that the rich shouldn't have to pay taxes. That way when they are rich, they won't have to pay taxes!

Whenever I hear someone advocating Laissez Faire capitalism, I think back to the nineteenth century here in the US. No one who knows history could seriously advocate a return to that.

Obviously gov't spending by definition is socialism who actually says differently? Military, roads, Medicare, education, etc. If it is public is it socialist, if you pay for those serves it is capitalism. Jezze what happened to the learning curve? Looks like it's following the US budget.

This is sad. None of you understand the definition of socialism. Proof that the education system is in the toilet wherever you go.

Would you all agree that a standard Libertarian platform is not the same thing as Socialism?

Guess what. Most Libertarians advocate a strong police force, a strong military, and an interstate road system. So I guess by your definition they are also socialists?

Like I said, that kid made an F, I made an A. You really should learn a little poly-sci before you go on a public forum and expose your ignorance.

Source: The Monthly Review (http://www.monthlyreview.org/)
Artice link: http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm
Article title: "Why Socialism?" by Albert Einstein
Article date: May, 1998; reprint of May, 1949 article

Albert Einstein considers the question, "Why Socialism?" in 1949:
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.I'm finding it difficult to comment. I think Einstein, of all people, can speak for himself.

This is sad. None of you understand the definition of socialism.
Other than a failed ideology that leads to economic ruin and a disenfranchised populace, there's not much more to know, really.

People like socialism because the idea is romantic. The blood of the proletariat oils the machines of industry, etc.

The idea that we all put our money into a pile and everybody takes out what they need sounds noble, until you face the harsh realities of socialism - economic and intellectual stagnation. When you volunteer at a soup kitchen it provides a direct sensory perception that it is possible for all of us to get along as one big happy family, working selflessly, or only reward being the fruits of our labor. Caveat: Humans don't function that way.

Capitalism is not romantic. Working hard and working up is dull and boring. Free market economics involves differential equations and Pareto charts, not smiles on hungry people's faces. When you have two or more people with differing approaches, you have friction, and by nature, competition. Social Darwinism is alive and well, in spite of what some limousine liberals and their delusions of noblesse oblige would have you believe.

It is easy to be a socialist, but it is hard to be a capitalist. Non-zero positive growth equality is a myth. But it's a myth worth believing when you don't have any responsibilities. Kids will always oppose the status quo regardless of what it is. ~50 year old socialists are stupid, or have an agenda.

De Tocqueville said it best: Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

Or maybe Boetcker: You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

More here (http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/QuotesByCat?ReadForm&RestrictToCategory=Socialism). Laissez faire for life.

This is sad. None of you understand the definition of socialism. Proof that the education system is in the toilet wherever you go.

Would you all agree that a standard Libertarian platform is not the same thing as Socialism?

Guess what. Most Libertarians advocate a strong police force, a strong military, and an interstate road system. So I guess by your definition they are also socialists?

Maybe more mainstream Libertarians feel that way, but not all do.


SELL THE ROADS

Editorials about "shortchanging Amtrak" are always shortsighted and socialistic. Anyone who believes that socialism helps transportation usually makes the same mistake about socialism in other areas. Government harms transportation just as it harms everything (see http://rexcurry.net).
Everyone would already have better rail transit, mass transit and general transportation if government/socialism had stayed out of the transportation business. Official policies helped destroy rail transportation, mass transit and other transportation alternatives. Government subsidies to roads and bus systems displaced trolleys and private railroads.

http://members.ij.net/rex/roads.html

Obviously he feels government road programs are Socialist in nature.

As P.J. O'Rourke once observed; "You have to love Libertarians. The trouble is if you go to one of their meetings you'll get cornered by some earnest highschool algebra teacher going on and on about his plan to privatize the sidewalks".



Like I said, that kid made an F, I made an A. You really should learn a little poly-sci before you go on a public forum and expose your ignorance.

Maybe that had more to do with your willingness to do assigned work than with his opinions regarding government military and road programs being socialist in nature?

You're dodging the question. If government road and military programs are not socialist in nature then what are they?

We could rely on mercenaries to defend this country, and the road system could conceivably be privatized. But at this time, neither are.

