4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
You sure that's not from the 1968 Bill Ayer's collection?
Letter to "The Nation" from a young radical
- Thread starter KingOrfeo
- Start date
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Uh hua....you're the confused one moron.
Yes it is...UK will shove a camera up your pee hole before they let you take a piss on your own.
You god damn right I do...and it's not just reporters dick, it's everyone.
Except Bush was never "My side" you fucking nimrod
Like I said, you are the confused one hack_c0000 .Your hyper partisanship couldn't be more blatant than when you assumed and ascribed my republicanism based on criticism of certain left wing attributes. How DARE anyone say a bad word about the great (D) right???
You sound like Limbaugh sucking Tea Party shlong....But I'm pretty fuckin' far from a conservative/GOP supporter as they are about the only group of people I can't stand more than the dems...the other side of that same coin. And even then it's by a wispy hair's margin...the only thing the dems get kudo's for is at least trying to church it up and make their "Hey let's help the rich fuck the poor as hard as we want to win our next campaign" programs sound like they are actually trying to help...but DNC still rides that big money cock, and still ask how high when big money says jump. Such is the nature of american politics and billion dollar campaigns.
Last edited:
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
I look at the new Jacobin articles when they come out and sometimes they have some good ones, but mostly it seems like a radical chic vanity project.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Right on...I know each country has it's own set of win and it's own set of bullshit.
I just think america could do all these things better, cleaner and cheaper than the next nation if we would just quit with the partisan hack bickering and actually did something productive as a nation of people. Too much to hope for I know....but I like to dream.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
The only way you accomplish that is under a system of Libertarian (originally called Liberal) Capitalism and the individual efforts of people to raise themselves by their own efforts and labors. When you turn to government as the large driver of prosperity and good works, especially the latter, then you are going to get partisan bickering and fighting for there is never going to be total collective agreement on the methods to achieve even agreed-upon ends.
Everyone expects good works as a collective to end precisely where they believe they will end, but this is never possible, and to quote Cap'n Redlegs, Doin' right's got no end.
To put it into other words...
There is black and white, and if you refuse to believe that, then you will accept grey and let me tell you gray tends to black for when you say ∃ of anything is a good function of government then ∃ is everything ¬∀ and while you may be able to advocate for ∃ you won't be allowed to define it and in this manner its limit will be ∀ for ∑f(∪∃)i [i=from you to the total population] will never tend to ∅ by definition so it is easy to see that it is, indeed, an ∀ or ∅ when it comes to government. (Now, the ∑f(∩∃)i [i=from you to the total population] will tend to ∅ but that is politically unattainable for the obvious reason that the more ∃ is defined, the smaller the ∩∃ becomes.)
A_J, the Stupid
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,317
More fun with glibertarians:
"But think about the [Great] Depression. That was before there was any welfare state at all. How many people starved? No one."
— Fox’s Jon Stossel advocating cuts to social welfare programs because “no one starved” during the Great Depression. To this, Steve Doocy responds, “right, good point.”
The number of cases of starvation in New York City alone increased from 20 in 1931 to 110 in 1934.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/30/fox-business-host-cut-government-because-no-one-died-of-starvation-before-welfare/
Once again, the Chief brings great shame upon himself, his family, his tribe and good ole Sensei K.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Except that doesn't actually work, most humans aren't hoss enough to make it on their own or as a single family unit even, and even they will fall victim to the mass's of dem's once they get hungry enough. Which leads to gangs, then tribes, all the way back up to a state/nation.
We need government on some level to organize and manage those efforts collectively or nothing of significance will get done and you wind up with a 3rd world shit hole.
Now I agree with libertarians in a number of areas...there are places the government should simply not be.
What we consume, do for a living, who we fuck/shack up with/make babies with...within the bounds of not harming/infringing on others it's none of their fucking business and really has no bearing on the security or welfare of the nation economical, physical or otherwise.
But the idea that you can just hand everything over to the free markets and everything will be ok? HAHAHAHA doesn't work and will land you in 1840's america...or by today's standards Somalia....and that is NOT where we want to take the US of A.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Uh hua....you're the confused one moron.
Yes it is...UK will shove a camera up your pee hole before they let you take a piss on your own.
You god damn right I do...and it's not just reporters dick, it's everyone.
Except Bush was never "My side" you fucking nimrod
Your hyper partisanship couldn't be more blatant than when you assumed and ascribed my republicanism based on criticism of certain left wing attributes. How DARE anyone say a bad word about the great (D) right???
