The only system that is realistic and is an obvious evolutionary step to follow this one that is based on private ownership of business for private profits, and that is socialism. This does not mean I favor a violent overthrow of the government. I don't. But instead I advocate a gradual transition by establishing socialist businesses immediately as opportunities present themselves. Actually it has already started although it really could use some carefully crafted legislation to simplify and incentivize the cause. There are about 1,000 such businesses in the US today and several state legislatures have submitted or passed legislation to improve such opportunities. And bills have also recently been submitted to Congress in the Senate and the House specifically to further this effort. This is gaining steam and promises to be the long-term answer, but it will take years.
Nonsense. The exploitation of slaves didn't begin in the south until after Reconstruction, when the Republicans pulled out and left Democrats in charge. Your "facts" about women are total fabrications that have been debunked again and again and again. College campuses are the safest spaces in America for young women; there is almost no rape on college campuses. (False accusations of rape seem to be more of a problem these days than actual rape.) Income inequality between men and women is entirely due to the choices men and women make about careers, time spent on the job, and years in the labor force. When those factors are taken out, women make slightly more than men per hour. No women are being sold as objects, believe me, I've checked every store. Women are used in advertising for the simple reason that they sell product, to men and women. Why are boys used overwhelmingly in stories for children? Because girls and boys will read stories about boys, but boys won't read stories with a girl protagonist. (The Wizard of Oz is the only major exception I can think of.) Why are women used in advertising? Because men and women will buy a product pitched by an attractive woman. Why are news anchors overwhelmingly men? Because men and women trust male voices more than female voices. So using boys in stories, women in advertising, and men as news anchors are rational choices. As for "doing the right thing," most people don't obey the law because of an internalized sense of right and wrong but so they don't go to jail. That moral compass you want everyone to be imbued with is harder to come by.
Another one of these "one theory to explain everything" fanatics. First of all, if socialism is so great and capitalism so bad, why does every person on earth in a capitalist country stay there while every person on earth in a socialist country want to move to a capitalist one? Second of all, socialism is not a solution to cultural woes, even if it were a solution to economic ones, which it isn't. Third of all, our cultural woes are entirely the left's fault, so to now have the left bitching about how much the culture is shifting is both ironic and appalling. You can blame Fox News and Donald Trump all you want, but they are symptoms, they are the end result of 50 years of cultural transformation at the hands of the left making people on the right feel like this isn't even America anymore. Fox News and Donald Trump are the end result of the left changing the cultural landscape to a point that people don't even recognize the United States when they look at it. If you want to blame anyone for the hatred and divisiveness and extremism on the right these days, look in the mirror. You have caused it, not Fox News, not Donald Trump, not Rush Limbaugh, you.
Socialism is a awfully broad answer. There are many forms what form would you place in America (nonviolently of course)
You're pretty good with canned right wing objections that aren't valid. Keep up the good work. I'm not interested in debating you on each point because I have organizing to do.
Marxists have studied and analyzed the collapse of the USSR, China, and other countries and have concluded for good reason that the problem was in seizing state power, thus starting at the top with the intention of getting to the task of building a socialist economy (workers owning and running businesses) later, after immediate needs were met. "Later" never came. And we all saw the results that were very undesirable. So the solution they arrived at was to start at the bottom with workers, and build a socialist economy first, from the bottom, by establishing worker-owned, worker-controlled businesses. When the pros and cons are examined, the benefits can be seen. And the effort is well underway and spreading.
So without force how will you remove with the capitalist owned and operated companies? Since you are not using force they will still exist and they will own their personal property which they did pay for. As such do you propose to compete in a open market with capitalist companies?
