Black Bloc Tactics Contaminating Occupy Oakland

[sandinista]

Well, if you listen to MSNBC

Who listens to msnbc? Corporate news shit.

they bend over backwards to tell us what a myth it is that people slander it as anti-capitalist.

Wishful thinking perhaps?

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, if you listen to MSNBC

Who listens to msnbc? Corporate news shit.

The vast majority of liberals and left-leaning folks. Only a few people are like you.

they bend over backwards to tell us what a myth it is that people slander it as anti-capitalist.

Wishful thinking perhaps?

Perhaps. I surmise that it is really the same reason people scream in protest over being called socialist, or having a policy labeled a socialist policy. Quite often, they really do support socialism and socialist policies. What they object to is the negative value judgment placed upon that work by others. Rather than say, "sure, it's socialist, and so what? That's a good thing!" They deny that it is socialist, because of negative rhetorical baggage.

Same thing with the "it's anti-capitalist" label. I think that a lot of people object more to the negative connotation of being anti-capitalist.

Yes, Yes, I know -- you have the balls to say "fuck yeah, I'm anticapitalist! And, rightly so." Kudos to you for intellectual honesty. Most others fit into the category of thinking they are in favor of capitalism, but just want it fixed to be made fair, and then a smaller number are actually against capitalism, but they don't want to be thought of badly because of it. Then there is your group, the "fuck capitalism" group - that's a small group in the United States/Canada.

[sandinista]

The vast majority of liberals and left-leaning folks. Only a few people are like you.

"liberals" aren't left-leaning. What do you have to back up the statement made above? Any stats? numbers? You know how people think and what they believe? I would disagree with the phrases "vast majority" and "only a few".

I surmise that it is really the same reason people scream in protest over being called socialist

People scream in protest over being labeled socialist? Really? Who? Politicians? Of course they do, since they are all working for big business, but who else?

Quite often, they really do support socialism and socialist policies. What they object to is the negative value judgment placed upon that work by others.

Who is this "they"? Politicians? Who are you referring to? What negative value judgement?

Rather than say, "sure, it's socialist, and so what? That's a good thing!" They deny that it is socialist, because of negative rhetorical baggage.

What negative baggage? What and who are you referring to?

Same thing with the "it's anti-capitalist" label. I think that a lot of people object more to the negative connotation of being anti-capitalist.

Again, what negative connotation? I think this may all be in your mind. IE...you have a negative feelings towards these terms and, for some reason, think that must mean others do as well. I think one of the most negative terms there is is "christian", filled with negative images, connotations, "value judgements" etc but I certainly know that not everyone feels that way.

Yes, Yes, I know -- you have the balls to say "fuck yeah, I'm anticapitalist!

No, not at all, has nothing to do with "balls" or anything like that. Not at all. Way off the mark there.

And, rightly so.

Not rightly so.

Most others fit into the category of thinking they are in favor of capitalism, but just want it fixed to be made fair

and you know this how? Numbers? Stats? "Most people"? Where are you getting this from?

and then a smaller number are actually against capitalism, but they don't want to be thought of badly because of it.

You're just making this up. Where are you getting these numbers and how do you know what people are thinking? I've know hundreds of people who have and continue to oppose capitalism and have no feelings about being "thought badly because of it". I don't know where you're getting these ideas from, perhaps you could share.

Then there is your group, the "fuck capitalism" group - that's a small group in the United States/Canada.

?? I belong to no "group" and if I did it certainly wouldn't be "fuck capitalism". Being opposed to capitalism isn't some kind of "fuck this arrrggghh must smash destroy" BS, that's propaganda plain and simple. That's capitalists painting those who oppose capitalism in a bad light. That's obvious, and why wouldn't they do that, they also own the media which makes it a lot easier. I guess some people fall for it, others don't.

[Coito ergo sum]

The vast majority of liberals and left-leaning folks. Only a few people are like you.

"liberals" aren't left-leaning. What do you have to back up the statement made above? Any stats? numbers? You know how people think and what they believe? I would disagree with the phrases "vast majority" and "only a few".

I didn't say liberal were left leaning. That is why I use two different terms -- not only liberals, but also left leaning.