But I'm pretty fuckin' far from a conservative/GOP supporter as they are about the only group of people I can't stand more than the dems...the other side of that same coin. And even then it's by a wispy hair's margin...the only thing the dems get kudo's for is at least trying to church it up and make their "Hey let's help the rich fuck the poor as hard as we want to win our next campaign" programs sound like they are actually trying to help...but DNC still rides that big money cock, and still ask how high when big money says jump. Such is the nature of american politics and billion dollar campaigns.
So who would you vote for? Ron Paul? You know the guy who's against wars and stuff? Let's see who donated money to him:
US Army
$113,933
US Navy
$91,100
US Air Force
$88,102
Google Inc
$42,478
US Dept of Defense
$40,500
Boeing Co
$30,724
US Marine Corps
$30,708
Microsoft Corp
$30,259
IBM Corp
$26,547
US Government
$25,766
Intel Corp
$24,046
Lockheed Martin
$23,370
Northrop Grumman
$22,635
RagingWire Enterprise Solutions
$20,000
Corriente Advisors
$20,000
US Dept of Homeland Security
$19,984
US Postal Service
$19,692
Verizon Communications
$17,243
Oracle Corp
$17,163
AT&T Inc
$17,152
Seems to me like your still confused.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 58,337
For the love of everything unholy if you won't put Bot on ignore at least don't quote the peice of shit.
By the same author, from In These Times:
Features » April 29, 2013
Lean Socialist
Why liberalism needs socialism–and vice versa.
BY Bhaskar Sunkara
He wasn’t a household name, but for the last half of the 20th century Michael Harrington was the most prominent socialist in the United States. International leaders like Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme said that if Harrington were European, he’d be a head of state—rather than simply a regular on late-night C-Span. William F. Buckley was more dismissive, noting, “Being called America’s foremost socialist is like being the tallest building in Topeka, Kansas.”
Since Harrington’s death in 1989, the decline of an already small American socialist movement has been even more pronounced. With even the most tepid forms of “liberalism” on the retreat in the United States, and something as economically rational as single-payer healthcare off the agenda entirely, more radical policies seem like the stuff of fantasy. Sure, socialism has its holdouts, but the truly committed domestic socialists now number in the thousands, not the millions. Much as Star Trek nerds make their pilgrimage to Trekkie conventions, this cadre flocks to Left Forum in New York City every year for heated arguments over this or that piece of sectarian esoterica.
The American democratic socialist movement today is marked by both a corrosive internal culture and absolute organizational disarray. When socialists do have impact it’s behind the veil of liberal-left groups, such as Progressive Democrats of America. For the most part, the “S-word” is seen as a liability and is kept hidden from sight. Aside from as a right-wing scare tactic, it goes without saying that socialism has no place within the mainstream American political landscape.
But despite this gloomy picture, there are signs that the cause may not be lost. A Pew poll last year found that more young Americans were favorably disposed to socialism than to capitalism. Even some of the more maligned aspects of Occupy activism pointed toward an underlying radicalism. The yearning for a more just economy seen in Zuccotti Park’s soup kitchen, or the thirst for deeper democracy embodied by Occupy Wall Street’s General Assemblies, represented profound aspirations, if only fleetingly realized. Members of a generation that came of age politically after the Cold War may not claim the label of “socialist,” but they don’t associate it with gulags and military parades, either.
Perhaps we should thank our conservative friends. The more Grover Norquist calls President Barack Obama’s centrist economic policies “socialist,” the less threatening that dreaded slur has started to sound.
Back to the future
Of course, socialism used to be more than a pejorative; it used to be a real political force espousing radical democracy and egalitarian redistribution. In 1912, the Socialist Party of America had 118,000 members and boasted 1,200 elected state officials, including 79 mayors. Workers in this country framed their demands in the language of homestead capitalism and republicanism more than their European counterparts, but they waged the same class struggle, fighting their employers for better wages and working conditions.
These radical currents ebbed and flowed, but in every major progressive advance, from the New Deal through the upsurges of the 1960s, American socialists played a key role. Since the 1970s, however, these victories have become rare. It’s no coincidence that decades of increasing economic inequity have coincided with the decline of the Left. Liberals in the United States never had much patience for socialists—but genteel establishment types would have had a hard time passing the New Deal without reds marching at their left, threatening more radical change. It was only after U.S. socialism retreated in disarray that the tides of neoliberalism moved in and significantly eroded the accomplishments of social democracy.