Enlighten us, and no more about who flunked out of your poli-sci class.

Interesting quote:"You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

But what about when men, or women, or children cannot do for themselves?

Do you really feel that Mexico, with blind beggars in the street is superior to the US?

Have you ever had to rely on any of our existing social programs in this country?

I have, and they are a mess. When I was felled with Graves disease some years ago, I was working at a gas station. No health insurance of course. Going through the Medi Cal process, I realized I was "lucky" not to have any property of any value. I would have had to sell it in order to receive Medi Cal and disability. Many people lose their homes this way.

I was too sick to work for a few months, and even with Medi Cal and state disability, I still ran up a substantial amount of credit card debt. And that was even with my mother able to send me about a thousand dollars, and friends willing to buy me groceries. Why should it be so difficult to help the down and out?

In the years since, I've worked full time and lived on the cheap, but I still have credit card debt.

Yes, there will be those who abuse the system. But it may very well be that to provide those who aren't willing to work a free meal and a warm place to sleep would be cheaper than the alternative, which is generally jail.

I'm always amused that so many hardcore right wingers are opposed to social welfare programs, and often funding for schools as well, but they never oppose funding for prisons. They've found moral justification for their mean streak, and refuse to consider that it may be cheaper to build homeless shelters and schools than prisons.

I sometimes imagine myself trying to explain to intelligent extraterrestrials why we humans would let so many of our own species needlessly suffer starvation and disease. I don't think they would buy, "it's really for their own good".

Hardcore socialists get lost in their dogma. Like the WSWS, constantly going on about "contradictions". They never seem to mention, or possibly understand, that human economies reflect human contradictions. Most humans are scarcely rational, and even the most rational among us will sometimes act in ways that are not in our best interests for very poor reasons. Such as a sucessfull businessman who goes broke in an effort to drive a hated rival out of business.

And as stated earlier, when I look back on the nineteenth century I do not see the predicted utopia from laissez faire advocates. I see work houses, starvation wages, and a brutal form of capitalism that verged on serfdom. The labor movement in this country brought the reforms that we all now take for granted. They were not bestowed upon us by benevolent capitalists.

Like the saying goes Stokes; "a liberal is a conservative who just got put in jail - a conservative is a liberal who just got mugged."

And this - "That invisible hand of Adam Smiths' is sure giving a lot of people the finger". George Carlin

How easy it is to forget that only the worlds elite get to post here....
any of you boys lost a child to malnutrition lately?

Anyway heres a historical perspective from this side of the pond.




A
DECLARATION
FROM THE
Poor oppressed People of England.


We whose narnes are subscribed, do in the name of all the poor oppressed people in England, declare unto you, that call your selves lords of Manors, and Lords of the Land, That in regard the King of Righteousness, our Maker, hath inlightened our hearts so far, as to see, That the earth was not made purposely for you, to be Lords of it, and we to be your Slaves, Servants, and Beggers; but it was made to be a common Livelihood to all, without respect of persons: And that your buying and selling of Land, and the Fruits of it, one to another, is The cursed thing, and was brought in by War; which hath, and still does establish murder, and theft, In the hands of some branches of Mankinde over others, which is the greatest outward burden, and unrighteous power, that the Creation groans under: For the power of inclosing Land, and owning Propriety, was brought into the Creation by your Ancestors by the Sword; which first did murther their fellow Creatures, Men, and after plunder or steal away their Land, and left this Land successively to you, their Children. And therefore, though you did not kill or theeve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand, by the power of the Sword; and so you justifie the wicked deeds of your Fathers; and that sin of your Fathers, shall be visited upon the Head of you, and your Children, to the third and fourth Generation, and longer too, till your bloody and theeving power be rooted out of the Land.


Diggers declaration (http://www.tlio.demon.co.uk/poor.htm)

"No man has the right to buy and sell the earth for private gain"
Of course thats what many of us here do each and every day.
So down with Socialism I guess.
Dee Cee

None of you understand the definition of socialism.Perhaps it is not exclusively the academic definition of socialism at play? People have addressed, well-enough it seems, the socialistic aspects of any cooperative community. The thing is that someone somewhere will complain that anything the government does is socialistic. But government is a symptom of society.

Property is robbery.