I'm going by my experience on these boards, and in real life. Your views are not common, in my experience.

I surmise that it is really the same reason people scream in protest over being called socialist

People scream in protest over being labeled socialist? Really? Who? Politicians? Of course they do, since they are all working for big business, but who else?

Politicians scream in protest because the voters would not vote for them if they were thought to be socialist. "Socialist" in the US for sure is still a bad word. In Europe it is much more accepted.

Quite often, they really do support socialism and socialist policies. What they object to is the negative value judgment placed upon that work by others.

Who is this "they"? Politicians? Who are you referring to? What negative value judgement?

I'm speaking about people in general. The negative value judgment is the negative view that most people have of socialism (in the US).

It is also common, not for politicians, but for people in general to be upset if you call them a socialist. If it's a good thing, why would so many people get upset?

Rather than say, "sure, it's socialist, and so what? That's a good thing!" They deny that it is socialist, because of negative rhetorical baggage.

What negative baggage? What and who are you referring to?

The negative baggage is the negative connotation (primarily in the US) associated with the world "socialist." And, I am speaking about people in general. People around Ratz and Ratskep included.

Same thing with the "it's anti-capitalist" label. I think that a lot of people object more to the negative connotation of being anti-capitalist.

Again, what negative connotation? I think this may all be in your mind. IE...you have a negative feelings towards these terms and, for some reason, think that must mean others do as well. I think one of the most negative terms there is is "christian", filled with negative images, connotations, "value judgements" etc but I certainly know that not everyone feels that way.

In the US, being a socialist is not a political advantage. Nobody would vote for a socialist here, because people view it negatively. Well, not "nobody," but a vanishingly small minority of people.

Yes, you view the term Christian negatively, as do I. But, 83% of the population self-identifies as Christian and therefore the word, overall, does not have the same negative baggage.

Everyone, of course, doesn't all feel any particular way. However, to suggest that just as many people think negatively of Christianity (in the US -- or Canada for that matter) as Socialism, well, that just won't hold water. Clearly, the former is viewed far more favorably by a far larger percentage of the population than the latter.

Yes, Yes, I know -- you have the balls to say "fuck yeah, I'm anticapitalist!

No, not at all, has nothing to do with "balls" or anything like that. Not at all. Way off the mark there.

I was complimenting you. You have the courage of your convictions, which is why you fight through a lot of opposition to your views. You don't apologize for them. You think folks that don't agree with you are wrong, and you have reasons to offer. You defend your points.

And, rightly so.

Not rightly so.

It's not rightly so that you have the courage of your convictions? You seem to be arguing with me needlessly here.

Most others fit into the category of thinking they are in favor of capitalism, but just want it fixed to be made fair

and you know this how? Numbers? Stats? "Most people"? Where are you getting this from?

Experience.

and then a smaller number are actually against capitalism, but they don't want to be thought of badly because of it.

You're just making this up. Where are you getting these numbers and how do you know what people are thinking? I've know hundreds of people who have and continue to oppose capitalism and have no feelings about being "thought badly because of it". I don't know where you're getting these ideas from, perhaps you could share.

Do you feel those persons you know represent the prevailing view in Canada? In the US? In the World?

Then there is your group, the "fuck capitalism" group - that's a small group in the United States/Canada.

?? I belong to no "group" and if I did it certainly wouldn't be "fuck capitalism". Being opposed to capitalism isn't some kind of "fuck this arrrggghh must smash destroy" BS, that's propaganda plain and simple. That's capitalists painting those who oppose capitalism in a bad light. That's obvious, and why wouldn't they do that, they also own the media which makes it a lot easier. I guess some people fall for it, others don't.

By group, I meant those who share that belief.

See how defensive you get? You don't like capitalism. You want it to go away. You've argued as much on other threads. That's what "fuck capitalism" means.

[sandinista]

I'm going by my experience on these boards, and in real life. Your views are not common, in my experience.

I guess I've had different experiences, on boards and otherwise.

Politicians scream in protest because the voters would not vote for them if they were thought to be socialist.

No, politicians scream in protest because they would lose their financial backings from large corporations if they were thought to be socialist and hence, would not be elected.