But those achievements can be won back. The essay I co-wrote with Peter Frase for In These Times last November, “The Welfare State of America,” argued that shifting social-spending burdens from states and localities to the federal government could make the welfare state more efficient, more sustainable and, crucially, more popular. We identified social actors whose interests would align with such a program—political constituencies such as labor that, once mobilized, could help usher in a new era of American social democracy.
Our proposal was not inspired by postwar nostalgia—a yearning for the kinder and gentler capitalism of yesteryear. Nor did we abandon the original socialist vision of a post-capitalist society. Instead, we proposed that certain reforms, once established, would both improve the conditions of working people in the immediate present while also setting the stage for more fundamental structural changes in the future. Unlike leftists who believe that things must get worse before they get better, we argue that the rank and file of the Next Left will need the psychological confidence that comes with winning intermediate victories, as well as the material security that comes with a robust safety net, before making any credible moves for more fundamental social change.
Refuseniks to the left, technocrats to the right
Such a process is inconceivable without a Left willing to engage with liberalism, but the trends in this respect are not promising. A peculiar brand of anarchism, prevalent during the Occupy movement, has attracted many young activists to its ranks. Their master plan for world change: Refuse to take power. Avoid politics. Occupy squats and “liberate space.” Celebrate liberalism’s collapse and hope something better will arise out of the rubble.
Given the political climate today, it’s understandable that so many radicals opt for hermetic purity and lifestyle posturing. Over the past three decades, the Democratic Party has turned in even more pro-corporate directions. It was Clinton, not Reagan, who was able to push through welfare reform; Obama, not Bush, who has put the future of Medicare at risk. Yet most traditional liberals have stood opposed to such policies. This distinction—between technocratic elites in the center-left coalition intent on managing the decline of the welfare state and liberal activists who want to see accomplishments of the New Deal and the Great Society defended and expanded—is key. After all, liberals clinging to faith in the welfare state would be a critical part of any broad Left anti-austerity coalition.
The American welfare state was the product of a specific historical moment; its ideological architecture was buttressed by the New Deal and by the experience of a highly coordinated wartime economy of the 1940s. More importantly, it emerged during the plenty of a postwar economic boom, with the help of a mass labor movement that in 2013 shows no sign of resurrecting itself to its former glory.
The different ways in which liberals assess this history reveal interesting fractures in the liberal camp. In one corner, labor-oriented liberals rightly pine for that bygone era’s economic security and still dream that someday the promise of mid-century liberalism will be realized in the form of a more robust industrial democracy. In the other corner are those aligned with the professional liberal policy class, like the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, who in a January 18 blog post titled “After ‘the end of big government liberalism’ ” wrote, “The progressive project of building a decent welfare state is giving way to the more technocratic work of financing and managing it.” Hence the existing safety net must be pruned and innovated upon until it can mesh with the demands of a globalized economy.
These liberal technocrats aren’t idiots. Their understanding of the structural basis of the 1970s economic crisis that undid much of American social democracy and inaugurated neoliberalism is more sophisticated than that of their labor-Left peers. But the disconnect between the aspirations of liberal policy types and the voting blocs they rely on politically is striking. This is a divide socialists can exploit. The bloodless wonkery of Beltway liberals—the corps of writers who are heralded as the “ideas people” of American liberalism—presents the Left with an opportunity to rebuild a rapport with the broader progressive movement, an audience starved for alternatives to austerity.
Out of Kansas
A new New Deal alliance would bode well for the liberal-Left, but playing a role in rejuvenating American liberalism will only be a means to an end. That’s where Michael Harrington and his co-conspirators, many of whom were leaders of the labor movement, erred. Their folly wasn’t a hostility to engagement with liberals, like that of today’s anarchist youth, but that their political strategy by design played second fiddle to, and eventually became indistinguishable from, that of their liberal counterparts. Given the chance during the high-water mark of American liberalism, they were unable to build their own institutions and struggle for dominance within the broader progressive coalition.
Through outreach and agitprop, today’s democratic socialists will need to push popular analysis and display organizational talents more dynamic than liberalism can offer. This will mean working openly under the socialist banner, identifying capitalism as a social system that benefits a tiny minority at the expense of everyone else, and organizing within our communities, schools and workplaces to challenge the structures and relationships that dominate our lives. It’ll mean creating parties and organizations distinct from those on the American political scene today, but not remote from ordinary people’s lived realities.
