Ha ha,your country isnt even following the constitution,you have no idea how your country would be if it had followed the constitution.It would be alot better than it is now.
There was a FOURTH reason why the Constitution was drafted, actually: According to Thaddeus Russell, as he details in his awesome book- A Renegade History of the United States- the Founders saw most (or at least 'too many') American citizens as extremely immoral and/or debaucherous. They had "no virtue", and the Founders thought that a strong democratic gov't would FORCE that urgency of responsibility on the people and make them 'more moral' in the long run. Among other reasons
There was actually, at least if Russell is right, quite a bit of alcoholism, beer-drinking, prostitution, etc. etc. in early colonial America. There was even plenty of RACE-MIXING, which was, of course, taboo at the time.
America was a christian country, all the people were christians. The founder fathers made freedom of religion, but they never thought America could have gay marriage, abortion, satanic music and movies, and Islam. The founder fathers themselves could be here to debunk the first amendment
Michael Parenti is the last defender of the Soviet Union and Mao's China. He has the wondrous gift of being able to overlook tens of millions of dead---many times over---and to see nice things from the Gulag towers. He is the Pollyanna of such brutal Centralized regimes. Parenti believes the Ant colony is a marvelous paradigm for a new economic Order----and you are the ant.
@orbis2009 shut up moron. The killing of 100 MILLION Native Americans by the White Christian conquerors of the New World is an undisputed FACT and you have the fucking nerve to whine about Mao's victims? Fucking HYPOCRITE you are.
Also check Parenti's "Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth" and see for yourself the way your beloved Dalai Lama treated his subjects- amputations for theft, pulling off tongues, gouging ot eyes, YES, moron, THE GOUGING OUT OF EYES, something Mao NEVER did to hs foes
@ComradeFlorian31 Identify your source of "FACTS" that 100 million natives were killed. Where is you evidence? And I don't mean citing some else's opinions.
@MsPsycho29 It's Davidv Stannard, in his renowned book "The American Holocaust" that says White Conquerors of the American Continent killed 100 MILLION Native Americans between 1492-1890
@ComradeFlorian31 Stating something in a text is not PROOF -Its just an assertion. What I asked was, do you know of any evidence that supports the claim (don't take this as antagonism; I doubt all facts until I see proof).
@orbis2009 seems like you over look the millions of dead in other country's from regimes who's soldiers are trained her, who are victims to U.s. militarism, dead because of lousy public healthcare, etc. setting chinal and soviet union aside, is his critiques of the U.S. on point?
The US has a republic that at its core needs the exclusion of the common person from power and the illusion of choice to prevail-partly as a propaganda function.
The phrase empowered is apt here.
People needs to feel they have a say even though they don't.
That's why America works for elites and the working class and so poorly for the masses and the working class.
People buy into the massive delusion that this is a fair nation when reality says otherwise.
@MatrixOfDynamism What I mean is every single American is We The People. I get sick of these Tea Party claiming they are the people when not every but not even the majority agree with them.
You guys, even the radicals in the US like anarchists and marxists, are convinced that the US has had a very weak labour struggle history and was always unusually capitalist. This isn't true, the US has had a very proud and large labour history, the first syndicalist unions were born there, out of which came all of socialism. The US state was simply more brutal in dealing with them.
The problem with the United States is there was never a true revolution. There was a civil war/rebellion against British rule. European nations had real revolutions or were exposed to revolutionary ideas. The US has remained issolated from this influence and this is why the US is so conservative.
Also, the constitution was merely a front for replacing one elite for another. The Americans were still under Common Law and the Magna Carta under British rule, so it wasn't much different for the "common" individual.
America is the global headquarters of Capitalism Inc. If you want to appreciate what It means to be a subject of empire, contemplate the existence of some 3500 death row inmates sentenced to be strapped to padded steel crucifixes and injected with poison. The arrogance & brutality of the US certainly matches the Romans in decline but we suffer by comparison to their achievements in scholarship, & the humanities. America never saw a high period but really began ln decadence..
@jaymthegenius Nobody. Parenti is just setting up strawman after strawman and knocking it down. This series ignores what the framers of the Constitution, especially James Madison wrote.
Oh okay so capitalism guarantees political domination as a right of wealth and it succeeds at distrubuting the wealth of power upward in a vertical hierarchy & that is what you call an "ethical" system, so you have a point. What is it about the homeless population numbrering in the millions that is so easy to overlook in your appraisal of economy and ethics? Is it your belief that slavery homelessness and mass imprisonment are functions of natural law, divine retribution or are they the same?
@jazz this comment is absurd; both on the substance of it as well as the attributions you assert I am implying. Capitalism has been the greatest leveler of inequality in history...I will help you here...do me a favor and research A. Hamilton and his record against slavery...pay close attention to what he said about an African-Americans nature if freed and left alone to prove it through his/her natural merit...read original letters from Hamilton they're online...then read Lenin's letters
How can anyone take Parenti seriously? For starters the Bank of North America(the first bank in the colonies) was started during the revolutionary war. There were no commercial banks before the war. How does Parenti explain the British soldiers journals which are littered w/ confusion as to how the colonials could be rebelling; when every one of them had their own plot of land and their own home? Please research and don't believe this trash!!!!