"Socialist" in the US for sure is still a bad word. In Europe it is much more accepted.

Perhaps for some people, propaganda is very powerful in the US.

I'm speaking about people in general. The negative value judgment is the negative view that most people have of socialism (in the US).

i don't know if you can speak for people in general. Especially with nothing to back it up.

It is also common, not for politicians, but for people in general to be upset if you call them a socialist.

People in general? Again, you know this how?

If it's a good thing, why would so many people get upset?

I don't think people do get upset, I haven't seen that. Not sure where you're getting that from.

The negative baggage is the negative connotation (primarily in the US) associated with the world "socialist." And, I am speaking about people in general. People around Ratz and Ratskep included.

Again, I don't think you can speak for people in general, especially with nothing to back it up.

In the US, being a socialist is not a political advantage. Nobody would vote for a socialist here

Of course not, not with the current two party system in the US, the system is set up so a socialist party would never have a chance. That has little to do with the way people think and more to do with the ideology and workings of the system in general.

I was complimenting you. You have the courage of your convictions, which is why you fight through a lot of opposition to your views.

I know you were, but what I was saying was, it doesn't take "balls" to oppose capitalism, it's not that radical a notion. I also don't find myself fighting "a lot" of opposition to "my views". From a small amount of people, yes, but, it is only a small vocal minority, mostly libraians or whatever they call themselves. I am happy to be opposed by those views.

You don't apologize for them.

Why would I?

It's not rightly so that you have the courage of your convictions? You seem to be arguing with me needlessly here.

No, it's not rightly so that one needs "balls" to oppose capitalism.

and you know this how? Numbers? Stats? "Most people"? Where are you getting this from?



Experience.

OK, well, my experience tells me different, so who's right?

Do you feel those persons you know represent the prevailing view in Canada? In the US? In the World?

Prevailing view? In Canada, no, in the states, no, in the world? I couldn't begin to guess. Of course, in all those cases there is a lot to consider, including propaganda and education etc. There are a lot of people who wouldn't even know what the term capitalism meant. Prevailing views don't equate with correct views of course. Also, because something is not a majority view doesn't mean that it is an insignificant view.

By group, I meant those who share that belief.

See how defensive you get? You don't like capitalism. You want it to go away. You've argued as much on other threads. That's what "fuck capitalism" means.

Not defensive, you're just painting an inaccurate picture, that's all.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm going by my experience on these boards, and in real life. Your views are not common, in my experience.

I guess I've had different experiences, on boards and otherwise.

You find most people agree with you, then, and are pro-socialist, anti-capitalist? Fair enough. Your experience differs.

Politicians scream in protest because the voters would not vote for them if they were thought to be socialist.

No, politicians scream in protest because they would lose their financial backings from large corporations if they were thought to be socialist and hence, would not be elected.

Socialism is viewed positively by only 36% of Americans: http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socia ... icans.aspx 58% have a negative image. That 36% was much lower not too long ago.

"Socialist" in the US for sure is still a bad word. In Europe it is much more accepted.

Perhaps for some people, propaganda is very powerful in the US.

Propaganda, including socialist propaganda, is very powerful everywhere.

I'm speaking about people in general. The negative value judgment is the negative view that most people have of socialism (in the US).

i don't know if you can speak for people in general. Especially with nothing to back it up.

Gallup poll above. I don't speak for most people. I simply stated my opinion of what most people think on this issue. Gallup poll backs me up.

It is also common, not for politicians, but for people in general to be upset if you call them a socialist.

People in general? Again, you know this how?

My experience.

And, the Gallup poll, for one.

If it's a good thing, why would so many people get upset?

I don't think people do get upset, I haven't seen that. Not sure where you're getting that from.

These message boards, and in general. My experience. It may be different than yours.

The negative baggage is the negative connotation (primarily in the US) associated with the world "socialist." And, I am speaking about people in general. People around Ratz and Ratskep included.

Again, I don't think you can speak for people in general, especially with nothing to back it up.

Voicing an opinion as to what people believe is not speaking for them. And, I did back it up, with the Gallup poll.

