http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11685.htm

Understanding Root Causes

Imagine, if you will, that you are fielding a baseball team. You are a player on a team that possesses immense talent. Your opponent has never lost a game. The opposition is undefeated not because its players are superior to your own, but because it makes the rules of the game to assure its own victory. It wins because your team has to play by a fixed set of rules that it does not. Although you have an excellent pitcher on the mound, the strike zone is microscopic and in constant flux. Your opponent’s pitcher, however, enjoys a huge strike zone. Your opponent also owns all of the umpires officiating the contest. Who but a fool would play such a game with the expectation of competing, much less winning? The outcome of that game, no matter how well your team performs, has already been determined. To participate in such a charade is an exercise in futility.

Those of us who demand a better America find ourselves the unwitting participants in just such a game. We are in good faith trying to operate in a system that is inherently unjust. Corporate lobbyists have overrun the capitol, as well as every branch of government, including the judiciary. Corporations lord immense power over both people and process, when they should be servants to the people. Legislation is sold to the highest bidder. Workers, comprising some ninety percent of the populace, have no representation or protection against the industry predators that exploits them. We are bound by rules that our rulers are not. We cannot possibly compete in this system; much less create democratic freedoms and equality. The system operates on monetary capital, not moral capital. The system does not deserve our loyalty or our participation. The time has come to create a new game with a level playing field. Working people are weary of serving ‘The Man.’

Justice cannot be served without the full participation of the people in the process, and at every level.

Thinking that we can reform a system of economics and politics that is rotten to the core only serves the interest of wealth and power. Reform can do no more than maintain the status quo; it will assure the continuation of the present system in which power and influence is concentrated in the hands of a few, at the expense of the many.

Let us finally have the courage to acknowledge that the root cause of virtually everything that ails America can trace its origins to capitalism in its various incarnations. We have built our political and economic institutions upon a rotten foundation. The system cannot long stand. Under capitalism, the large majority will always be subservient to the small minority. To call this form of plutocratic despotism a democracy is an insult to our intelligence. How can any nation declare itself free when the great majority of its people are wage slaves to plutocrats and corporations? When they are cannon fodder for its powerful military?

If ever we are to have a chance at becoming a free and democratic society, rather than the permanent war economy we have become, capitalism must go. Working class people must come to see capitalism as the enemy it is. The way to democracy lies in putting the means of production into the hands of the workers themselves. But first the economy must be pried lose from the fingers of the plutocrats and the corporatists who claim to own it.

Political freedom can only occur through economic emancipation. Not only can the present economy not long endure—it must inevitably collapse of its own excess and waste. Meanwhile, we must organize the work place with an old revolutionary unionism that was in vogue more than a hundred years ago. It was revolutionary unionism that gave us the weekend, paid vacation, and the eight hour work day by prying them from the hands of the capitalists.

Loyalty to a system that is inherently unjust cannot provide justice to the masses. This will only assure the unbroken continuation of the unjust outcomes that are injurious to the great majority of the people. America is dying from the cancer of capitalism. The malignancy cannot be cured by giving her a few aspirins. Radical treatment is the only hope for her survival. The alternative is the certain death of hope for the vast majority of the people. Hope lies in the smoldering rubble of empire.

Working people must be more than the property of their employers. We must be more than machines to be exploited by those with wealth and power. Workers must emancipate themselves from the system of power and corruption that enslaves them and smothers their dreams for social and economic justice. The way to that freedom is through the economy—industrial freedom.

The machinery that produces wealth for the small minority through the enslavement of the great majority came into being with public funds. For example, huge tracts of land were given to the railroads at the behest of corporate lawyers—an advantage not enjoyed by people of average means. Never mind that this land was stolen from the Indians. However, capitalism allows the private ownership of the economic engines that drive the country. It fosters the concentration of wealth at the top by exploiting everyone below the top. That which was created with public funds belongs to the public, not to those with the capital to buy control through the courts and congress. Power to the people means that those who produce should enjoy fully the fruits of their labor, not merely a small percentage of it. This is assuredly the most just and expeditious means of self emancipation from industrial slavery.