How can anyone be expected to take you seriously? Parenti is a respected mainstream academic historian with some 20 books to his credit. What he presents here is common knowlege. it would be interesting to see what might become of your resentments if you obtained a library card and used it.
@jazzbo66zz Seeing as I have read everyone of the papers of Alexander Hamilton, many of the newspapers at the time, State Archives, not too mention guys like E. James Ferguson , Gordon Wood, Forrest McDonald et al, and lets not forget the Natural Law theorists like Vattel, the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers such as David Hume, etc... I am quite qualified to challenge Parenti's slander and libels. All the evidence is opposite of what this demagogue wishes to preach
The point I am trying to illustrate is that both systems are built and sustained bu implementation of an all powerful state: i.e. totalitarianism. What most Communists/Socialists today are so unwilling to realize or admitt is that the kind of societal changes they espous require a super-state that is all powerful to implement. Unfortunatly, the elite political class that exists in most nations then uses this super-state structure to exercise their will upon the masses. This= bad news for us
Marxism requires no super-state to implement its social changes. The Soviet-style approach to building socialism is only one of many. A fully-functioning workers state wouldnt be authoritarian in the least, since socialism is not state control of the economy. Marxism is perhaps the most misunderstood political theory, and that is no doubt due to a century of red scares orchestrated by western governments and others that continue today. I invite you to Revleft to learn more about it.
Marxism may not require a super-state to implement it's social changes, but thus far, Marxist social systems have only been implemented in super-state esque systems. While Marxism sounds nice, constructing a social system on the basis of absolute equality in the pursuit of social justice is a mythical fantasy. Plato wrote of this notion in "The Republic", for instance. In the book, Plato writes of a dialogue between Socrates and some of his students, in which Socrates satirically talks of it.
Well, so far, all political ideologies have led to super-states. All of modern civilization has led to super-states. Maybe the cause isn't any particular ideology but the very structure of modern civilization.
@IPlayWithFire135 Marx, along with his buddy Engels, are hacks of Hegelian philosophy which removes entirely the Individual and sees everything as a system. Explain to me how Kierkegaard and Engels could be at the same lectures given on Hegel in Berlin; and the former spends the rest of his life warning against the dangers of embracing this philosophy, while the latter...well, we all know what the latter went on to do...the track record speaks for itself.
@IPlayWithFire135 Please, Marxism sees everything in speculation, anyone who has actually read Hegel will see Marxism and his sociology deriving itself from it. It's a Utopian fantasy and there is no wonder that its offspring of Soviet collectivism, Mao's philosophical views, and Nazism has led to millions upon millions of murders. Once you remove the Individual and think only in terms of groups, its amazing what men will can do to other men.
Having read Marx is fundamental to understanding the terms of Marxism as a critique of Capitalism and thus the aptly titled masterpiece Das Kapital. Anyway, you are out of the loop for the purposes of this discussion and obviously have neglected to read any of Parenti's work either. Capitalism is a failed 19th cent utopian materialist economic theory that in real terms redistributes wealth upward irrationaly away from its origin which is labor. Capitalism failed on its own terms
@jazzbo66zz Capitalism is nothing more than bartering using money as a representation of value. Capitalism does not fail nor ever has. It is not Capitalism vs Socialism/Marxism. It is Individual Rights or Natural Law vs. Socialism/Marxism. There may be unethical men but there is no unethical part of Capitalism. Ethics do not revolve around Capitalism.
Hamilton shmamilton. Capitalism is the ethic of a lynchmob & its supreme value is power disguised as profit. The bodies of coal miners are consumed for the profit of the owner at the expense of the miner. Capitalism is that strange alchemy by which people are suffocated in mines a mile underground to make possible the lifestyle of other men who maintain comfortable lodgings and wear silken robes while having never visited thehellholes that enrich them with their profits.
@Kierkegaard73 I have always admired "natural law" as a classic among political oxymorons. Might an example of "natural law" be when say; a hypothetical young man named Candide encounters a "PRIVATE PROPERTY" sign fixed to a tree along a hedgerow. Would Candide be safe in assuming that the sign was a naturally occuring structure and part of the tree or would he be wiser to recognize the sign and its meaning as the probable work of a nearby farmer? Your Socialism/ Marxism has a similar appeal.
Ok, you're wrong about the other points as well, but Nazism? Nazism is the opposite of Marxism. I don't know where this myth about Nazism being related to Marxist originated. Probably FOX News. They hated and still do hate each other fervently. It's easily one of the longest political rivalries in history. Look up Antifa.
@IPlayWithFire135 Don't shift the argument because you have not read Hegel. Any ideology that uses Positive Law(the State can coerce the Individual) is related. I shall leave you with a quote from A. I. Solzhenitsyn's: "The Gulag Archipelago"..."And they deprived her of newspapers too.(However the Secret Political Department of the GPU permitted her to have complete sets of Marx and Engels, Lenin and HEGEL in her cell). Any Socialist or Marxist should read this book.