For you to claim the opposite is certainly nothing different than what I've been doing -- going by my experience. Except I have poll data too.

In the US, being a socialist is not a political advantage. Nobody would vote for a socialist here

Of course not, not with the current two party system in the US, the system is set up so a socialist party would never have a chance. That has little to do with the way people think and more to do with the ideology and workings of the system in general.

The system is set up so no libertarian has a chance either. The system is meant to prevent the extremes from holding sway too quickly. It helps maintain stability.

I was complimenting you. You have the courage of your convictions, which is why you fight through a lot of opposition to your views.

I know you were, but what I was saying was, it doesn't take "balls" to oppose capitalism, it's not that radical a notion. I also don't find myself fighting "a lot" of opposition to "my views". From a small amount of people, yes, but, it is only a small vocal minority, mostly libraians or whatever they call themselves. I am happy to be opposed by those views.

I know you want to keep pushing the idea that socialism is not a radical notion, but it is. It's part of the talking points of your side of things -- it's called mainstreaming. It's why folks always try to sell the idea that the center in the US is really "right" and that the "left" in the US is not really "left" at all," etc.

You don't apologize for them.

Why would I?

I don't think you would. Learn to take a compliment.

It's not rightly so that you have the courage of your convictions? You seem to be arguing with me needlessly here.

No, it's not rightly so that one needs "balls" to oppose capitalism.

Having balls is a metaphor for having guts, courage, strength. It's a compliment, and anyone standing by their views against substantial opposition has balls in that manner. It's not just that opposition to capitalism is the only thing that requires balls. Standing up for capitalism too, in the face of heavy onslaught the other direction would also be ballsy. Supporting libertarianism, or communism, against the majority, that too is ballsy.

and you know this how? Numbers? Stats? "Most people"? Where are you getting this from?



Experience.

OK, well, my experience tells me different, so who's right?

Me, apparently. See Gallup.

Do you feel those persons you know represent the prevailing view in Canada? In the US? In the World?

Prevailing view? In Canada, no, in the states, no, in the world? I couldn't begin to guess. Of course, in all those cases there is a lot to consider, including propaganda and education etc. There are a lot of people who wouldn't even know what the term capitalism meant. Prevailing views don't equate with correct views of course. Also, because something is not a majority view doesn't mean that it is an insignificant view.

So, then you agree with me, with respect to the US and Canada.

On this issue, I wasn't referring to which view was correct. Prevailing does not mean correct.

By group, I meant those who share that belief.

See how defensive you get? You don't like capitalism. You want it to go away. You've argued as much on other threads. That's what "fuck capitalism" means.

Not defensive, you're just painting an inaccurate picture, that's all.

I think you were just jumping to conclusions.

[sandinista]

You're saying that your somehow proved correct by the gallop pole results, yet they say that 1/3 of americans...AMERICANS!, have a positive view of socialism. That seems to fly in the face of what you've been trying to claim?

Propaganda, including socialist propaganda, is very powerful everywhere.

It's not all equal though. Corporate propaganda in the US is far more powerful and prevalent than any other views, by far.

Gallup poll above. I don't speak for most people. I simply stated my opinion of what most people think on this issue. Gallup poll backs me up.

It looks like it actually does not back you up, at all.

My experience.

And, the Gallup poll, for one.

Experience doesn't mean much since I have had different experiences, and again the gallop pole tells the opposite of what you're saying.

These message boards, and in general. My experience. It may be different than yours.

Yes, it appears so.

Voicing an opinion as to what people believe is not speaking for them. And, I did back it up, with the Gallup poll.

No you didn't, you backed up the opposite.

For you to claim the opposite is certainly nothing different than what I've been doing -- going by my experience. Except I have poll data too.

Your poll data shows the opposite of what you're saying. A third of AMERICANS! That's saying a lot, even with all the anti socialist propaganda a third of americans still have a positive view of socialism, that says a lot.

The system is set up so no libertarian has a chance either. The system is meant to prevent the extremes from holding sway too quickly. It helps maintain stability.

I agree with the first half of the statement. The second half however, is incorrect. The extreme is currently in power and has been for a long time. There isn't much more extreme than a corporatocracy.

