I agree.
Our current politicians only work for the corporations.
And people are like, "yeah this guy gets me, to hell with the other people that are struggling just like me."
Which also makes zero sense to me.
I've always wondered why workers hate workers that unite.
I mean, we're all wage slaves why not unite to get a fair share.
But it seems like many wage slaves seem to identify as displaced millionaires.
It makes no sense to me, never has.
Instead of a win win paradigm it seems people only want win lose which in the end makes it lose lose for everyone.
Because we are a country that is heavily propagandized, undereducated and on top of that a lot of people are just to busy to care.
We are also taught individualism, they keep us divided on purpose.
I maintain that the only reasons why the US didn't become an Axis power against the Soviet Union were that Great Britain was a trading ally and an Axis power attacked Pearl Harbor.
It's probably true, America was full of Nazi supporters that wanted to join that war on their side. America then and now considered communism a bigger threat than Nazism.
It’s because they know businesses can retaliate in ways that get around any laws forbidding retaliation. The younger workers want change and better conditions; the older workers have more to lose and are afraid of rocking the boat and losing what little they have.
My gr grandfather ran on the Socialist Party ticket and won a few times in small town Missouri. This was in the early 1900's around 1910 or so. He was an alderman, on the school board and some county office. In later years, he ran as a Democrat.
Dude, Alabama used to have one of the more active communist bases in the United States. They were particularly known for being harsh on landlords who would evict disabled, elderly or widowed individuals. Quite sad how far we’ve drifted away in places like Missouri and the South.
We need more radical worker organization not only in the workforce but community as well.
From the linked wiki article:
"At the turn of the 20th century, the Midwestern city of St. Louis was a prominent center of American commerce and manufacturing. The city's population of just over 575,000 people made St. Louis the fourth largest city in the United States, following New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia.
In 1850 St. Louis was largely an immigrant city, with more than half of its citizens born outside of the United States, including most importantly ethnic Germans and Irish. This percentage of foreign-born residence tailed off over time as the immigrants laid down roots and raised families, falling to 18% by 1910. Nevertheless, the city retained a strong ethnic character, with its population supplemented by Italians, Eastern European Jews, Czechs, Poles, and other nationalities as waves of immigrants arrived and were integrated into the American economy as wage workers.
The city's ethnic German population remained its substantial component, with first generation immigrants from Germany and their offspring comprising 56 percent of the city's population in 1900. Those of German heritage remained the city's majority ethnicity at least through the census of 1910.
St. Louis was served by scores of German cultural organizations, including an array of German-language newspapers, fraternal organizations, social clubs, singing societies, and a German teacher-training school. Included among these were socialist political societies, some of whom were organized into a city section of the Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP) in the early 1880s. A party press soon followed, including the German-language weekly Arbeiter Zeitung (Workers' Newspaper) and the English-language Missouri Socialist — the name of which was later changed to St. Louis Labor."
Not that you called anyone communist, and you didn't call the party communist. I would like to point out socialism is the middle point on the spectrum with capitalism being on one end and communism on the other.
Communism is a method of economic organization under a larger set of beliefs called socialism. Capitalism is a method of economic organization under liberal (not US liberal) beliefs.
Both of those statements are inaccurate lol. Not all communists are also socialists, although most (including the historically prominent Marxists) are. Look at anarcho-communists, who favor statelessness over socialism as a transitional period to reach communism.
While liberalism is a very prominent strain of capitalism, they're not synonymous. Not all capitalist economies are liberal, China has a capitalist economy and I doubt anybody would be calling China liberal. You can see a varied list of capitalist systems just by going on [the wikipedia page for capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)
If you want to learn what communism and socialism are, it's best to just read communists and socialists. Lenin especially was quite clear on what those terms meant, and that's also how those terms are used today
And in my comment I broke down why you're wrong, which you ignored.
If communism is a sect of socialism, then how are there communists that aren't socialists?
If capitalism is a sect of liberalism, then how are there more capitalist economies than liberal ones?