From Webster's
Quote:
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


!!! If you're gonna quote a dictionary pay attention to what its saying....military and healthcare are NOT to do with the production and distribution of goods...this definition is saying that socialism is where they own and run all the companies that make and distribute EVERYTHING! TV's, canned food, pens, toilet paper...you name it...dont know about the rest of you, but while I do believe the current system is open to abuse, its better than a system equally open to abuse and where we only have 1 brand of everything available to us with no competition to encourage development and pricing. I am NOT going to use single sheet water proof recycled paper to wipe my butt!

nb: also by the above definition, it could be claimed that the current capitilist systems used ARE socialist, as most companies are listed on the share market, hence making them collectively owned (at least after a fashion).

I am NOT going to use single sheet water proof recycled paper to wipe my butt!
Of course not! Who would expect you to?
We all know that capitalism offers us better lifestyle choices.
There's a whole world 'o' toilet paper out there!
You could try;

Quilted Northern© Bathroom Tissue

Scott® Surpass® and Cottonelle® Toilet Tissue

Windsoft® Facial Quality Toilet Tissue

Georgia-Pacific® Bathroom Tissue

Kleenex® Hygenic Bath Tissue

Scott® Jumbo Roll Bathroom Tissue

Charmin® Bathroom Tissue


And thats just from toiletpaperworld.com (http://www.toiletpaperworld.com/tpw/default.asp?mscssid=62GNQLANNL2A9MC923W4L5AP79EFFT U2) if you streatch your horizons further you could try wiping your precious arse with;


Izal Toilet Paper (not my personal favourite :( )

Andrex Toilet Tissue

Wilton Technology - Toilet Tissue

Devon Moor Ltd JUMBO TOILET TISSUE

Cottonsoft Toilet Rolls

Westons Internet Home Health Toilet Tissue

Andrex Moist Toilet Tissue With Aloe Vera (Now we're talking!)

Five Star Toilet Roll

Horse head brand toilet paper

Value Toilet Rolls

Germoloids - Moist Toilet Tissues

Velvet toilet paper

Bounty Paper Towel

Soft'N Gentle Bath Tissue

There's many more but for some reason thinking about those tens of thousands around the world who beaver away day and night to bring me the best bog roll money can buy, just makes me wanna take a dump!
Guess there's just nothing better the world could do with all that manpower.
I'm off to the toilet!

Sorry Tiassa to hijack your socialism thread with a demonstration of the benefits of capitalism! ;)
Be back when I'm done.
Dee Cee

Don't worry about it at all Dee Cee. In fact, I'll throw in a toilet-paper related tale of profoundly disturbing proportions: Anyone ever heard of Roger Penrose (http://www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/penrose.htm)?

Did I say "robbery"? I mean, "farce."

There is no monolithic defection of socialism; anyone who believes as such is not a very smart person. There is socialism like that of the Soviet Union in which all the assets of the nation are within the hands of the central government or as they would phrase it (proletariat). India on the other hand was socialist as well, Canada is socialist, Sweden by definition is socialist, and you would be hard pressed to find ppl who would disagree with those statements. But guess what they don't prescribe to Marxist theories, and they are essentially all capitalist nations. Socialism varies from state to state, and ideology to ideology. If your end goal is utilitarian in nature like Sweden and Canada, the way to achieve this is through socialism, not obviously lassiez affairs economics, or pure capitalism. If your goal is a Marxist communist utopia then the classic definition of socialism fits the tea. But every state on earth has socialist programs, why? Because their gov't exist! Government unto itself is socialist in nature. In a capitalist society gov't would cease to exist. Its not to difficult understand ppl, socialism is not monolithic by definition and those who say differently seem to fail from classes.

I am NOT going to use single sheet water proof recycled paper to wipe my butt!Isn't that a little removed from Socialism per se? While I admit a striking coincidence between a certain brand of green-politik and Socialism these days, I think it's symptomatic and non-essential. Make toilet paper from hemp, most of the problems are solved.

And even Socialists would applaud.