Through the deliberate perversion of language, with the aid of the commercial media and its lackeys, truth has been distorted almost beyond recognition. We the people must wake up from our stupor and understand how and why we are in the present predicament. Let us speak plain and clear truth to power whose meaning cannot be mistaken: Power to the people!

It is the pervasion of language that enables those who plunder the earth, which enslave the work force; and buy legislation from the law makers that legalizes criminality, to be called patriots or super patriots; while those who defend the earth from corporate marauders; who uphold and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are labeled unpatriotic or terrorists. We cannot allow this perversion of language to stand. Its sole purpose betrays our just cause and serves those with wealth and power, by betraying the core values that govern the behavior of the rest of us.

George Bush and his minions are not an aberration. They are the natural and expected fruit of capitalism run amok. Capitalists believe in plutocratic and corporate rule, the concentration of wealth and power. They are the product of a system of economic inequality and privilege that exploits the huge majority of the population and subjugates them into wage slavery as ‘at will’ employees. It preys upon the just—those who play by the rules. The quagmire in Iraq, and the one to come in Iran, and in hundreds of other places, is the result of the social and economic injustice fostered by capitalism. Treating the symptoms will not affect a cure. Only addressing root causes can do that.

By engaging in party politics, the practice of pitting conservative against liberal, liberal against conservative, we are playing into the hands of the status quo. I have been all too guilty of this practice myself. It is an easy trap to fall into. By so doing we are unwittingly creating a diversion, a smoke screen, for the empire builders and power brokers to continue to play the game safely out of public view, assuring the same results, regardless of which party is in power.

To illustrate this point, consider the difference between George Bush and John Kerry in the last presidential election was more a matter of semantics than of substance. Both men are the product of wealth and privilege; neither of them represents the great majority of the people, the working class. Neither do their cohorts in Congress, an increasing number of which are millionaires. The appearance of choice is only an illusion, designed to deceive and to paralyze. By such means the system—capitalism—wins and the people lose by being the unwittingly servants of empire. The ruling class remains in power and the working class remain their obedient servants. We must stop working against ourselves. We have enough to do to overcome the real enemy.

As incredible as it may seem, the average liberal and the average conservative have more in common with one another, than they have in common with their respective political parties and their champions. The great majority of conservatives and liberals are victims of a system that not only does not serve them—it exploits them. Thus when conservatives take to heart the rhetoric of the vitriolic Rush Limbaugh, a wealthy white man, a product of the system; a member of the ruling class—they are in fact working against their own self interest. They are allowing themselves to be exploited and played for fools, while thieves make off with everything they own. Who benefits? Limbaugh and the ruling class who are using the system for their own ends—that is who benefits. Ordinary people of average means would be wise not to set foot into that trap because it does not serve their cause. We are spending too much time and energy fighting one another, rather than the real enemy, the system itself—capitalism.

History bears me out on my assertion that capitalism has never served the interest of ordinary working people. It never will. The sooner we understand this fact, the better.

Charles Sullivan is a photographer and free lance writer living in the Eastern pan handle of West Virginia. He can be reached at earthdog@highstream.net.

Freethinker,

A couple of points.


First off, human civilization has been around for some 5,000 years. During that time, NO civilization ever got beyond the horse and cart, the sailing ship and manual labor.


500 years ago, capitalism started to take root in Europe, notably in England also the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution started to reshape European thought. New things learned, the role of humans were rethought. Knowledge was gathered from all over the world. It should be noted that it was only Europe that cared one iota about the discoveries and thoughts of other cultures. The Muslims, Indians (INDIA, not North America) and Chinese, three stellar civilizations weren't interested. Ideas and inventions were harnessed and used to better people's lives.