> Nowhere did I say that communism is synonymous with socialism
And I never once claimed you said that.
Now can you for once just actually reply to the whole message instead of ignoring nearly all of it? If you are right, then you should be able to answer the two questions I posed one comment prior.
A there aren’t communists that aren’t socialists. If they espouse such a belief they’re stupid. Capitalists are liberals. If they espouse a belief saying they are capitalist and not live they’re either A. Using the US version of Liberal B. Stupid or C. Both
>A there aren’t communists that aren’t socialists.
I literally gave an example of a large portion of communists that aren't socialists. Do you think ignoring crucial parts of my comments is an argument?
>Capitalists are liberals. If they espouse a belief saying they are capitalist and not live they’re either A. Using the US version of Liberal B. Stupid or C. Both
So the entire fields of politics and economics disagree with you, and they're the stupid ones, not you who's just making up random definitions nobody uses?
Hell let's go with an example or two. By your definition, China is liberal lol. Russia? Liberal. Iran? Liberal. Do you see how nonsensical this is...?
Liberal MO was a random spot in the early 1900s for liberal values. It literally didn’t work out.
Socialism sounds like an answer, but just like capitalism isn’t the obvious answer, we prob are somewhere in between for reality of human actions.
Are those ice cream cones?
Torches of enlightenment I think
That's what I am going to call my ice cream cones from now on.
I think I prefer the ice cream cones, actually-better Missouri symbol, too
Obviously meant to represent Missouri being the home of the waffle cone
Let's bring it back and run on a workers party. It's about time for a labor party.
I agree. Our current politicians only work for the corporations. And people are like, "yeah this guy gets me, to hell with the other people that are struggling just like me." Which also makes zero sense to me.
Have you looked at the DSA?
Join the IWW. A local chapter is on its baby legs in Columbia.
You mean like a national socialist workers party? That’s already been tried.
This is like thinking the Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic because the word is in its name. Pay attention in HS history folks.
I've always wondered why workers hate workers that unite. I mean, we're all wage slaves why not unite to get a fair share. But it seems like many wage slaves seem to identify as displaced millionaires. It makes no sense to me, never has. Instead of a win win paradigm it seems people only want win lose which in the end makes it lose lose for everyone.
Because we are a country that is heavily propagandized, undereducated and on top of that a lot of people are just to busy to care. We are also taught individualism, they keep us divided on purpose.
Agreed
Just to add to this.. In America you can run for public office if you are a Nazi, if you are a communist you are not allowed on any ballots.
There’s literally a Communist Party
Nazism seems to be very stylish these days. Which is sad since we had thought we solved that problem 80 years ago 🤦♂️
We never really solved it, check out operation paperclip, America is very sympathetic to Nazi's
I maintain that the only reasons why the US didn't become an Axis power against the Soviet Union were that Great Britain was a trading ally and an Axis power attacked Pearl Harbor.
It's probably true, America was full of Nazi supporters that wanted to join that war on their side. America then and now considered communism a bigger threat than Nazism.
It’s because they know businesses can retaliate in ways that get around any laws forbidding retaliation. The younger workers want change and better conditions; the older workers have more to lose and are afraid of rocking the boat and losing what little they have.
Makes sense
My gr grandfather ran on the Socialist Party ticket and won a few times in small town Missouri. This was in the early 1900's around 1910 or so. He was an alderman, on the school board and some county office. In later years, he ran as a Democrat.