To respond to your comment on Reconstruction: I did say after the start of the reconstruction, in large part because of the loop hole in the Thirteenth Amendment that allowed for servitude if convicted of a crime. As to the comments on rape in college I would have to disagree because based on RAINN statistics sexual violence among college women 18-24 are three times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault and women women not in college 18-24 are four times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault than women overall. So, to say that my facts are unfounded is a little premature. Things are improving, but that is because of more reporting and awareness. To call college campuses the safest space for young women and almost no rape is factually unsound. As far as income inequality goes look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and you will see third quarter data that still shows an 18% difference in income between women and men. Check your facts. That is a very sarcastic comment to make about women being sold as objects in stores. The selling of sex through advertising is still very much apart of our culture. Men are used in that respect as well, but women more so. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the rape stats are highest among women between 18-24 and that the huge amount of women in entertainment business are in that age group or are sold to the public as being in that age group. This is why we have the problems with Hollywood because of this objectifying and selling of sex. Men and women get pretty close to the same amount of air time on the news the last time I checked. Lastly, I would have to disagree with the idea that male protagonists are more popular than female protagonists. Look at the Hunger Games series, The Mortal Instruments series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, The Twilight Series and even the game series Tomb Raider. Last time I checked they are all popular and not exclusively a female audience. I think at the end of the day you are using stereotypes and not examining all the data. The truth is not on the right or the left, but somewhere in between. I have a problem with both end of the spectrum, because both want to justify their own narrative instead of seeking the TRUTH.
Great example of "the devil made me do it" defense!! Yes, the problem we are having is that Democrats have the Republicans by the short and curlys, and so Republicans just can't help but be profoundly stupid. Obviously!
It will happen gradually as it happened in many cases with capitalism when it replaced feudalism. There are already over 1,000 such businesses s I described. Rutgers University, which has studied the topic extensively, has found that employee ownership boosted company productivity by an average of 4 percent, while profits went up 14 percent. When this becomes more popular and known, imagine a sympathetic government passing a law like the Marcora Law in Italy and saying that when a business declares bankruptcy, it must give its workers the first right of refusal to buy the business and keep it working, and to help with the effort the government gives 10 interested, committed workers their entire 6 months of unemployment benefits in a lump sum and extends them a low interest loan to supplement it and get it going? How about a future law that says when a corporation decides to move production overseas it must leave its factory and all the equipment in it where it is and then help the workers take over the responsibility of running it themselves? With the laws we have it is often very difficult to create such a business so what we see is usually small operations with this structure. But think about the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. Obviously "big" is possible too.
I like this. But, I'm not convinced it is a long term solution to employment in our changing economy. Such changes are unlikely to make any significant difference in our national progression toward a future economy based less on employment in manufacturing, for example. The forces of automation and global competition might be reduced to some extent by local ownership, but overall the economy is moving in those directions for the reason that it is more efficient and in the end will win. We didn't lose steel manufacturing due to lack of local employee control. We lost it because the competitive way to make steel changed, and US corporations didn't make those changes even when they had the resources to do so. I don't believe employee control of factories could have changed that. The same is the case in automotive manufacturing. I really doubt employee ownership would have made that sector more responsive to customer demands and competition, and I doubt it would have caused them to move toward the manufacturing efficiencies that clearly win. So, I like having employees have a real stake in their employment like that, but it isn't going to change our progression toward an economy that requires more education and training of employees and has more automation, and where job descriptions are going to be changing much more rapidly.
You realize that means sharing in losses as well, right? You guy had better poll the working class and be sure they are down with that, with no state to guarantee success.
That's okay, because the more you guys push for your left-wing agenda, the more intense the pushback becomes. So please, keep pushing for trannies in the bathroom and blaming whitey for all blacks' problems. Keep accusing white Americans of being racists for wanting to preserve their nation and culture. Keep making excuses for a religion and culture that blows up women and children. It just assures the Republicans stay in power for another few years, at least.
When Enron failed, the corporate executives weren't charged with the fabulous losses they had caused. And, stock holder losses were limited to the value of the stock they owned. My bet is that employee ownership would be through a corporation where the employees were stock holders.