200 years ago, more or less. America declared Independence from Britain. And unfettered capitalism was given the chance to flower. In that time, we've gone from the horse and buggy, to the car and the airplane. Most of the inventions that move and shake the world were invented here in the Good Ol' U.S. of A with God, Guns, Mom and good old Apple Pie! Diseases that once were the scourge of civilizations everywhere were eliminated. Human life spans were greatly increased, we live in a time of unprecedented luxury, for even the poorest people have access to things undreamed of by the most powerful Sultans, Kings and Emporers. Americans are more likely to be killed by eating too much, rather than by starving. Which is a rather drastic reversal from the norms of history. This is not to mention the rights, freedoms and dignities enjoyed by Americans, that again, were undreamt of by the "masses" of previous civilizations and empires.

NOW, with all of that, I'm somehow am supposed to believe that Americans are being kept in abject poverty and are somehow grossly manipulated by "Large Corporations" and the Bush Administration. Moreover, I'm somehow to believe that some form of socialism and communism are the "cure" for the ills the average American doesn't suffer from and the fact that zillions turn up dead and zillions more flee.

Why I'm I not buying Mr Sullivan's arguments?

Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Freethinker, .........Why I'm I not buying Mr Sullivan's arguments?


Because you are twisting them into arguments that he is not making.

Contrary to the strawman you're arguing against, Sullivan made no claim that ""Americans are being held in abject poverty"

However, i would say that *yes*, you are not only *supposed to believe* that Americans ARE being manipulated by huge Corporations in America (thru television and various other media), you would be well served to recognize that fact.

And *yes*, Mr Sullivan's argument that capitalism has never served the interest of ordinary working people is a very good one.

Do Americans have it better that people in Zimbabwe and Haiti and countless other countries?

Yes. By several orders of magnitutude.

Like so many on the right, you bristle at the first sign of criticism and immediately put forward the puerile excuse --Well <sniff sniff> us Americans are still WAY better off than them people in third world countries!!!.

No one is arguing that Americans do not have a life filled with far more conveniences and luxuries than average citizen of the Sudan.

No one is arguing that Americans do not have a better standard of living than Haitians.

No one is arguing that Americans are not more free than people in North Korea.

But the heart of Sullian's argument still stands;

George Bush and his minions are not an aberration. They are the natural and expected fruit of capitalism run amok. Capitalists believe in plutocratic and corporate rule, the concentration of wealth and power. They are the product of a system of economic inequality and privilege that exploits the huge majority of the population and subjugates them into wage slavery as "at will" employees. It preys upon the just; those who play by the rules. The quagmire in Iraq, and the one to come in Iran, and in hundreds of other places, is the result of the social and economic injustice fostered by capitalism. Treating the symptoms will not affect a cure. Only addressing root causes can do that. "

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
200 years ago, more or less. America declared Independence from Britain. And unfettered capitalism was given the chance to flower. In that time, we've gone from the horse and buggy, to the car and the airplane. Most of the inventions that move and shake the world were invented here in the Good Ol' U.S. of A

LMAO! Yes, yes, America even created the world in 6 days and took the 7th day for rest. :D

Didn't a German named Otto invent the car? Didn't he also provide the foundation for the invention the Wright brothers later only perfected?

Nope, the car was invented in England. The Queen's truth, I swear!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Nope, the car was invented in England. The Queen's truth, I swear!

Well, just don't tell Darth. :D

On manual labor -
Capitalism is self-contradicting.

The powers that be seek to lower production cost. This is done through lowering wages or automation. By lowering wages the capitalist then decreases the number of consumers. Automation runs counter because there is more value to items that are "hand made". Automation also cuts down the number of potential consumers available.

Capitalism also eats into free time. People with jobs usually don't feel like thinking/running/doing things (depending on what they do) after they get off work. Some peoples hands/lungs/health/eyes also get destroyed in the process. These factors more often then not are overlooked by employer and employee alike.

The powers that be seek to lower production cost. This is done through lowering wages or automation. By lowering wages the capitalist then decreases the number of consumers. Automation runs counter because there is more value to items that are "hand made". Automation also cuts down the number of potential consumers available.