Sheesh, sorry to get the thread so off track, I never knew so many of you knew SO MUCH about toilet paper! lol

But in my own defense, the point I was making was about the misuse of a dictionary quote of all things ( and YES I admit that aint on topic either )....so anyways, back to your pinko lefty arguments folks, dont let me interupt :D

Its not to difficult understand ppl, socialism is not monolithic by definition and those who say differently seem to fail from classes.

Exactly. Thanks for once again flip-flopping in order to reinforce my point, a point which you were arguing against only yesterday. Nonetheless, you're right, it's not monolithic, therefore it's completely assinine to suggest that the U.S. is a socialist republic.

Now if only that poor kid kid in 232 had been able to have nico as a tutor, he might have passed. :D

To those of us who know what monolithic and socialism mean I think we should explore how much the gov't consumes in terms of GDP:

All in 2001 figures:

The world average gov't consumption of the GDP is 16.6%
The US consumes 15.1%
The Canadians consume 18.9%
The EU average is 20.1%
The Swedes consume around 26.7%
The Japanese consume 17.6%
Los Cubanos consume 26.3%
The Chinese actually consume LESS then the US 13.7

If the US is not socialist then China is less so, I think we can quickly come to the conclusion that all states are socialist. Some more then others, and some to great degrees then others. But as I said yesterday It depends Tiassa what type of socialism are we talking about here? There is no monolithic socialism as some would like to believe. The US is socialist by nature, every state on earth is. The difference is that the US gov't doesn't officially endorse socialism as its economic system, which confuses many ppl. So what I wonder why that guy failed now? That community college must have sucked!

I would just like to say that I have been among socialists. I can admit this, because this is a just a board, and I fear here not a brick crashing thick through my window in Mayberry. Here I can say, if I may, not one socialist- not one- ever did me no harm.

You object?

Name one.

If not of them socialists ever did you no harm, then one might assume that every one of them bastards harmed you in some way, Yes?

Naught one. Why. Doo I seem harmed?

Interesting quote:"You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

But what about when men, or women, or children cannot do for themselves?

Do you really feel that Mexico, with blind beggars in the street is superior to the US?
No. You've got me confused with an anarcho-capitalist.

Source: World Socialist Web Site (http://www.wsws.org)
Article Link: http://wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/lab-m26.shtml
Article Title: "Workers Struggles: Europe, the Middle East and Africa"
Article Date: March 26, 2004

The World Socialist Web Site (your source for labor action news) reports on labor actions in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Just a rundown:

- Europe

• Telford, UK - Teachers strike: "job losses"
• Police, Poland - Journalists protest: slander verdict/sentence
• UK - Rail workers' ballot: "industrial action," maintenance contracts
• France: Firefighters' labor action: Pension/retirement
• Harnes, France - Factory labor strike: Health, information
• France - Students, teachers protest: "job losses," reduced job creation

- Middle East

• Egypt - Engineers plan strike/march: Union representation issues
• Israel - Bank workers request strike action: Committee fees

- Africa

• Nigeria - Lecturers' strike: outgoing Vice Chancellor
• Kenya - Municipal employees strike: wage arrears (Clashes)

Just to give a range of the issues:
France, firefighters' labor action: Trade unions are demanding a guarantee of the right to retire at 50 without conditions. At the moment the pension age is 55. Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed within his legislation—the “law of the modernisation of civil security”—to allow retirement at 50 “under certain conditions.”

Israel, bank workers: Bank of Israel management last week reversed its promise to the workers committee that it would not withhold workers committee fees from salaries.

Kenya, municpal workers: The strikers have treated the council notice with derision, and say they will not return to work until the arrears of Sh70 million (US$900,000) is paid in full. They complained that their families were suffering, with their children forced to stay at home due to lack of school fees. Some said they had been evicted from their houses due to non-payment of rent. Or, to comment specifically, "You're kidding," "That's worth a strike?" and, "Stand the line."

Or, so says me.

Do you by chance have a cement road in front of your house?

Roads = socialism?

If this is what you meant, I suggest you stop recearching naval battle groups and start learning about a thing called "government".

Publicly funded projects are not necessarily socialistic. The productive use of tax dollars is not necessarily socialistic. Taxes are not socialistic.

By that definition, a publicly funded national health service wouldn't be socialism either. Try telling that to Rush Limbaugh.