I know you want to keep pushing the idea that socialism is not a radical notion, but it is.

according to you, that's it, I disagree and so do, apparently 1/3 of americans.

It's why folks always try to sell the idea that the center in the US is really "right" and that the "left" in the US is not really "left" at all," etc.

There's nothing to "sell" there is no "left" in the US. That's not a sale, that's a fact.

Having balls is a metaphor for having guts, courage, strength. It's a compliment, and anyone standing by their views against substantial opposition has balls in that manner.

That's fine, but I haven't found there to be any substantial opposition. Hence, why I think it doesn't take much balls.

Me, apparently. See Gallup.

I think you should "see" gallop.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're saying that your somehow proved correct by the gallop pole results, yet they say that 1/3 of americans...AMERICANS!, have a positive view of socialism. That seems to fly in the face of what you've been trying to claim?

Not at all. since nearly 60% had an unfavorable opinion. I was referring to the prevailing opinion, not an exclusive opinion.

Propaganda, including socialist propaganda, is very powerful everywhere.

It's not all equal though. Corporate propaganda in the US is far more powerful and prevalent than any other views, by far.

Your turn: evidence?

Gallup poll above. I don't speak for most people. I simply stated my opinion of what most people think on this issue. Gallup poll backs me up.

It looks like it actually does not back you up, at all.

Since it demonstrates that most people polled had a negative view of Socialism, then it is in precise accord with my experience.

My experience.

And, the Gallup poll, for one.

Experience doesn't mean much since I have had different experiences, and again the gallop pole tells the opposite of what you're saying.

No, it backs up exactly what I was saying, which was the prevailing view, most people view Socialism negatively. That's what the Gallup poll showed.

These message boards, and in general. My experience. It may be different than yours.

Yes, it appears so.

Good. But, you don't have a poll on your side.

Voicing an opinion as to what people believe is not speaking for them. And, I did back it up, with the Gallup poll.

No you didn't, you backed up the opposite.

How does 38% constitute the prevailing view or the majority view? Doesn't 58% constitute the prevaling view? The majority view? That's what I was referring to. It backs me up.

For you to claim the opposite is certainly nothing different than what I've been doing -- going by my experience. Except I have poll data too.

Your poll data shows the opposite of what you're saying. A third of AMERICANS! That's saying a lot, even with all the anti socialist propaganda a third of americans still have a positive view of socialism, that says a lot.

You haven't established your assertion that Americans are more brainwashed by propaganda than anyone else.

What it says is that most Americans think negatively about socialism, by far.

The system is set up so no libertarian has a chance either. The system is meant to prevent the extremes from holding sway too quickly. It helps maintain stability.

I agree with the first half of the statement. The second half however, is incorrect. The extreme is currently in power and has been for a long time. There isn't much more extreme than a corporatocracy.

Again, your turn: evidence?

I know you want to keep pushing the idea that socialism is not a radical notion, but it is.

according to you, that's it, I disagree and so do, apparently 1/3 of americans.

Nearly 60% apparently agree, though.

It's why folks always try to sell the idea that the center in the US is really "right" and that the "left" in the US is not really "left" at all," etc.

There's nothing to "sell" there is no "left" in the US. That's not a sale, that's a fact.

Yawn. There's that talking point again...

Having balls is a metaphor for having guts, courage, strength. It's a compliment, and anyone standing by their views against substantial opposition has balls in that manner.

That's fine, but I haven't found there to be any substantial opposition. Hence, why I think it doesn't take much balls.

I see you getting beaten up all the time around here and on Ratskep. But, o.k., I'll take your assertion as read.

Me, apparently. See Gallup.

I think you should "see" gallop.

For some reason you think nearly 60% of the people holding a particular view is not the prevailing view. Why is that?

[sandinista]

I read your posts as saying that very few people have a favorable opinion of socialism, 1/3 is not very few IMO.

I see you getting beaten up all the time around here and on Ratskep. But, o.k., I'll take your assertion as read.

Really? Well, considering it's you saying that I'm not surprised, in reality I have never been "beaten up" on any board about anything. You read into what you want to read into I suppose. Your opinion is your opinion and I take it as that.