Or by finding cheaper input. Or by establishing more efficient labor processes. Or by paying workers more money, increasing efficiency and productivity, and increasing profits to a point beyond the initial investment meaning more money in the long run.

And *yes*, Mr Sullivan's argument that capitalism has never served the interest of ordinary working people is a very good one.

Then why is an "ordinary working person" so much better off in 2006 then in 1750?

Can anyone guess the main economic event that took place between those two periods?

@Sullivans Article.

I'm not going to quote the thing, that would take too long. There are some MAJOR fallacies that Mr. Sullivan makes though.

Throughout the article, Mr. Sullivan makes reference to "Capitalism" without ever defining it. He does however gratitioulsy state that Capitalism turns people into "Slaves for the Man" and "Servants of the Military". He also states that Capitalism is a system of "Plutocracy" where "Power is concentrated in the hands of an elite few".

Yeah, right.

I seriously doubt that Mr. Sullivan has ever read any material by a "Capitalist" scholar. But if one delves into literature by Rand, Hayek, Friedman, Boaz, Jefferson, Ross, Jagwhati, Rothbard, or Spooner, one will find a very different nature behind "Capitalism". Capitalism, is a political philiosiphy that means: The protection of Life, Liberty, and Property. That is all. Not "Plutocracy" not "Corpratism", just the protection of those three basic rights.

He also makes the claim that workers are treated as slaves to their corporate masters. Any respectable economist can verify that workers are not selling themselves when they start working. They are selling their free time which they are converting into a liquid state, money, which can be further converted into the matierial necessities of life.

He claims that workers and consumers have no protection against predatory companies. Obviously Mr. Sullivan is ignorant to the radical and obscure concepts of "unions" and "consumer reviews". But of course, we can't blame him for not being familiar with such outlandish concepts as "strikes" and "boycotts".

Mr. Sullivan made good points concerning the dangerous relationship between State and Enterprise, the simple solution is to create a new ammendment seperating business and state. However, such an ammendment must go both ways, business may not interfere in government, but government must not be able to interfere in business.

Originally posted by She-devil
LMAO! Yes, yes, America even created the world in 6 days and took the 7th day for rest.

While not responsible for every major invention of the past two centuries, it is responsible for a great deal of them-as well as the expansion of democracy and capitalism, there is little in that statement to laugh about.

Didn't a German named Otto invent the car?

The "automobile" as we know it today was developed by Karl Benz, Gottlieb Diamler, and Wilhelm Maybach in Germany in the late 1800s by the use of Niklaus Otto's internal combustion engine a few years.

Didn't he also provide the foundation for the invention the Wright brothers later only perfected?

Otto Lilienthal, a German who experimented with glider technology, helped spur on ideas about aviation, along with George Cayley and Samuel Langley, that all fed into the build-up of what was ultimately the Wright Brother's achievement. History, nothing else like it :D

She Devil,

I never, EVER stated that the car was invented in America. I stated that since the time of America's founding, people have gone from the horse and buggy to cars and such. There's a difference.


LMAO! Yes, yes, America even created the world in 6 days and took the 7th day for rest.


Not quite She Devil, all America did was lay the ground for the ideal society and is making rapid strides to achieve that ideal, dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I never, EVER stated that the car was invented in America.

Yeah, that's right, She-Devil.

All he asserted was that most of the inventions that move and shake the world were invented here in the Good Ol' U.S. of A.

And it's true. A hunnert percent! No shit!!!

Although it is little known-- and evil revisionist historians will deny it, no doubt-- it was actually an American who first discovered fire!!

It's true, She-Devil....you can look it up!!!

Also, She-Devil, you should wake up from the communist fog you are living in and realize that it was an American ---believe it or not!!--- who invented the wheel!.......and paper!!!.........and silk production!!!!......and the decimal system!!!.......and the first "calculator", the abacus!!!!!!..........and gunpowder!!!......and chocolate!!!!....and the alphabet that we use!!!!!.........and the clock!!!!!...and the use of coins for money!!!!!