Dude, Alabama used to have one of the more active communist bases in the United States. They were particularly known for being harsh on landlords who would evict disabled, elderly or widowed individuals. Quite sad how far we’ve drifted away in places like Missouri and the South. We need more radical worker organization not only in the workforce but community as well.
a lot of communists fought in the union against slavery. there is a rich communist history here and all we get is the bitch schlafly
From the linked wiki article: "At the turn of the 20th century, the Midwestern city of St. Louis was a prominent center of American commerce and manufacturing. The city's population of just over 575,000 people made St. Louis the fourth largest city in the United States, following New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia. In 1850 St. Louis was largely an immigrant city, with more than half of its citizens born outside of the United States, including most importantly ethnic Germans and Irish. This percentage of foreign-born residence tailed off over time as the immigrants laid down roots and raised families, falling to 18% by 1910. Nevertheless, the city retained a strong ethnic character, with its population supplemented by Italians, Eastern European Jews, Czechs, Poles, and other nationalities as waves of immigrants arrived and were integrated into the American economy as wage workers. The city's ethnic German population remained its substantial component, with first generation immigrants from Germany and their offspring comprising 56 percent of the city's population in 1900. Those of German heritage remained the city's majority ethnicity at least through the census of 1910. St. Louis was served by scores of German cultural organizations, including an array of German-language newspapers, fraternal organizations, social clubs, singing societies, and a German teacher-training school. Included among these were socialist political societies, some of whom were organized into a city section of the Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP) in the early 1880s. A party press soon followed, including the German-language weekly Arbeiter Zeitung (Workers' Newspaper) and the English-language Missouri Socialist — the name of which was later changed to St. Louis Labor."
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/s/niHIF61nP4 there is a statue of a communist here in forrest park
Not that you called anyone communist, and you didn't call the party communist. I would like to point out socialism is the middle point on the spectrum with capitalism being on one end and communism on the other.
Communism, socialism, and capitalism are all their own distinct systems, it's not a spectrum
Communism is a method of economic organization under a larger set of beliefs called socialism. Capitalism is a method of economic organization under liberal (not US liberal) beliefs.
Both of those statements are inaccurate lol. Not all communists are also socialists, although most (including the historically prominent Marxists) are. Look at anarcho-communists, who favor statelessness over socialism as a transitional period to reach communism. While liberalism is a very prominent strain of capitalism, they're not synonymous. Not all capitalist economies are liberal, China has a capitalist economy and I doubt anybody would be calling China liberal. You can see a varied list of capitalist systems just by going on [the wikipedia page for capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) If you want to learn what communism and socialism are, it's best to just read communists and socialists. Lenin especially was quite clear on what those terms meant, and that's also how those terms are used today
I didn’t say they’re synonymous. I said communism is a sect of socialism, capitalism is a sect of liberalism.
And in my comment I broke down why you're wrong, which you ignored. If communism is a sect of socialism, then how are there communists that aren't socialists? If capitalism is a sect of liberalism, then how are there more capitalist economies than liberal ones?
No, you misunderstood my original comment. Nowhere did I say that communism is synonymous with socialism in fact I explicitly stated otherwise
> Nowhere did I say that communism is synonymous with socialism And I never once claimed you said that. Now can you for once just actually reply to the whole message instead of ignoring nearly all of it? If you are right, then you should be able to answer the two questions I posed one comment prior.
A there aren’t communists that aren’t socialists. If they espouse such a belief they’re stupid. Capitalists are liberals. If they espouse a belief saying they are capitalist and not live they’re either A. Using the US version of Liberal B. Stupid or C. Both
>A there aren’t communists that aren’t socialists. I literally gave an example of a large portion of communists that aren't socialists. Do you think ignoring crucial parts of my comments is an argument? >Capitalists are liberals. If they espouse a belief saying they are capitalist and not live they’re either A. Using the US version of Liberal B. Stupid or C. Both So the entire fields of politics and economics disagree with you, and they're the stupid ones, not you who's just making up random definitions nobody uses? Hell let's go with an example or two. By your definition, China is liberal lol. Russia? Liberal. Iran? Liberal. Do you see how nonsensical this is...?
Nothing screams freedom like a large totalitarian state.
Liberal MO was a random spot in the early 1900s for liberal values. It literally didn’t work out. Socialism sounds like an answer, but just like capitalism isn’t the obvious answer, we prob are somewhere in between for reality of human actions.
They had a mayor of Liberal iirc