It looks like we have some education to do! We have just as many "trannies in the bathroom" today as we did in the past and as there will be in the future (per capita, of course). We're not putting anything in the water - lol! Surely you don't believe that trannies have superhero powers of continence. Yes, we need to reduce the white supremacist movement. America simply can't afford a war against minorities, plus there is the fact of our constitution - for the few Republicans who accept that document. And, ALL cultures are changing. No effort to enforce a static culture can possibly succeed. I know as we age we become less tolerant, but the "younger generation" is constantly changing our culture regardless of all efforts to maintain our various biases and comforts. We're all opposed to blowing people up, I think. Even in the face of stuff like Charlottesville, I'm pretty sure the majority is interested in nonviolent solutions. Hey, I even notice that ALL Americans want fewer abortions!
I have it on good authority that in worker co-ops when automation cuts the work load, instead of laying off workers they do what was predicted with automation in the 1970: the workers decide to work fewer hours for the same pay. Steel made in China is inferior to our steel and subject to failure rates exceeding what our standards allow, and the Chinese lie about it. I'm not saying it will be a utopia. There will always be problems to deal with. But I don't accept your explanation of our loss of steel manufacturing. I think there is something else going on with it too. Why? Auto manufacturing moved to Mexico etc. for cheap labor. Employee-owners wouldn't ship their own jobs to Mexico to boost profits. And regarding whether they would "move toward the manufacturing efficiencies that clearly win", I'm not sure what you mean. Please stop being vague. Be clear and specific if you want to make progress discussing this. But you have no evidence to base that on or you would post it. I have evidence your worries are for nothing and a bit of serious investigation into this would show you the evidence you need. One big part of the evidence against you is simple logic, and yet there is real experience too. Look into the Mondragon Corporation. I can supply you with links if you really want answers.
Not that I think it's worth emulating, but you're obviously ignorant of the fact that Egypt had a culture that remained static for 2,800 years, so you're dead wrong about that. Apparently Muslims are not, and leftists try to justify it. Unless it's Planned Parenthood, or those Democrats who get campaign funds from PP.
In the past I've suggested that when corporations are sued and lose, that the costs should be born solely by the executives responsible for running the corporation, and not cost the corporation allowing the loss to be passed on to the consumers. Employees are not prohibited from becoming stock holders. When a public owned business is creating profits, the bulk of the profits not being used for growing the business should be required to be distributed directly to the stock holders who would then be taxed on the amount received before reinvesting it.
I'm referring to today's world. Egypt's culture isn't static at this point. No, our Muslim population isn't interested in that. They don't face the same problems faced in other countries. And, nobody is attempting to justify blowing people up - unless it's the USA doing the blowing people up. Then, we attempt to justify it over and over again. False. ALL Americans would like to see the abortion rate decrease. The difference is in the methodology. The right wing is stuck on laws against women - even though nations without such laws manage abortion rates below our own.
From the Pew Report, as reported by Debbie Schlussel: "19% of American Muslims said suicide bombings are okay (2011). And the number jumps in other categories: 18% of foreign born Muslims said suicide bombings are generally okay. And (in 2007–figures not available in 2011) 22% of foreign born Arab Muslims said suicide bombings are okay. Yup, nearly one out of four Arab Muslims in America says it’s okay to blow you up. And those are the ones who openly said so to Pew. Again, the number is far higher in reality. In 2011, 31% of Muslims aged 18-29 said suicide bombings are okay–that’s one in three young Muslims in America, who thinks it’s okay to blow you and your families up." http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4142...ts-w-modern-society-25-came-to-us-under-bush/ "In 2010, Planned Parenthood’s abortion income was 51.5 percent of its clinic income.” “Taking into consideration the fact that Planned Parenthood provided prenatal services to a mere 5,398 women and adoption referrals for only 841 women, while PP committed 329,445 abortions, 98.14 percent of the women seeking pregnancy related care at Planned Parenthood are now sold abortions—up from 97.6 percent in 2009.” http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/05/planned-parenthood-51-of-its-income-comes-from-abortions/ If you really believe Planned Parenthood wants to reduce the number of abortions it provides, I have some beachfront land in Arizona I want to sell you.