You're confusing "influenced by" with "derived from." Marx was very critical of Hegel, though not altogether opposed to Hegelian thought. Please read Marx or stop wasting my time.
As for the Positive Law, that is both a pathetic straw man and non-sequitor.
So what if they let her read Hegel? That doesn't prove anything.
@IPlayWithFire135 Wasting time eh???Hmm I have read Marx. But what is the power of reality to someone that dreams speculative philosophy in an ivory tower? So you dreamers, you Kantians, you Hegelians, You Marxists; you just keep dreaming your fantasy laden logical systems upon systems. In vain does history try to gain your attention, In vain does it try to tell you that this always ends in mass murder and genocide....Yes, but it's no match for the charms of perfect speculating.
@Kierkegaard73 You've failed in proving your point so you crank out this gem of a red herring.
Hahaha I bet you think communism killed 100 million people, don't you? Oh the horror!
In our whitewashed history books, the west are always the heroes. Never is it directly mentioned the genocide and lebensraum conducted against the natives by the U.S. or the millions upon millions killed by the British in India. NOT to mention the millions that starve every year in capitalist nations.
@IPlayWithFire135 Since you haven't read Hegel it is unfair of me to point out that in every part of Marx theory and historical justifications he uses Hegel's concept of 'mediation' So instead I am simply going to ask you to ponder Karl's Logic. Logic employs transition. i.e., "then", "next", "therefore" "thus" etc. Transition is movement. Whenever there is movement there is action. In what category is "movement" or "action" or "transition" located in? Does Logic contain it? ...
@IPlayWithFire135 ...does logic bring about transition? Or is transition from another category. Perhaps maybe Ethics? Does not Ethics bring about transition? Whenever there is action their is Ethics. And what does Ethics always concern itself with? Does Ethics concern itself in speculation or with the Individual? And I ask you again think about Marx's theories and ask yourself again what brings about its transition? Don't answer it, just ponder it
Any ideology that uses the economic leverage of one class to coerce another is a statist order in effect,either CP or US. Understand that a choice of meanial wages or starvation is not a a frame work in which conceptions of liberty are meaningful.The US has a prison population of nearly 2.5 million dispraportionately black and latin prisoners. Solzenitsyn would have stood a better chance of being raped or murdered in the LA County jail, than he would have in Siberia.
Marx had nothing to say on that, much less Marxism. Marx wrote some "planks," yes, but those where specific recommendations to the revolutions of 1848. Didn't you read the disclaimer on Marx's later version of the manifesto? Oops! Faux news didn't show that!
Stalinist? Far from it. MLs are not an especially large portion of the board. All of the Admins are Leftcoms and anarchists.
Marx's work can be more appropriately described as a critique of capitalism and an analysis of human history. But we can get a good idea of his model of socialism by certain bits and pieces from his works and from his debates against Bakunin, for example, in addition to the general framework shared by all socialists.
@IPlay Capitalism is the Monetary bondage of immense humanity in a politically manipulated,armed,tyrannical MARKET MECHANISM of alienation,exploitation and suffering. The Business as usual is the negation of our common humanity in cooperation and harmony to take care of our real needs and well being. Capitalism dominated by Corporate criminals or State dictators is the abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration. Profit system is historically outdated ,destructive and dehumansing
@IPlayWithFire135. The Soviet Union of Stalin was essentially a state capitalist. There was a central body that controlled the working class, rather than the reverse. This is not much different from the undemocratic capitalist realm of the "modern world".
The Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin was a society in the dictatorship of the proletariat that took the form it did as it adapted itself to the needs of development and war, as well as power politics within the party and state itself.
To put the myth of the possibility of a democratic revolution to bed, before Lenin pushed for workplace discipline, the railways and other vital things had become grossly inefficient. It just wasn't advanced enough, not even in 1940's USSR.
any fully-functioning state is authoritarian, in that you have state officials, elected or otherwise, controlling the lives of others via legislation, decree, etc. How else can wealth and resources be redistributed without some sort of compliance apparatus enforced by the state. Collectivism is authoritarianism disguised as equality. Indeed Marxism is widely misunderstood, particularly by those who support it as some sort of panacea against the evils of capital ownership.
@geezb You know there are some types of collectivisim that really work? The Amish, Pacific Islanders, & other tribal cultures. Notice the Common Themes? No Government, uneducated, no bettering ones self ect.
The reason Collectivism typically fails as western culture tends to view it is because they try and implement it with government by force when what they really need to do is create a family. But the political socialists don't want to hear that.
@IPlayWithFire135 Marxism and other collectivist ideologies, endlessly debated among and relabeled by academia, are all alternatives of centralized control of human life. Marxist thought fails to recognize the true power structure of the West, namely the secret societies and central banking cartels who pull the strings from the shadows.