The only way back to political relevance for socialists lies through realistic engagement with politics as it exists today. And that involves messiness and compromise—reaching out to liberals as friends and allies—while not losing sight of the need to decisively transform a political framework built on a self-destructive and morally intolerable mode of production.
Features » April 29, 2013
Lean Socialist
Why liberalism needs socialism–and vice versa.
BY Bhaskar Sunkara
He wasn’t a household name, but for the last half of the 20th century Michael Harrington was the most prominent socialist in the United States. International leaders like Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme said that if Harrington were European, he’d be a head of state—rather than simply a regular on late-night C-Span. William F. Buckley was more dismissive, noting, “Being called America’s foremost socialist is like being the tallest building in Topeka, Kansas.”
Since Harrington’s death in 1989, the decline of an already small American socialist movement has been even more pronounced. With even the most tepid forms of “liberalism” on the retreat in the United States, and something as economically rational as single-payer healthcare off the agenda entirely, more radical policies seem like the stuff of fantasy. Sure, socialism has its holdouts, but the truly committed domestic socialists now number in the thousands, not the millions. Much as Star Trek nerds make their pilgrimage to Trekkie conventions, this cadre flocks to Left Forum in New York City every year for heated arguments over this or that piece of sectarian esoterica.
The American democratic socialist movement today is marked by both a corrosive internal culture and absolute organizational disarray. When socialists do have impact it’s behind the veil of liberal-left groups, such as Progressive Democrats of America. For the most part, the “S-word” is seen as a liability and is kept hidden from sight. Aside from as a right-wing scare tactic, it goes without saying that socialism has no place within the mainstream American political landscape.
But despite this gloomy picture, there are signs that the cause may not be lost. A Pew poll last year found that more young Americans were favorably disposed to socialism than to capitalism. Even some of the more maligned aspects of Occupy activism pointed toward an underlying radicalism. The yearning for a more just economy seen in Zuccotti Park’s soup kitchen, or the thirst for deeper democracy embodied by Occupy Wall Street’s General Assemblies, represented profound aspirations, if only fleetingly realized. Members of a generation that came of age politically after the Cold War may not claim the label of “socialist,” but they don’t associate it with gulags and military parades, either.
Perhaps we should thank our conservative friends. The more Grover Norquist calls President Barack Obama’s centrist economic policies “socialist,” the less threatening that dreaded slur has started to sound.
Back to the future
Of course, socialism used to be more than a pejorative; it used to be a real political force espousing radical democracy and egalitarian redistribution. In 1912, the Socialist Party of America had 118,000 members and boasted 1,200 elected state officials, including 79 mayors. Workers in this country framed their demands in the language of homestead capitalism and republicanism more than their European counterparts, but they waged the same class struggle, fighting their employers for better wages and working conditions.
These radical currents ebbed and flowed, but in every major progressive advance, from the New Deal through the upsurges of the 1960s, American socialists played a key role. Since the 1970s, however, these victories have become rare. It’s no coincidence that decades of increasing economic inequity have coincided with the decline of the Left. Liberals in the United States never had much patience for socialists—but genteel establishment types would have had a hard time passing the New Deal without reds marching at their left, threatening more radical change. It was only after U.S. socialism retreated in disarray that the tides of neoliberalism moved in and significantly eroded the accomplishments of social democracy.
But those achievements can be won back. The essay I co-wrote with Peter Frase for In These Times last November, “The Welfare State of America,” argued that shifting social-spending burdens from states and localities to the federal government could make the welfare state more efficient, more sustainable and, crucially, more popular. We identified social actors whose interests would align with such a program—political constituencies such as labor that, once mobilized, could help usher in a new era of American social democracy.
Our proposal was not inspired by postwar nostalgia—a yearning for the kinder and gentler capitalism of yesteryear. Nor did we abandon the original socialist vision of a post-capitalist society. Instead, we proposed that certain reforms, once established, would both improve the conditions of working people in the immediate present while also setting the stage for more fundamental structural changes in the future. Unlike leftists who believe that things must get worse before they get better, we argue that the rank and file of the Next Left will need the psychological confidence that comes with winning intermediate victories, as well as the material security that comes with a robust safety net, before making any credible moves for more fundamental social change.
Refuseniks to the left, technocrats to the right
Such a process is inconceivable without a Left willing to engage with liberalism, but the trends in this respect are not promising. A peculiar brand of anarchism, prevalent during the Occupy movement, has attracted many young activists to its ranks. Their master plan for world change: Refuse to take power. Avoid politics. Occupy squats and “liberate space.” Celebrate liberalism’s collapse and hope something better will arise out of the rubble.