And it all came about in the past 200 years, more or less!!

Amazing, isn't it She-Devil?!?!?

Now!!!....bow down to the Crown of Creation, the Americans who invented most everything in the world except the air you're breathing!

(note; I have it on good authority that the person who DID invent air was an Englishman, but it turns out that even he was HALF American!!!)

Gee Freethinker,

Don't forget twinkies and Ho Ho's.


:D

Here's another example.

Market forces dictate that a great portion of our food production capability goes to feeding cows, instead of feeding people directly. Capitalism has now caused directly starvation. Should we grow three quarters the beef we do now, we could feed the rest of the world with the grain. Cows eat a lot more grain than people do. But market forces dictate that the resources go to those with the most money. And those with the money want beef, not bread.

So all anyone has to do to contribute to world hunger is to contribute to demand of meat.

Instead of farming for need, we farm for cash. If a farmer wants to eat, he grows tobacco instead of corn. Those with the money make the laws in Congress, and the people who grow corn get shafted, even though they are making the greater contribution to the human race.

Corn gets grown, wheat gets grown, but only in according to market forces, not according to need. Which leaves a lot of people out.

@Napsterbater

Could you post links to the studies that show this to be true? I'm not challenging it, I would just like to have a source.

Besides, if we ended price controls and stopped paying farmers to grow nothing, as well as rolling back agricultral subsidies and eliminating barriers, we could easily feed the human race.

No source, I'm just pulling it all out of my ass. I make arguments that make sense, not ones that have to be backed up with other people's words.

I gathered the information from articles and books I've read over the years. Most of the beef stuff is paraphrased from More from Less, a Mennonite cookbook I picked up from a bookstore because I enjoy the type of food in it and it agrees with my personal food philosophy(TM). Namely, more and better food with less work and less money.

Besides, if we ended price controls and stopped paying farmers to grow nothing, as well as rolling back agricultral subsidies and eliminating barriers, we could easily feed the human race.

I strongly doubt the ability of a political philosophy to feed people.

Originally posted by 00Elf
.....if we ended price controls and stopped paying farmers to grow nothing... we could easily feed the human race.

Huh!?!?

Which U.S. farmers are *getting paid to grow nothing*..........??

What crop(s) are they getting paid not to grow?

How are the payments allotted?

No source, I'm just pulling it all out of my ass. I make arguments that make sense, not ones that have to be backed up with other people's words.

I gathered the information from articles and books I've read over the years. Most of the beef stuff is paraphrased from More from Less, a Mennonite cookbook I picked up from a bookstore because I enjoy the type of food in it and it agrees with my personal food philosophy(TM). Namely, more and better food with less work and less money.

Well, in that case, I read in an obscure book 20 years ago that it is in fact not possible to feed people by taking food away from cows.

I strongly doubt the ability of a political philosophy to feed people.

I, for some reason, don't doubt the ability of active farmland, developed nations, and increasing crop yeilds to feed people.

Besides, I read in a book that you have never heard of that people can consume political philiosiphies.

You probably ought to start picking your books better. It helps with those critical thinking problems you seem to have trouble with.

Huh!?!?

Which U.S. farmers are *getting paid to grow nothing*..........??

What crop(s) are they getting paid not to grow?

How are the payments allotted?

Money that the government gives farmers to not use farmland. You know, Franklin Roosevelt, New Deal, Ring a Bell?

Which U.S. farmers are *getting paid to grow nothing*..........??

I'm in the wrong business!

You probably ought to start picking your books better. It helps with those critical thinking problems you seem to have trouble with.

Actually, I read in an obscure book that you have never heard of that I don't have any critical thinking problems.

I, for some reason, don't doubt the ability of active farmland, developed nations, and increasing crop yeilds to feed people.

No, what you are doing is taking somebody else's political philosophy and applying it carte blanche to the whole world's problems. That is what I was getting at. There is no reason any of those policies you detail will suddenly start making farmers grow food for people instead of cows. You are talking like world food problems can be fixed with a band-aid. Which, unfortunately, is the attitude of most right-wingers.