It's not all equal though. Corporate propaganda in the US is far more powerful and prevalent than any other views, by far.



Your turn: evidence?

http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart

have a look. This is pretty simple stuff.

How does 38% constitute the prevailing view or the majority view?

I never mentioned a "majority". I was disagreeing with your claims that very few people have a positive view of socialism, again, 1/3 is not very few.

There's nothing to "sell" there is no "left" in the US. That's not a sale, that's a fact.



Yawn. There's that talking point again...

again though...yawn...it's not a talking point, it's the truth.

[Coito ergo sum]

I read your posts as saying that very few people have a favorable opinion of socialism, 1/3 is not very few IMO.

I believe I used the words most and prevailing view.

I see you getting beaten up all the time around here and on Ratskep. But, o.k., I'll take your assertion as read.

Really? Well, considering it's you saying that I'm not surprised, in reality I have never been "beaten up" on any board about anything. You read into what you want to read into I suppose. Your opinion is your opinion and I take it as that.

What the fuck is up your ass?

Fine - most everyone loves you and you hold mainstream opinions that are shared by the great majority of people. Anticapitalists and socialists are the middle, and what we think of as moderate and liberal/conservative, are really far right corporate controlled extremists and brainwashed, propagandized folks.

Happy now?

It's not all equal though. Corporate propaganda in the US is far more powerful and prevalent than any other views, by far.



Your turn: evidence?

http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart

have a look. This is pretty simple stuff.

Simplistic, yes.

Who Owns the Media?

Massive corporations dominate the U.S. media landscape. Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read. In many cases, these companies are vertically integrated, controlling everything from initial production to final distribution. In the interactive charts below we reveal who owns what.

Broadcasters make billions in profits while using the public airwaves for free. In return, they are supposed to provide programming that fulfills community needs. Instead, lobbyists have successfully fought to make it easier for broadcast companies to gobble up even more free airspace while doing less to serve the public.

Take Action to end the big broadcast swindle.

Access to high-speed Internet service — also known as broadband — has become a basic public necessity, just like water or electricity.

Yet despite its importance, broadband access in the United States is far from universal. Millions of Americans still stand on the wrong side of the "digital divide," unable to tap into the political, economic and social resources of the Web. Meanwhile, cable and phone companies — which hold virtual monopolies over the infrastructure of the Internet — often refuse to build out high-speed broadband to regions that need it most, and actively seek to block communities from seeking their own broadband solutions.

Take Action to stop their shenanigans.

That's supposed to show that propaganda is more prevalent in the US than elsewhere? It shows nothing of the kind, and you know it. It's just some barking about how big companies own big media outlets. And, they don't in Europe and elsewhere? How is the propaganda more prevalent in the US?

How does 38% constitute the prevailing view or the majority view?

I never mentioned a "majority". I was disagreeing with your claims that very few people have a positive view of socialism, again, 1/3 is not very few.

I didn't say "very few." I said majority, most and prevailing view.

There's nothing to "sell" there is no "left" in the US. That's not a sale, that's a fact.


Yawn. There's that talking point again...

again though...yawn...it's not a talking point, it's the truth.

Nonsense.

[Seth]

Well, if you listen to MSNBC

Who listens to msnbc? Corporate news shit.

The vast majority of liberals and left-leaning folks. Only a few people are like you.

they bend over backwards to tell us what a myth it is that people slander it as anti-capitalist.

Wishful thinking perhaps?

Perhaps. I surmise that it is really the same reason people scream in protest over being called socialist, or having a policy labeled a socialist policy. Quite often, they really do support socialism and socialist policies. What they object to is the negative value judgment placed upon that work by others. Rather than say, "sure, it's socialist, and so what? That's a good thing!" They deny that it is socialist, because of negative rhetorical baggage.

It's not "negative rhetorical baggage," it's the fact that socialism is inherently evil and most rational people know it, so socialists have to hide their true intentions and agendas while they try to "progress" towards their goal. When Communism got a bad name, they retreated and called it "Socialism." When Socialism got a bad name (as of course it should because it's evil) they retreated and changed the name to "Progressivism." It's a Marxist tactic as old as Marxism. If the public doesn't like the label, keep on changing the label until you find a label that resonates with the unintellectual proletarian masses, but the rhetoric and agenda are ALWAYS THE SAME THING, just packaged differently.