Anything subsidised by the Federal government has its roots in socialism. Nobody but the hard core anarcho-capitalists will try to tell you that stuff like police departments should be privatised. The question is, how much should the Fed be in control of? It's a case by case argument, in my opinion.

Of course the hot button right now is national healthcare. While I am a staunch opponent of anything with its roots in progressivism I wouldn't have a problem with a national health insurance. Just don't make it compulsory, and don't let it become another bloated Federal program.

Waiting 6 months to see an oncologist for a brain tumor is what I have a problem with.

Yes, but our present system is often penny wise and pound foolish. People with no health insurance and little money will often put off going to the doctor until they are in grave condition. Illnesses that would have cost a few dollars to treat in early stages end up costing thousands in hospital care. The potential savings in proper prenatal care in preventing premature birth is staggering.

Roads = socialism?

Yup...are you paving your own roads? Who is paying for them to paved? The collective will of society, and her pocket book. By definition that is socialist.

If this is what you meant, I suggest you stop recearching naval battle groups and start learning about a thing called "government".

Gov't is socialist...I suggest you get a clue.

Publicly funded projects are not necessarily socialistic.

You are going to take a position, please have the intellectual fortitude to state your position in the most definitive of terms, because here...was the cognitive surrender. Thank you for the performance *applause*

The productive use of tax dollars is not necessarily socialistic. Taxes are not socialistic

Of course they are, they are taking money away from the individual for society ! AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! Do please get away from the 1 dimensional view of socialism please it is not very becoming of you.

"Cognitive surrender."

Isn't that a nice term for "Please excuse me, l'm an uncreative but stubborn nincompoop that thinks he's part of a socialistic avantgarde since everybody knows that being an iconoclastic headshaker is the in thing", you overblown deviant?

Government is socialist?
That's a smidgeon too broad, if you ask me... or any other healthily nonradical, realistic person.

Public roads are, by definition, socialist?

Heh... no.

Rappaccini you are the embodiment of what I think the average person is like...you get the clue I suppose.

So come back with an argument against me not a ad hom. ;) I will be waiting.

Source: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk)
Article Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3581649.stm
Article Title: "French PM stays on despite rout"
Article Date: March 30, 2004

So ... I suppose the following is for all those who enjoyed their freedom fries while walking their freedom poodles and freedom kissing their wives.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39979000/gif/_39979687_france_alsace_map203.gif (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3581649.stm)
Alsace - The last UMP stronghold. (BBC)

And you thought France was annoying during the run-up to the Iraqi Bush Adventure?
Voters across France switched to the socialists in Sunday's second-round vote, in what was widely interpreted as a protest vote against the reforms, high unemployment and a stagnant economy.

Of the 21 mainland regions, only Alsace stayed under the UMP's control.

The socialists held their existing eight regions, and seized another 12 from the centre-right. (BBC)Really ... if you thought it was tough to sell a war to France before ....

Maybe those firefighters will get to retire at age 50.

It seems the further right the US moves the further left Europe moves. Spain, now France, who is next? What's the election schedule?

You've got to love these times. The Monroe Doctrine is just being re-emphasized everyday.

Have you ever thought about the timing here? Exactly 100 years after TR(God Bless that man) we have another Prez with stones to tell Europe where to stick it, and the backbone to take the heat.

Unilateralism always scares the liberals, but sometimes you just have to go your own way. :)

I tend to think of it like Battered Wife Syndrome, or whatever they call it these days. Europe--just about anybody in the world, actually--needs the United States to some degree, and we and our leaders are generally aware of this.

And so, like the battered wife who stays at her man's side because she believes the relationship is still better than the alternatives, Europe won't flee or oppose us outright.

Does going your own way include smacking your wife in the jaw every day?

Does going your own way include smacking your wife in the jaw every day?

No. That's insane. However, if your mom is falling into a deep depression and becoming a morally bankrupt, lazy, envious bitch because you have made better life choices than she has, you certainly have a responsibility to try and help her pull out of her tailspin. After all, she's your mom, and you have a responsibility to her. Turning your back on her would be wrong.

Call it "diplomatic tough-love".