Given the political climate today, it’s understandable that so many radicals opt for hermetic purity and lifestyle posturing. Over the past three decades, the Democratic Party has turned in even more pro-corporate directions. It was Clinton, not Reagan, who was able to push through welfare reform; Obama, not Bush, who has put the future of Medicare at risk. Yet most traditional liberals have stood opposed to such policies. This distinction—between technocratic elites in the center-left coalition intent on managing the decline of the welfare state and liberal activists who want to see accomplishments of the New Deal and the Great Society defended and expanded—is key. After all, liberals clinging to faith in the welfare state would be a critical part of any broad Left anti-austerity coalition.
The American welfare state was the product of a specific historical moment; its ideological architecture was buttressed by the New Deal and by the experience of a highly coordinated wartime economy of the 1940s. More importantly, it emerged during the plenty of a postwar economic boom, with the help of a mass labor movement that in 2013 shows no sign of resurrecting itself to its former glory.
The different ways in which liberals assess this history reveal interesting fractures in the liberal camp. In one corner, labor-oriented liberals rightly pine for that bygone era’s economic security and still dream that someday the promise of mid-century liberalism will be realized in the form of a more robust industrial democracy. In the other corner are those aligned with the professional liberal policy class, like the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, who in a January 18 blog post titled “After ‘the end of big government liberalism’ ” wrote, “The progressive project of building a decent welfare state is giving way to the more technocratic work of financing and managing it.” Hence the existing safety net must be pruned and innovated upon until it can mesh with the demands of a globalized economy.
These liberal technocrats aren’t idiots. Their understanding of the structural basis of the 1970s economic crisis that undid much of American social democracy and inaugurated neoliberalism is more sophisticated than that of their labor-Left peers. But the disconnect between the aspirations of liberal policy types and the voting blocs they rely on politically is striking. This is a divide socialists can exploit. The bloodless wonkery of Beltway liberals—the corps of writers who are heralded as the “ideas people” of American liberalism—presents the Left with an opportunity to rebuild a rapport with the broader progressive movement, an audience starved for alternatives to austerity.
Out of Kansas
A new New Deal alliance would bode well for the liberal-Left, but playing a role in rejuvenating American liberalism will only be a means to an end. That’s where Michael Harrington and his co-conspirators, many of whom were leaders of the labor movement, erred. Their folly wasn’t a hostility to engagement with liberals, like that of today’s anarchist youth, but that their political strategy by design played second fiddle to, and eventually became indistinguishable from, that of their liberal counterparts. Given the chance during the high-water mark of American liberalism, they were unable to build their own institutions and struggle for dominance within the broader progressive coalition.
Through outreach and agitprop, today’s democratic socialists will need to push popular analysis and display organizational talents more dynamic than liberalism can offer. This will mean working openly under the socialist banner, identifying capitalism as a social system that benefits a tiny minority at the expense of everyone else, and organizing within our communities, schools and workplaces to challenge the structures and relationships that dominate our lives. It’ll mean creating parties and organizations distinct from those on the American political scene today, but not remote from ordinary people’s lived realities.
The only way back to political relevance for socialists lies through realistic engagement with politics as it exists today. And that involves messiness and compromise—reaching out to liberals as friends and allies—while not losing sight of the need to decisively transform a political framework built on a self-destructive and morally intolerable mode of production.
As opposed to what? Is The Nation or In These Times your idea of more-serious?
The_Trouvere
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Posts
- 11,189
You write like a high school dropout. You are obviously too stupid and poorly educated to contribute to this discussion. Be silent. Adults are talking.
The_Trouvere
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Posts
- 11,189
The American working class, or let us call it "the class of employees" has never developed a socialist consciousness. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the United States has never had a titled hereditary aristocracy, whose wealth was based on property ownership, rather than doing anything obviously useful. There has usually been more social mobility in the United States than in Europe. Thus young Americans can imagine that they will become rich. Middle aged Americans can imagine that their children will become rich.
The second is that America's class of employees has always been heterogeneous. Loyalties of race, nation, and ethnicity are usually stronger than class loyalties.
I can think of two reasons the United States employee class may develop a socialist consciousness now. First, although the rich are getting richer, real after tax income for most Americans is declining. With an intermission during President Clinton's second term this has been going on since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. It has never before happened in American history. During previous periods of growing inequality most people advanced slightly.