[Seth]

Politicians scream in protest because the voters would not vote for them if they were thought to be socialist.

No, politicians scream in protest because they would lose their financial backings from large corporations if they were thought to be socialist and hence, would not be elected.

As is just, right and proper, since a socialist has policy positions that are in direct opposition to the economic interests of large corporations, which are owned by and financially benefit hundreds of millions of average individuals who have invested in those corporations in order to make money for themselves. Corporations would be violating their fiduciary duty to their shareholders if they donate money to socialist political candidates. The ONLY reason any corporation would do so is if it hopes to obtain favors and benefits from a socialist candidate that would outweigh the losses caused by the ire of the shareholders.

In the US, being a socialist is not a political advantage. Nobody would vote for a socialist here

Of course not, not with the current two party system in the US, the system is set up so a socialist party would never have a chance.

Thank God for that! But never ending vigilance against the specter of pernicious Marxism and socialism is still necessary.

That has little to do with the way people think and more to do with the ideology and workings of the system in general.

Um, the "system" is the people and it reflects their "ideology" fairly well.

Prevailing views don't equate with correct views of course.

Typical socialist elitist arrogance. You think you know better than the majority what's right for society and you're willing to impose your political ideology on them by force. That's the mantra of every Marxist-Communist dictator in history.

Also, because something is not a majority view doesn't mean that it is an insignificant view.

Indeed. Socialism is not a majority view, but it's significant alright...significantly dangerous. Enough so that if it can't be stamped out and marginalized into ineffectiveness, force is justified in preventing it from achieving political power.

[sandinista]

This boards two headed monster coitoseth

Um, the "system" is the people and it reflects their "ideology" fairly well.

Yes, of course you would say that. Shocking.

Prevailing views don't equate with correct views of course.


Typical socialist elitist arrogance.

Views are formed and sculpted, of course, most people understand this.

You think you know better than the majority what's right for society and you're willing to impose your political ideology on them by force.

Like the US doesn't impose it's political ideology by force. Of course they do. Your saying that like it's something linked with socialism. Besides that, the obvious, political ideologies are more often imposed by the use of propaganda. The statement has nothing to do with elitism. Besides all the above, you think that prevailing views equal correct views? I take it you're a religious person than?

Enough so that if it can't be stamped out and marginalized into ineffectiveness, force is justified in preventing it from achieving political power.

Now who's advocating using force? Can you not keep it straight even within the same post?

[Clinton Huxley]

There's a time and a place for civil disobedience. What was the American Revolution but civil disobedience on a massive scale? What brought the hated poll tax down in the UK? The riots.

If the OWSers were advancing high ideals, independence from a tyrannical non-representative government, confiscatory taxation, military quartering of soldiers in citizens' homes, denials of due process, denials of fair trials, involuntary impressment into military service, and other such things, then perhaps the majority of people would stand with them, and the government would hopefully relent.

As it stands, I've not heard anything OWS is advocating that makes a damn bit of sense. Most of the time, the folks that support them can't even articulate what the OWS movement is actually standing for, because it's a shell game. They hide behind the "nobody runs the movement, and therefore there are as many reasons for it as there are people in the movement," type nonsense. It basically just becomes a griping mob, mainly asking for free stuff. To compare it to the American Revolution is like comparing the fight the NVA in Vietnam to the fight against the Nazis in WW2.

I didn't compare the OWS movement to the American Revolution.

[JimC]

Again, we have the extremes. Some seem to regard any criticism of the current (read American) system of politics and economics as treason, and that any suggestion that a serious attempt be made to reign in the clear excesses of capitalism and the big money end of town is the end of civilisation as we know it.

Others seem sure that an unrelenting determination to totally and utterly discard free-enterprise is the only solution, even though it is clearly a minority stance, and that attempts to enforce it in the past have resulted in authoritarian regimes of horrific proportions.

A pox on the extremes, say I!