It is, at least, if you are talking about the Scientific Socialism presented by Marx. He makes it clear in several occasions, the most notable, at The Communism Manifesto and The Capital.
@IPlayWithFire135 Wonderful comment. I was just wondering if you could provide me with some insight on how you think an alternative system (whether it be Marxist, anarchist, etc.) would work. We we be like a subsistence society and be educated in the practice of farming? Or would we somehow utilize technology to produce and distribute food? How would transportation work? What would houses be built from and who would build them? Thank you for your input.
@IPlayWithFire135 Marxism is indeed a misunderstood political theory. You might happen to believe that socialism doesn't require the use of state power to gain control of the economy and repress counterrevolution, but then you're not a Marxist. Marx thought it was fairly obvious that revolutions entailed the exercise of organized authority, and to be honest, he was probably right.
The Nazis tried their best to appear socialist by adopting a leftist-sounding name and platform because the German public was sympathetic to leftist ideas at the time. But their policies once in power were quite different, and had nothing to do even with what is commonly considered proper socialism (the USSR). Parenti wrote on this.
Nazi Germany and the USSR had almost nothing in common internally or externally.
Some socialists are for big state governments and some aren't. There are socialists who are libertarians and anarchists. There are socialists who use socialism as a critique of state government and even of all modern civilization. There are all kinds of socialists because it's a broad category.
I was going to list more, but leave it up to others to look them up on their own. Especially relevant are points 20, 21, 23, and 24. For someone to argue that the internationalism of Socialism/Communism is any different from the nationalism of German Fascism is patently ludicris. I understand the Nazi's truly hated the Marxists, as is illustrated by a plethora of writing, but that is because the Nazi's and Bolsheviks were competing for the same constituencies within Germany.
"Progressive" is a Marxist key word. This guy is talking like the founders were bad because they wanted to protect the right s of property owners (from the government). What would he have a mob rule democracy, Nazi style or Communist style Marxism? I agree with his information, but diametrically oppose his tone and conclusions.
That's pretty messed up. Having spent time behind the iron curtain and in other lesser countries, I can only have gratitude for what they set up. I am now a land owner, thanks to them. I have an education, thanks to them. I can do and be anything I want thanks to them.
Protecting property rights from the government is a noble cause.
They wanted a Constitutional Representative Republic, which is what we have - protection from tyranny and protection from the mob.
Funny that you should thank them, because they're not the ones that are responsible for the standard of living the average person has in the US, much less the possibility of being dealt a good hand in capitalism and getting ahead. The American Revolution was not a popular uprising, as commonly depicted in high school history books. Barely 30% were rebels, the rest were Tories or neutral. It was a rebellion not so unlike the Civil War years later - instigated and supported by rich landowners.
And that's exactly who the founding fathers intended to protect. The oligarchy. mr1001nights has a video on this. What changed the US was the industrial revolution and the rise of the labor movement. Instead of the "founding fathers," you should be thanking the Knights of Labor and other militant unions (as well as fictitious capital) for your "opportunity" (which, by the way, is probably not going to last much longer. You better enjoy it before capitalism goes through its own perestroika).
How true it is! While serving as US president James Madison operated a tobacco plantation in Virginia with the help of 100 slaves. George Washington, a plantation worked by 350 slaves. In fact it is the long history of often violent struggles by the American Labor Union movement that accounts for the social progress of working people.Government institutionalized reforms like public education and social security only after massive public uprisings against the class "fathers"
Furthermore, one does not "protect" property rights from the government. The historical role of the state is to protect the privilege of the opulent. Anyone who honestly views the privileged and the state as opposing forces simply doesn't understand human society.
I would argue that democracy is designed to strike an equitable BALANCE between individual property rights or the amassing of wealth and power in private hands against the legitimate interests of society as a whole. It is critical to understanding the fundamental failure of America to sustain the development of community or public resources and the ultimate undermining of the social contract by polarizing the economic and social spheres then played off against one another.
That is another false idea pushed by our white-washed history books. Read Mein Kampf and compare it with communist manifesto. They were open Socialists. Don't believe comparative philosophy, ask a European over 50.
One of the Nazi's struggles was branding. They wanted to separate themselves from Russian Communists - apparently they succeeded with you...
So the history books are good when they tell you Stalin was nothing but a baby-eating killer and the founding fathers were gods and the US can do no wrong but when it doesn't confuse a far left ideology with a far right one, its somehow liberal propaganda. Yeah ok. Why don't you read Mein Kampf? Almost every chapter is dripping with venom against Marxism and the Bolsheviks. You're right - the Nazis sought to brand themselves. Which is why they adopted a Socialist-sounding name.
This "National Socialism" was not Socialism in the slightest. Funny that these "Socialists" didn't advocate the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production, huh? The Nazis actually busted unions and gave tax cuts to big business. Fascist Corporatism is really just extremely Keynesian Capitalism, though Hitler didn't want to call it that. Where Nazism is extremely racist, Marxism is anti-racist and internationalist.