Actually, I read in an obscure book that you have never heard of that I don't have any critical thinking problems.

I've got that book! Your sister faxed it to me! The front reads: Journal

You shouldn't leave that stuff lying around!

And really, you should ask Angie out. I'm sure she'll love the statue of bubble gum you erected of her in your closet!

I've got that book! Your sister faxed it to me! The front reads: Journal

You shouldn't leave that stuff lying around!

Wow, my nonexistent sister has access to my nonexistent journal, scary!

You should probably keep one. Trust me.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Here's another example.

Market forces dictate that a great portion of our food production capability goes to feeding cows, instead of feeding people directly. Capitalism has now caused directly starvation. Should we grow three quarters the beef we do now, we could feed the rest of the world with the grain. Cows eat a lot more grain than people do. But market forces dictate that the resources go to those with the most money. And those with the money want beef, not bread.

So all anyone has to do to contribute to world hunger is to contribute to demand of meat.

Instead of farming for need, we farm for cash. If a farmer wants to eat, he grows tobacco instead of corn. Those with the money make the laws in Congress, and the people who grow corn get shafted, even though they are making the greater contribution to the human race.

Corn gets grown, wheat gets grown, but only in according to market forces, not according to need. Which leaves a lot of people out.

First off...lmao @ Freethinker! :D

Nappie, I do see your point and I have given much thought in the past to your current arguments believe it or not. However, I'm always left with the obvious.....if everyone stops eating meat, the cows won't merely cease to exist; they'll keep breeding on their own and they'll still be eating the same amount of vegetation. As well, you have to take into consideration that if the amount of meat currently eaten is lessened so that more vegetation can feed people, people will need more vegetation to replace the loss of meat protein. Also, you'll have to take into account the loss of milk as a staple of our diets because we won't be able to feed cows to produce milk.

However, growing up on a dairy farm like I did...I recall my father complaining about the dumping of milk and what a waste it was. There's a quota system for milk in Canada that's needed to ensure that the market isn't flooded with milk and then farmers are unable to make enough profit to continue milking. The system ensures that essentially just enough milk is on the market for our demand. Dairy products don't exactly have long shelf lives either.

The problem is, farmers get penalized if they ship more milk than their purchased quota allows them to ship so they end up having to dump the milk and it gets wasted. Any good business entrepreneur should see that fact and consider having that milk canned in the form of evaporated milk for example and shipped to foreign markets where malnutrition is a problem. That's a problem though because with the cost of shipping the milk thousands of miles away, the milk then becomes a more expensive commodity in order to turn a profit. The only way to solve that is to ensure that those third world citizens in need of the milk can afford to pay for it appropriately. This however is unacceptable to those who argue that a universal pay scale isn't the appropriate way to handle things like that. Having people starve across the globe while we waste is more acceptable. :rolleyes:

As well, you have to take into consideration that if the amount of meat currently eaten is lessened so that more vegetation can feed people, people will need more vegetation to replace the loss of meat protein.

You are making the flawed assumption that hungry people somehow get animal protein. In the West, we have people whose diets consist of little other than meat. Nobody in first world countries has to worry about animal protein. Those in the third world aren't getting it anyway.

lso, you'll have to take into account the loss of milk as a staple of our diets because we won't be able to feed cows to produce milk.

Milk will get more expensive, it won't go away. People who love milk will just have to pay more for it.

Any good business entrepreneur should see that fact and consider having that milk canned in the form of evaporated milk for example and shipped to foreign markets where malnutrition is a problem.

Much better would be powdering it, then you could ship it in bulk instead of wasting resources and space to can it.

the cows won't merely cease to exist; they'll keep breeding on their own and they'll still be eating the same amount of vegetation.

Aren't most cows raised in an industrial manner, fed with fodder instead of allowing them to range freely? Most cows don't have the chance to breed naturally, they'll just slaughter the excess cattle and not breed new ones. Free range cattle is a value added product. It won't go away with beef quotas, because it's market is not a commodity one.