Second, the employee class is getting larger. Small inexpensive restaurants are being replaced by fast food restaurants. Small shops are being replaced by big box stores like Walmart. Family farms are being absorbed by agribusiness. Employees are more likely to vote Democratic than those who are self employed.
Even college educated professionals who work for someone else are nudged slightly to the left. The Dilbert comic strip articulates the environment most college educated professionals experience in corporations. The targets of Scott Adam's humor are not big government and high taxes. They are alienating work environments and belligerent, clueless bosses.
The fact that a growing minority of Americans - perhaps soon to be a majority - favor socialism gives me reason to hope. Right now the democratic socialist movement in the United States needs a brilliant, charismatic leader.
Perhaps one is waiting in the wings. When the Montgomery Bus Boycott began in 1955 I.F. Stone wrote, "Negroes need a Gandhi." They soon got Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The second is that America's class of employees has always been heterogeneous. Loyalties of race, nation, and ethnicity are usually stronger than class loyalties.
I can think of two reasons the United States employee class may develop a socialist consciousness now. First, although the rich are getting richer, real after tax income for most Americans is declining. With an intermission during President Clinton's second term this has been going on since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. It has never before happened in American history. During previous periods of growing inequality most people advanced slightly.
Second, the employee class is getting larger. Small inexpensive restaurants are being replaced by fast food restaurants. Small shops are being replaced by big box stores like Walmart. Family farms are being absorbed by agribusiness. Employees are more likely to vote Democratic than those who are self employed.
Even college educated professionals who work for someone else are nudged slightly to the left. The Dilbert comic strip articulates the environment most college educated professionals experience in corporations. The targets of Scott Adam's humor are not big government and high taxes. They are alienating work environments and belligerent, clueless bosses.
The fact that a growing minority of Americans - perhaps soon to be a majority - favor socialism gives me reason to hope. Right now the democratic socialist movement in the United States needs a brilliant, charismatic leader.
Perhaps one is waiting in the wings. When the Montgomery Bus Boycott began in 1955 I.F. Stone wrote, "Negroes need a Gandhi." They soon got Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Think this Sunkara could be it?
hobbit.
Gods rep on Earth.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2003
- Posts
- 34,913
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
So what would you call Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? They were atristocracy sans-titles.
I.F Stone very nice.
But, that lack of titles and such made all the difference; it allowed us to have a some-are-more-equal-than-others sort of republic, distinguishable at any rate from flatly aristocratic republics like Venice and ancient Rome, that gradually (and roughly) evolved (and is evolving still) into something more democratic and egalitarian.
Last edited:
Not Americans, and not very "left" by today's standards, either. What is your point?
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Only reason I would vote for Paul would be that he's the only one I believe when he says he wouldn't go after pot in states that legalized. Unlike that lying sack of shit in the WH now who blatantly LIED to the people about it. I mean if you're and anti pot POTUS, cool...but tell us up front. Don't act like a supporter then turn around and be a way bigger dick head than Bush ever was on the subject.
About what?
Lot's of things confuse me....ever taken a diffEQ class? Made me scratch my head a few times.
Except I'm a grad student you fucking douche...I just don't give a fuck to put any effort into really refining the poop I spear in the stalls of lit.
No...and lick my balls bitch.
Last edited:
The_Trouvere
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Posts
- 11,189
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
I'll have my PhD in plant science soon enough, what you doubt doesn't really fuckin' matter.
I'll still be here shitting on the ceiling, smoking the finest herb and laughing at you.
The_Trouvere
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Posts
- 11,189
George Washington had no descendants. A generation later Thomas Jefferson's descendants were not rich, leisured, and politically prominent.
In his Democracy in America, published in 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that very few of the sons of those who had signed the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution were economically, socially, and/or politically prominent. Previously in history they would have formed a titled aristocracy. George Washington did not establish a dynasty the way Napoleon Bonaparte tried to.
ChinaBandit
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Posts
- 4,281
Are you sure about that King?
Have you asked many 18-25 year old Europeans how they're feeling about things?
They should have plenty of time to answer given the unemployment rate of this age group.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
You will never get anything out of KO that isn't 110% sucking off socialism and everything left of it right up to anarchy, don't want to lose that iron fisted control.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
What about the Adams? How about the Vanderbilts? The Rockefellers? The Tafts?
Which Jefferson children? The black ones?
All of that is very interesting and important, however, the America we're living in now has less social mobility than countries in Europe.
Remember you're reading the history as written by rich, white people. I know it's obvious but read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.