What!?! All real Americans know there is true American conservatism and everything else is Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Nazism, and Fascism. Our Founding Fathers were Christian Republicans who hated abortion and gays. I know this is true because Beck told me so. Beck also said that Obama is the bastard child of Hitler created by a Nazi genetic experiment. Hilary Clinton was the surrogate mother. It's true! lol
I think it would surprise you to know that Hilter came to admire Marx for what he said about Jewish capitalism and freely admitted that Marx' economic theory played a major role in structuring the state economy.They are not opposites, they are variations on a theme.
Came to admire Marx? Are you serious? Every word he ever uttered about Marxism or the Bolsheviks was dripping with venom. And it couldn't have played a role in structuring the fascist state-when the Nazis got into power, they privatized almost everything that was state owned in the Weimar days. Corporatism is about giving power to the corporate elite.
I think you fall into the now familiar, and fatal, trap of thinking that public speaches define the politician; it takes little understanding and knowledge of political rhetoric to see through this ploy. Hitler regarded the right to private property as being secondary to state interests, was for centralisation and planning of the economy and was anti-capitalist. Take off your hat.
@flyhead2 No, not public speeches (which is where "Hitler is an anti-capitalist" comes from), but Mein Kampf. Regarding private property as secondary to the state or even wanting central planning (Not true in Hitler's case, he was clear in his support for private property and in creating private initiative in the economy to get Germany out of the depression) don't make a Marxist. In fact, a lot of Marxists don't want planning, What are the criteria for being a Marxist? Being left of Bush?
"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun..... National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."
Hitler was not referring to any alleged similarities or influences between himself and the Marxists, he was talking about political strategy. The Nazis wisely used leftish imagery to appeal to the labor movement. But it's not surprising that his fellow rightists like to quote him out of context. By the time he called his ideology national socialism, he was fervently anti-Marxist.
'Leftist' and 'rightist' are empty epithets unless qualified. E.g. the accusation is often made by self-identifying 'leftists' that imperial designs are in and of themselves identifyers of 'rightist' strategies. This is simply not so. Look into the goals of the original fabians in the UK; imperialism was very much part of their agenda. Google 'Euston Manifesto'.
You have a point, but imperialism has always been practiced by right wing governments, with the exception of the USSR (to some extent. By that time, it's political culture had lost most of its socialist flavor) Imperialism is not an ideology anyway, but a practice. Traditionalism favors imperialism, and right-wing politics typically favor traditionalist policies.
"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the nation."
No, fascism is a specific ideology of which nazism is a variant. It is considered far-right for its ultra-conservative social politics and its tendency to be very friendly to the business community. It is closer to the old absolute monarchism than any post-enlightenment ideology.
@IPlayWithFire135 Fascism is business enterprise organized on a monopoly basis, and in full command of all the military, police, legal and propaganda power of the state. Communist Russia was also a dictatorship of monopoly capital i.e. disguised as public ownership. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were created by monopoly capital working through secret societies. A Nazi general visiting Russia in the 1930's remarked that Communism was a "mirror-image" of Nazism. They were both socialist.
@geezb No. They were both authoritarian. Socialism is not necessarily or always authoritarian or state-based. There is such a thing as stateless socialism.
The Vatican-Pope-Jesuits-illuminati-NAZIS-CFR run the world. they have all the judges, attorneys, doctors, major corporations, etc. all in their back pocket. bought & paid for, etc. our country is no longer free -we live in tyranny! truth an obscure thing, Oppression & lie is the norm. Were all slaves- our masters, the elite, r at least 50 years ahead of us in knowledge, technology, info., secrets & r using all of it against us!
whats with the voice, come on, i can't stand this. whenever patriots want to make an effective video they never think about quality and if people will actually want to hear it. Well i believe in all this stuff but I can't stand this video because of the voice over
over suffraged legislatures and emasculated state executives, combining with an impotent confederation congress, resulted in the vast land depreciation, paper schemes, trade woes, expropriation laws, etc... i am appalled and saddened deeply that anyone would misconstrue the truth so blatantly. this is untruth at its finest!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
having read almost all the primary letters, newspapers, and state archives, I can tell you that this is the most distorted and preposterous bunch of BS. Perhaps mr. parenti might explain how the most abused classes in the time frame were actually the wealthy, why shay's rebellion took place, and what happened to the loyalists remaining after the war...all results coming from the rise of demagogues(aka parenti) using the uninformed to pass tyrannical legislation...
i did not say all of history, but at that time period. strange is it not that there is not even a single personal letter from that time showing the a person of the lower economic class railing against the system...yet in the new york legislature we can find such wonderful benevolent acts like the "confiscation act" whereby a supposed loyalist(the bulk of which were middle and upper class) was stripped of his home and disenfranchised. to listen to a ...
You don't of course hear about the poor's troubles because none of them had the time to write about it.
Really? Your defending the oppressors against the oppressed? I certainly hope your not going to say present day capitalists are suffering a lot more than the homeless? And the Kings and nobles over the serfs too?
