Can't see the forrest for the trees can you? Americas is a plutocracy controlled by a finacial elite that contol the economy, the government and the media--America is two thirds of the way to fascism. As for the idea of 51% constituting some kind of dictatorship, this is somewhat true under this inadequate bankrupt system--the parliamentary sytem of elections every four years or so.
This is also one of the greatest delusions of Libertarianism--that totally free markets will regulate themselves. In such a system (which you ostensibly have now, whether you care to admitt it or not [or not] as regulations have been stripped back over the past three decades to the point where they are almost non existent, and those that remain are for decoration only and are almost never enforced as no man power and resources are allocated in the first place) finance capital would consolidate in monopoloies, completely infiltrate government (which they do now) the police and the miltary. Companies would hire thugs and strike breakers and make workers work under the most onerous of conditions--inequality would be even worse than it is now. Fascism is the rule of capital--it emerges when finance capital is under attack--that is why it is sprouting in every so-called democratic country (they are no democracies only plutocracies) at the minute, and that's why it first emerged during the last depression in Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and France--all at the same time--no coincidence. Best to leave it to a man regarded as one of the greatest scientific minds in history (somewhat more intelligent than von Mises and Lew Rockwell) to explains things. Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production— that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. “Workers” are all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism. Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service. All capitalist apologist, whether Libertarian, Liberal, Conservative— you have no imagination, no soul—and worse still you want everyone else to be just as foolish and slavish as yourselves so you can preserve myths of free market democracy, American exceptionalism and tie all future humanity to the declaration of independence and the founding fathers, just so as to make yourselves feel the centre of the world, the centre of civilization. Q. What’s the difference between this type of American and the Aryan supremacists of Nazi Germany defending their purity of race and the father land? A. About seventy years On Aug 9, 11:18 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Lone Wolf > Voting is a Democratic right of all American citizens over 18years and > is the cornerstone of a free society and equal society. It is > <snip> > > MJ > Voting is a civil privilege not a right. > It has NOTHING to do with a free or equal society and certainly > NOT its cornerstone. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > Except in the sacred texts of democracy and in the incantations of > orators, we hardly take the trouble to pretend that the rule of the > majority is not at bottom a rule of force. What other virtue can > there be in fifty-one percent except the brute fact that fifty-one > is more than forty-nine? The rule of fifty-one per cent is a > convenience, it is for certain matters a satisfactory political > device, it is for others the lesser of two evils, and for others it > is acceptable because we do not know any less troublesome method of > obtaining a political decision. But it may easily become an absurd > tyranny if we regard it worshipfully, as though it were more than a > political device. We have lost all sense of its true meaning when > we imagine that the opinion of fifty-one per cent is in some high > fashion the true opinion of the whole hundred per cent, or indulge > in the sophistry that the rule of a majority is based upon the ultimate > equality of man. -- Walter Lippmann --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