One can raise cattle in areas where it is difficult to grow grain. Cattle should be grown in those areas and more of the area that can be used for grain production should be reclaimed.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
You are making the flawed assumption that hungry people somehow get animal protein. In the West, we have people whose diets consist of little other than meat. Nobody in first world countries has to worry about animal protein. Those in the third world aren't getting it anyway.

Milk will get more expensive, it won't go away. People who love milk will just have to pay more for it.

Much better would be powdering it, then you could ship it in bulk instead of wasting resources and space to can it.

I realize that but there will be less vegetables/grains to go around if we in the west are compensating for our lost meat intake.

Powdering it is fine as long as there's adequate water to mix with it.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Aren't most cows raised in an industrial manner, fed with fodder instead of allowing them to range freely? Most cows don't have the chance to breed naturally, they'll just slaughter the excess cattle and not breed new ones. Free range cattle is a value added product. It won't go away with beef quotas, because it's market is not a commodity one.

One can raise cattle in areas where it is difficult to grow grain. Cattle should be grown in those areas and more of the area that can be used for grain production should be reclaimed.

No, most dairy cows get grazing time out of the confines of the milking space. Beef cows also graze most of the time. Depending on the farm/ranch, they're not all grazing on fresh vegetation but they do mingle in open areas.

Areas that don't grow grain well, generally don't grow grasslands well either, capable of sustaining the cattle. That's why when you see a cow in most parts of Africa, it's rib cage is it's predominant feature and they're basically only useful for small amounts of milk or blood for drinking.

Capitalism is as righteous as its' implimetation. It is no better and no worse than Communism, for example. But that speaks of its' philosophy alone.

The problem that Freethinker brings up is that the U.S. is a corrupted form of Capitalism. The U.S. has fostered a mishapen form of Capitalism. That is my view, perhaps not Freethinker's. There are countries calling themselves Capitalist that are far worse than the U.S. but that is not a reasonable excuse.

Freethinker's post is a valid one because if the shoe fits you have to wear it and it's no good pointing to someone else's mistakes when all the while you're guilty as sin.

Then what's the deal with all the advertisements for "free-range, grain-fed" beef? Is it all just fluff?

I realize that but there will be less vegetables/grains to go around if we in the west are compensating for our lost meat intake.

I wouldn't go so far. I don't think nutrition plays so big of a role in American diets, more than convenience and flavor. And there's also the huge role that multi-vitamins play in feeding Americans in particular.

I single out America because between low-carb diets, and our killin' and grillin' culture, we eat a disproportionate amount of meat. It is likely that most of the consumption would be reduced from Americans, and fad diets would go out of style. We weren't always like this, you know. Unfortunately, the price of meat would go up throughout the world, but I maintain that people won't just go without meat, they'll just cut the excess out.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Then what's the deal with all the advertisements for "free-range, grain-fed" beef? Is it all just fluff?


You should be very wary of label claims. They're allowed to stretch the truth as long as they're not entirely lying.

One of the differences between U.S. meat/dairy and Canadian (unless this has changed recently because I'm no longer in the farm loop), is that in the U.S., growth hormone (rbST) and increased milk producing hormones are allowed to be given to your animals....in Canada they're not because the health effects of artificial growth stimulants haven't been sufficiently studied.

Originally posted by 00Elf
Money that the government gives farmers to not use farmland. You know, Franklin Roosevelt, New Deal, Ring a Bell?

Yes, but when you said --""If we ended price controls and stopped paying farmers to grow nothing, as well as rolling back agricultral subsidies and eliminating barriers, we could easily feed the human race"" -- it seemed to me you were talking in terms of something that is happening NOW, not some **paying farmers to grow nothing** policy that was in place years ago.

Originally posted by Catch 3
The problem that Freethinker brings up is that the U.S. is a corrupted form of Capitalism. The U.S. has fostered a mishapen form of Capitalism. That is my view, perhaps not Freethinker's.