Your forgetting high taxes, long hours, low pay, hunger and starvation. These things of course go undocumented.
What was so hard about a rich mans life? A slave running away?
high taxes??? except for Massachusetts trying to be honest with its debt, nothing but expropriation against creditors to the union took place...wages??? hunger and starvation??? -19/20's of the pop. were small independent farmers, so unless you imply that they chose to pay themselves low wages what you state is not applicable. btw...do me a favor and read the debates at the new york and mass. ratification conventions. you might find it interesting
this isnt a difficult subject...here, i will make it easy for you....type in google: "alexander hamilton's first letter from phocion". and if your actually interested in the truth in a quick curious scholarly point of view, search amazon or abes books for forrest mcdonald's: "intellectual origins of the constitution", and e james furgersen's "the power of the purse".
and to pose a question to all those who think the poor were repressed back then...does anyone have an idea why the men at the 87' convention spent so much time debating and hammering out a bicameral legislature? why was it so important to have two houses in congress and why did the founders desperately not want the upper house(senate) voted directly by the people?...of course the vile 17th amdnt in 1913 has totally thwarted the spirit and ideal of the U.S. constitution.
,,or believe in a disingenuous demagogue such as mr parenti is to be either a.) limited in critical thinking or b.)intellectual laziness. the constitution is designed to protect life, liberty, and "property". there was no protection during the articles of confederation on property, not all founders owned slaves either. the most important founder of all, the man on the 10.00 bill, was adamantly against it.
irony...i daresay, if one has read S. K.'s: "a literary review" and then preceded to advocate mr. parenti's leveling principles, well...then indeed i would be quite the target of irony. however, striking up an argument about the american founders with an 18 yr old from canada...now that is ripe for irony
Theres a reason Paine was left out, he was poor, and took his movement ons step forward towards tyranny in religion, he had to flee to France where he helped them set up a government, on that was not religion power friendly.
I for one like this book. Proves the corruption, and messed up programs for the people existed well before Obama was even born. Its amazing to see spin doctors at work, you can rewrite history so long as now one reads the fine print or gives it a second thought.
@Blanman7 yes, paine, with his remarkable success with the french constitution...how'd that work out...hmmm what did they call the time just after the french formed their new constitution...oh yeah..."the reign of terror".
in the end, it's us against them. it's the common citizen against the elite class. we all need to come together. it's not about political parties..you're getting decieved..you're falling for the facade they have constructed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No ...its not a Democracy...Its a Republic... If you so hate the Republic...Ship your ass else where...remember..you are FREE to do so...or would rather hang around and bitch about it??
i see that you're stuck in the illusion that it's still this WWF fight between left wingers and right wingers, liberals and conservatives..they have u stuck in the illusion that it's an issue of idealism..that if our administration was republican, everything would be better..and for others,since our administration is democrat, everything is going to be great..it's a 2 party monopoly..each party is 2 sides of the same coin..open your eyes..it's about classism,not political professional wrestling.
Nothing much has changed, you still have to be rich, or have the rich finance you no matter who you are, then you must dance to their music, keep you eye on the New Pied Pipper.
Depending on whom you ask hundreds of deaths were faked, demolitions were placed in the WTC without anybody noticing. And my favorite, these all powerful conspirators who pulled all this off couldnt seem to get their hands on a commercial airliner to crash into one of the towers, so they had to jerry-rig a military aircraft. Maybe it is easier to understand how option 2 is more logical if you are wearing a tinfoil hat.
Ha ha,your country isnt even following the constitution,you have no idea how your country would be if it had followed the constitution.It would be alot better than it is now.
affilinet 4 days ago
@zWzld Love, lust, and passion transcends almost all other beliefs.
DefeatedElitist 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zWzld How can a slave consent to sex with their perverse sexual abusers Einstein?
t1mbquk2 3 weeks ago in playlist Parenti, Michael - Speeches, Interviews
Comment removed
t1mbquk2 3 weeks ago in playlist Parenti, Michael - Speeches, Interviews
There was a FOURTH reason why the Constitution was drafted, actually: According to Thaddeus Russell, as he details in his awesome book- A Renegade History of the United States- the Founders saw most (or at least 'too many') American citizens as extremely immoral and/or debaucherous. They had "no virtue", and the Founders thought that a strong democratic gov't would FORCE that urgency of responsibility on the people and make them 'more moral' in the long run. Among other reasons
whoo689 2 months ago
There was actually, at least if Russell is right, quite a bit of alcoholism, beer-drinking, prostitution, etc. etc. in early colonial America. There was even plenty of RACE-MIXING, which was, of course, taboo at the time.
whoo689 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As well as homosexual openness
whoo689 2 months ago
America was a christian country, all the people were christians. The founder fathers made freedom of religion, but they never thought America could have gay marriage, abortion, satanic music and movies, and Islam. The founder fathers themselves could be here to debunk the first amendment
trifulquita15 3 months ago
Comment removed
trifulquita15 3 months ago
True communism is anarchistic, funny how no one seems to know this.