However, if your mom is falling into a deep depression and becoming a morally bankrupt, lazy, envious bitch because you have made better life choices than she has, you certainly have a responsibility to try and help her pull out of her tailspinInteresting point. Especially since I've heard coke addicts who are running their lives into the ground for more money and ignoring all their familial and social relatoins say such things about their mothers.

You have a point, and I do enjoy when metaphors get a little more complicated by extenuating circumstance, but here we're presuming that Mom is actually depressed and morally bankrupt instead of acknowledging the possibility that she is wondering why it is her child has become a rapist, thief, and murderer. And, indeed, she must consider where she went wrong.

I'm only diagnosing mom by what I read and see everyday.

My typical morning paper list, and this is certainly not comprehensive, and not all of them are read everyday, but certainly I catch most of them at least once throughout the week.

The Guardian
The Sun
The Independent
FT
The Economist
CNN
WSJ
NYT
Washington Post

As far as TV, I'm hooked on C-Span and i've got three of them now. Discovery NY Times might be some of the best programming going right now. And I catch my share of BBC in addition to the obvious big three cable news networks.

That's where I get my info. And mom sure looks depressed to me.

Edit: Incidentally T, have you ever thought about starting a continuing thread on Sciforums for self-loathing Americans? You seem to have a nasty case of it, roughly equivalent to Hype's case of white guilt. It might be an effective way to vent your guilt and self-loathing issues. Just a thought. ;)

The Guardian
The Sun
The Independent
FT
The Economist
CNN
WSJ
NYT
Washington PostI don't argue with your sources. I might chuckle at The Sun, but Murdoch's need for immediate profits frequently enough busts the "conservative" bias of the FOX News enterprise.

Speaking of topics to start, this idea of yours that Europe equals a morally-bankrupt, jealous mother would make a great topic, especially if you could delve somewhat into the detail of how you read such messages from such sources.

As to a topic for self-loathing Americans? I'm not so elitist as to exclude those Americans who loathe others in lieu of examining themselves. They're human beings. They have a right to be heard, as well.

I'm not so elitist as to exclude those Americans who loathe others in lieu of examining themselves. They're human beings. They have a right to be heard, as well.

They have already taken it upon themselves to create a place to do exactly that. I think it's called Free Republic or something like that. I don't know for sure because I avoid mutual admiration societies like the plague.

Well, there's also the notion that introspection and rational extrapolation therefrom does not necessarily constitute self-loathing.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com)
Article Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41097-2004Apr1.html
Article Title: "Simpsons Stars Strike for More D'oh"
Article Date: April 1, 2004

"Daily Variety" reports that the actors providing voices for "The Simpsons" have stopped work in order to force settlement of contract renewal talks.

The cast is apparently asking $360,000 per episode, roughly $8 million per season. The Reuters article in the Post notes that Ray Roman ("Everybody Loves Raymond") is currently TV's highest-paid star at up to $2 million per episode.

Dan Castelleneta, Julie Kavner, Hank Azaria, Harry Shearer, Yeardley Smith, and Nancy Cartwright have all been without contracts for several months.

Comment: In the TV world, this is a fair labor action. They are the cast of "The Simpsons," and if the curve is set by Ray Romano, they ought to be making about $8 million per "episode". But that's unrealistic and everyone knows it. Admittedly, $48 million for the primary cast is a tall order, but after sixteen seasons, I do think they've earned it.

We do the same thing in baseball. Players have a banner year, get a fat contract renewal, and start the downward slide toward retirement. It's strange, on the one hand, to wonder if this player is worth $8 million a year, but at the same time we recall that he was worth it when we paid him $2 million.

And look at these numbers! They're ridiculous. What I could do with $360,000 per year!

The last time this happened, Fox went so far as to hire casting directors to threaten the cast. Replacing these voices would destroy the show. How badly do they want to keep it on the air?

In the meantime, I can't help but think of this page I chuckled at a while ago:
No. Under capitalism ones wages depend on how much one can produce. That is why Michael Jordan -- or a doctor -- gets paid millions of dollars more then the minimum wage. It depends on how well and how much they produce. The reason why factory laborers receive more wages in America is because they are rendered more productive by productive use of capital. (Capitalism.org (http://capitalism.org/faq/labor.htm))Ahhh ... America.