Not ONLY is the form of 'capitalism' currently being practiced in America ***mishapen**, it has been hideously transmogrified into a Corporate oligarchy, and is quickly sliding into outright fascism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist, wrote an article about
fascism which appeared in Free Inquiry magazine -- a journal of
humanist thought. The article is titled 'Fascism Anyone?', by Laurence
Britt, and appears in Free Inquiry's Spring 2003 issue on page 20.

Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of:

********Hitler (Germany)

********Mussolini (Italy)

********Franco (Spain)

********Suharto (Indonesia)

********Pinochet (Chile)

He found that the fascist regimes had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism.

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make
constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other
paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on
clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights --

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in
fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in
certain cases because of "need". The people tend to 'look the other
way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations,
long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The
people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious
minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic
problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government
funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected.

Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be
almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional
gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is
homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media -- Sometimes the media is directly controlled
by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly
controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media
spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very
common.

7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational
tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined --

Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in
the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric
and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major
tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's
policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and business
aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the
government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial
business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor
is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are
either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to
promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia.
It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or
even arrested. Free _expression in the arts is openly attacked, and
governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Under fascist regimes, the
police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are
often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil
liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police
force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes almost always
are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other
to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority
to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in
fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be
appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections -- Sometimes elections in fascist nations are
a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear
campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates,
the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district
boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also
typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In examining the U.S, we see all 14 traits personified.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Not ONLY is the form of 'capitalism' currently being practiced in America ***mishapen**, it has been hideously transmogrified into a Corporate oligarchy, and is quickly sliding into outright fascism.
You’re absolutely right.

It’s a great pity that no one was listening when Dwight D. Eisenhower was giving his farewell advice to the nation. Can you imagine the reaction (on this board) if he were to sign onto this forum and tell us what he had to say! He'd have been banned the first week!

Originally posted by Catch 3
He'd have been banned the first week! In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.

Dang! Now I'm gonna be banned!!

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Sedan.
You're not nearly as bad as everyone says you are! :)

FREETHINKER
Now that I’ve had a chance to read through all of your 14 points, I must say …EXCELLENT. Thanks for posting it.

I think that the whole list should hang in every school, without your personal comments, just to let each and every person read it, think on it, and let it sink in. :thumbs:

Originally posted by Catch 3
You're not nearly as bad as everyone says you are! :) Thanks, Catch. Coming from you that really means alot. :)

Theres a great new movie coming up called "why we fight"

Appearently Eisenhower wanted to call it the Military-Industrial- Congressional-Complex.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Huh!?!?

Which U.S. farmers are *getting paid to grow nothing*..........??

What crop(s) are they getting paid not to grow?

How are the payments allotted?

It's true. Many crops are destroyed and milk poured out, to keep prices from going down too much. Capitalism is about making profits, not meeting human need. The 'free market' wouldn't last a day without constant state intervention.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Theres a great new movie coming up called "why we fight"

New? I saw it on television here in Sweden about 3 or 4 months ago.

It should be required viewing for all Americans.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Huh!?!?

Which U.S. farmers are *getting paid to grow nothing*..........??

What crop(s) are they getting paid not to grow?

How are the payments allotted?

Originally posted by Deepest Red
It's true. Many crops are destroyed and milk poured out, to keep prices from going down too much.

a) Name one instance in the past ten years where someone in the US destroyed crops or poured out milk.

b)Even IF what you're saying were true, the subject here is focused on the Government delivering a payment for farmers to grow notthing...... it is a FAR different thing for a milk farmer to voluntarily pour out his own milk than it is for the Government to *pay* for less crops to be grown or for a farm commodity to be willfully destroyed.

c) the canard that --"Well, the government is paying farmers huge sums to NOT grow crops" is not true........there IS a (very useful and important) Conservation Reserve program that pays farmers a small amount to take land out of production for ten years, but virtually NO rich, productive cropland is put into the Reserve.