fakeham 4 months ago
that woman at the start has such an annoying accent
glitcher999 9 months ago 2
more like pee party
I pee on you!
richardmtl 11 months ago
more like pee party
richardmtl 11 months ago
Michael Parenti is the last defender of the Soviet Union and Mao's China. He has the wondrous gift of being able to overlook tens of millions of dead---many times over---and to see nice things from the Gulag towers. He is the Pollyanna of such brutal Centralized regimes. Parenti believes the Ant colony is a marvelous paradigm for a new economic Order----and you are the ant.
orbis2009 11 months ago
@orbis2009 shut up moron. The killing of 100 MILLION Native Americans by the White Christian conquerors of the New World is an undisputed FACT and you have the fucking nerve to whine about Mao's victims? Fucking HYPOCRITE you are.
Also check Parenti's "Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth" and see for yourself the way your beloved Dalai Lama treated his subjects- amputations for theft, pulling off tongues, gouging ot eyes, YES, moron, THE GOUGING OUT OF EYES, something Mao NEVER did to hs foes
ComradeFlorian31 11 months ago
@ComradeFlorian31 Identify your source of "FACTS" that 100 million natives were killed. Where is you evidence? And I don't mean citing some else's opinions.
MsPsycho29 10 months ago
@MsPsycho29 It's Davidv Stannard, in his renowned book "The American Holocaust" that says White Conquerors of the American Continent killed 100 MILLION Native Americans between 1492-1890
ComradeFlorian31 10 months ago
@ComradeFlorian31 Stating something in a text is not PROOF -Its just an assertion. What I asked was, do you know of any evidence that supports the claim (don't take this as antagonism; I doubt all facts until I see proof).
MsPsycho29 10 months ago
@orbis2009 seems like you over look the millions of dead in other country's from regimes who's soldiers are trained her, who are victims to U.s. militarism, dead because of lousy public healthcare, etc. setting chinal and soviet union aside, is his critiques of the U.S. on point?
phunkblister 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Breaking your habit naughty women benaughtyman.info
deenajuliette 1 year ago
Parenti makes good points here.
The US has a republic that at its core needs the exclusion of the common person from power and the illusion of choice to prevail-partly as a propaganda function.
The phrase empowered is apt here.
People needs to feel they have a say even though they don't.
That's why America works for elites and the working class and so poorly for the masses and the working class.
People buy into the massive delusion that this is a fair nation when reality says otherwise.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
More of a tech question - are the video and audio from the same event? They seem off, way off...
markkregel 1 year ago
One way to conceptualize socialist society, in the abstract at least, is that it is like Ancient Athens.
People engaged in democracy every day, philosophy, science and tending the machines. collectivised ownership of utilities.
Abstractly it is slave society where the machines are the slaves.
People not exploiting each other to survive, no need for competition or conflict except as sport, debate, love.
Passions of the human heart & imagination, not greedily robbing each other into destruction.
marsCubed 1 year ago
Most people are too stupid to know or understand anything in the world. what do I mean? you figure it out.
wanderer1031 1 year ago
@wanderer1031 Wow you must be really smart.
fogt1430 1 year ago
@fogt1430 try harder.
wanderer1031 1 year ago
Another Charles Beard wannabe.
Doc418 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Democracy will fail because We The People are not the tea party people.
carnypimp 1 year ago
@carnypimp what do you mean by the tea party people?
MatrixOfDynamism 1 year ago
@MatrixOfDynamism What I mean is every single American is We The People. I get sick of these Tea Party claiming they are the people when not every but not even the majority agree with them.
carnypimp 1 year ago
The US IS SPREADING democracy but in a bullet. Unfortunately most of those who get the bullet die. Democracy means people rule but do they rule? No
Who is ruling then? A small wealthy minority. So it's oligarchy then......
Demetrenos 1 year ago
You guys, even the radicals in the US like anarchists and marxists, are convinced that the US has had a very weak labour struggle history and was always unusually capitalist. This isn't true, the US has had a very proud and large labour history, the first syndicalist unions were born there, out of which came all of socialism. The US state was simply more brutal in dealing with them.
Aeon135 1 year ago
Thanks for the upload,cant stand the intro however,sounds like a stoned Arnold Schwartzenegger after a sex change,tedious to say the least.
thomasg74 1 year ago
Odd he mentioned Madison. Madison is considered one of the Founding fathers of the Democratic Party.
AXESMI 1 year ago
The problem with the United States is there was never a true revolution. There was a civil war/rebellion against British rule. European nations had real revolutions or were exposed to revolutionary ideas. The US has remained issolated from this influence and this is why the US is so conservative.
7jerryv7 1 year ago 12
@7jerryv7
Also, the constitution was merely a front for replacing one elite for another. The Americans were still under Common Law and the Magna Carta under British rule, so it wasn't much different for the "common" individual.
For more information on the founding fathers:
watch?v=H8B0HErfzrU
jaymthegenius 1 year ago
Anarchist Communism is the answer.