Source: MLive.com (http://www.mlive.com)
Article Link: http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/lateststories/index.ssf?/base/international-6/1081175946124781.xml
Article Title: "French prime minister admits gov't errors"
Article Date: April 5, 2004

I like how the French just don't matter to people unless they're pissing off Americans or poorly colonizing Asia. I find the current French political situation rather ... entertaining.
A combative French prime minister, in his first major policy address since an election hammering last week, acknowledged Monday his government had erred but promised to improve and move forward with unpopular economic reforms.

"There have been mistakes, there have been delays. They will be corrected," Jean-Pierre Raffarin said in an address to parliament.

His speech, which was followed by debate and a vote of confidence that Raffarin's reshuffled government easily won, marked his response to a beating in March 28 regional elections. Voters used the polls to show their anger with unemployment running at nearly 10 percent and reforms to pensions and other pillars of France's treasured social protections. (AP)The first puzzling thing about the French political situation is that at a time with unemployment running rampant, economic growth virtually dead, and "treasured social protections" threatened, the French people turn to the Socialists?

It seems almost intuitive. American liberals always gnash their teeth at the response to crises here at home: "Go conservative, and pray for the best."

To me, it's an interesting proposition to actually elect the left during an economic crisis; it shows us how important those social protections are to the French. (Insert keelhauling of French firefighters striking for retirement and pension at age 50 here. We'd all love a check in the mail starting at age 50.)

As noted in the earlier BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3581649.stm) article about the French regional election, there is some debate about keeping Raffarin aboard as Prime Minister after suffering such an electoral trouncing.
"Jacques Chirac has just given the French people the two fingers (insult)," Jean-Marc Ayrault, head of the Socialists in parliament, said in a statement . . . .

. . . . Analysts said Mr Chirac was probably biding his time, keeping his unpopular PM until the reforms had progressed further.

"If you want to go down a road full of potholes, you are better go down it with a battered car than with a new one," said political analyst Paul Bacot.

"If Chirac wants to continue with the reforms, it is better that they be done by Raffarin, who is already worn out and very unpopular. Nothing worse can happen to him. (BBC)And batter they did: opposition parties, finding strength in the March 28 handover by voters of the reins of the regional councils, continued their displeased murmur in response to Raffarin's continued employment:
"We ask ourselves here about your authority," Socialist leader Francois Hollande said. At the polls, "a majority of our citizens clearly penalized your policies. They did so massively."

Added Noel Mamere of the Greens: "We have the feeling that we're facing a virtual prime minister."

But Raffarin's reshaped government, backed by its center-right majority in the 577-seat National Assembly, easily carried the vote of confidence by 379 to 178. (AP)In the end I could simply quote the rest of the BBC article, but it is enough to note that Raffarin's continuation as Prime Minister might have something to do with the upcoming European elections, and the idea that taking a shiny new car down the pothole-strewn road is tantamount to "wasting" a Prime Minister, especially should the opposition maintain its strength and stage a repeat.

But it's an almost fascinating situation; rather, it would be fascinating if it wasn't the French. (What? Even I have my own degree of culturally-ingrained Francophobia.)

But what do the French know, or think they know, that the rest of the first world doesn't? Who the hell turns to Socialists in times of fiscal crisis? How exactly, in a time demanding increased productivity, does the party that represents the desired abatement of productivity come to be the go-to? Do European Socialists have some secret economic formula, some grand vision of refocusing labor resources to intensify production? Are we about to see the Brave New World?

Honestly, it's rather puzzling. I can easily get along with the Spanish situation, but this does furrow my brow. The March 28 vote is being described at some level as a protest vote, which is how Socialists usually win power at the ballot box. But this doesn't bode well for France, and hey, I'm one who's sympathetic to Socialism.
____________________

• Associated Press. "French prime minister admits gov't errors." MLive.com, April 5, 2004. See http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/lateststories/index.ssf?/base/international-6/1081175946124781.xml
• BBC. "French PM stays on despite rout." March 30, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3581649.stm

Socialism is used for roads, the Military, etc..etc.. becuase it is more efficient. Not all roads are funded by the Govt. You have those wonderfull turnpikes back east. THEY SUCK. While CALTRANS may be socialist I can drive from San Diego to Canada without paying a dime (upfront at least, but who wants to stop every 10 miles?).
The Military is there to PROTECT the ENTIRE country, not just those who can afford protection, thus it has to be Socialist. Too simple really.

Source: World Socialist Web Site (http://wsws.org/)
Link: http://wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/neyt-a03.shtml
Title: "Murder allegations against Iraq's Allawi: an exchange of letters with the New York Times' public editor"
Date: August 3, 2004

The World Socialist Website has published an exchange of letters between WSWS correspondent James Conachy and the public editor of the New York Times, Daniel Okrent.

Conachy's inquiry seems rather an slap with a velvet glove:


The Australian newspapers are standing by the credibility of their information and Iraq’s Human Rights Minister, Bakhtiar Amin, announced yesterday that the witnesses’ claims will be investigated. To date, the New York Times has not reported what is clearly a newsworthy story. Does the Times intend to report on the accusations against Allawi, and if not, why not?

Source: WSWS (http://wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/neyt-a03.shtml)

Okrent responded that,


. . . The Times is well aware of the allegations concerning Mr. Allawi. However, repeating them without either substantiating them or disproving them would be exactly the sort of journalism I frequently condemn. I am assured that one of the paper’s best reporters is investigating the charges, and if they are found to be true The Times will certainly publish the details.

Source: WSWS (http://wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/neyt-a03.shtml)

Unfortunately for Okrent, the whole thing was essentially a trap. It is likely that no answer would have satisfied the WSWS. Of course, he probably figured. I mean, if he didn't, he shouldn't be the public editor of a major newspaper.

Mr. Conachy's response is, as one might expect, furious. Okrent's standpoint is not defensible; the Times routinely reports stories that are not independently verified, &c. Strangely, Conachy draws on some of the shallowest possible examples: Al-Sadr accused of Murder; the anonymity of an FBI response to fabrication charges in the Holy Land Foundation case; he even drags Wen Ho Lee out, and also WMD.

Despite the almost shameful temper tantrum, Conachy does wind up on a solid note:


The Bush administration took the United States to war with claims it would eliminate a brutal dictatorship that threatened the US and bring democracy to the Iraq. Thousands of Iraqi citizens, and over 1,000 American and allied troops are dead as a consequence. Some 140,000 US troops are still in Iraq, dying at the rate of one or two a day.

In the aftermath of the weapons of mass destruction reports and the revelations about Abu Ghraib, the US media should feel an obligation to report that allegations are being made that the new US-backed Iraqi interim prime minister in Baghdad is already conducting himself in a similar fashion to Hussein—if only to exert pressure to ensure that a fully independent inquiry is carried out and the truth established.

Source: WSWS (http://wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/neyt-a03.shtml)

(Boldfaced emphasis by Tiassa)

No, it wasn't an elegant showing on the part of the WSWS, but they have a point. Open provocateurism? What possible response could Okrent have given to Conachy's initial inquiry that would have avoided the stinging rebuke?

I suppose it's a shame that the WSWS couldn't have found a better way to make their point, for a fair one it is, in the end. But to the other, were I at the Times, I would not in the future respond to any invitations or inquiries by the World Socialist Web Site. Are they supposed to be journalists or activists over there? (We already know the answer, don't we?)

A note to Socialists: No, it's not an international conspiracy against you. Well, okay, it probably is, but still ... I'd say for the everyday Joe on the street, it's folks like these at the WSWS that make Socialism seem such a bad idea. After all, if these are the people convinced that Socialism is the way, who would want to join them?

I mean ... effing disgraceful.
______________________

• Conachy, James and Daniel Okrent. "Murder allegations against Iraq's Allawi; an exchange of letters with the New York Times' public editor." August 3, 2004. See http://wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/neyt-a03.shtml

Socialists need to just pretend they're democrats while espousing the exact same views.

I mean they need to run socialist candidates for office as democrats.

As a member of the left, I am seeking one of two things at present:

• Socialists who are not an embarrassment to themselves
• A Democratic Party that remembers what it's for

Either one will do in the United States. It really does suck to vote against candidates. Who knows? We'll have to see how the fake-your-own-death routine works out, eh?