ORDENILLUMINATI 1 year ago 5
@ORDENILLUMINATI
Anarcho-syndicalism actually.
Onepretentiousdude 5 months ago
Michael Parenti rocks
metalreign81 1 year ago 2
Who ever said that America is egalitarian?
jaymthegenius 1 year ago
@jaymthegenius
America is the global headquarters of Capitalism Inc. If you want to appreciate what It means to be a subject of empire, contemplate the existence of some 3500 death row inmates sentenced to be strapped to padded steel crucifixes and injected with poison. The arrogance & brutality of the US certainly matches the Romans in decline but we suffer by comparison to their achievements in scholarship, & the humanities. America never saw a high period but really began ln decadence..
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jaymthegenius Nobody. Parenti is just setting up strawman after strawman and knocking it down. This series ignores what the framers of the Constitution, especially James Madison wrote.
Doc418 1 year ago
Oh okay so capitalism guarantees political domination as a right of wealth and it succeeds at distrubuting the wealth of power upward in a vertical hierarchy & that is what you call an "ethical" system, so you have a point. What is it about the homeless population numbrering in the millions that is so easy to overlook in your appraisal of economy and ethics? Is it your belief that slavery homelessness and mass imprisonment are functions of natural law, divine retribution or are they the same?
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazz this comment is absurd; both on the substance of it as well as the attributions you assert I am implying. Capitalism has been the greatest leveler of inequality in history...I will help you here...do me a favor and research A. Hamilton and his record against slavery...pay close attention to what he said about an African-Americans nature if freed and left alone to prove it through his/her natural merit...read original letters from Hamilton they're online...then read Lenin's letters
Kierkegaard73 1 year ago
How can anyone take Parenti seriously? For starters the Bank of North America(the first bank in the colonies) was started during the revolutionary war. There were no commercial banks before the war. How does Parenti explain the British soldiers journals which are littered w/ confusion as to how the colonials could be rebelling; when every one of them had their own plot of land and their own home? Please research and don't believe this trash!!!!
Kierkegaard73 1 year ago
@Kierkegaard73
How can anyone be expected to take you seriously? Parenti is a respected mainstream academic historian with some 20 books to his credit. What he presents here is common knowlege. it would be interesting to see what might become of your resentments if you obtained a library card and used it.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Seeing as I have read everyone of the papers of Alexander Hamilton, many of the newspapers at the time, State Archives, not too mention guys like E. James Ferguson , Gordon Wood, Forrest McDonald et al, and lets not forget the Natural Law theorists like Vattel, the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers such as David Hume, etc... I am quite qualified to challenge Parenti's slander and libels. All the evidence is opposite of what this demagogue wishes to preach
Kierkegaard73 1 year ago
The point I am trying to illustrate is that both systems are built and sustained bu implementation of an all powerful state: i.e. totalitarianism. What most Communists/Socialists today are so unwilling to realize or admitt is that the kind of societal changes they espous require a super-state that is all powerful to implement. Unfortunatly, the elite political class that exists in most nations then uses this super-state structure to exercise their will upon the masses. This= bad news for us
roguesteg 2 years ago
Marxism requires no super-state to implement its social changes. The Soviet-style approach to building socialism is only one of many. A fully-functioning workers state wouldnt be authoritarian in the least, since socialism is not state control of the economy. Marxism is perhaps the most misunderstood political theory, and that is no doubt due to a century of red scares orchestrated by western governments and others that continue today. I invite you to Revleft to learn more about it.
IPlayWithFire135 2 years ago 55
Marxism may not require a super-state to implement it's social changes, but thus far, Marxist social systems have only been implemented in super-state esque systems. While Marxism sounds nice, constructing a social system on the basis of absolute equality in the pursuit of social justice is a mythical fantasy. Plato wrote of this notion in "The Republic", for instance. In the book, Plato writes of a dialogue between Socrates and some of his students, in which Socrates satirically talks of it.
roguesteg 2 years ago
Well, so far, all political ideologies have led to super-states. All of modern civilization has led to super-states. Maybe the cause isn't any particular ideology but the very structure of modern civilization.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Marx, along with his buddy Engels, are hacks of Hegelian philosophy which removes entirely the Individual and sees everything as a system. Explain to me how Kierkegaard and Engels could be at the same lectures given on Hegel in Berlin; and the former spends the rest of his life warning against the dangers of embracing this philosophy, while the latter...well, we all know what the latter went on to do...the track record speaks for itself.
Kierkegaard73 1 year ago
But Marx was not a Hegelian.
Marxism prizes the individual, that is just a strawman. You'd do well to read Marxist literature.
The record does speak for itself, but it doesn't say what you want it to.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Please, Marxism sees everything in speculation, anyone who has actually read Hegel will see Marxism and his sociology deriving itself from it. It's a Utopian fantasy and there is no wonder that its offspring of Soviet collectivism, Mao's philosophical views, and Nazism has led to millions upon millions of murders. Once you remove the Individual and think only in terms of groups, its amazing what men will can do to other men.
Kierkegaard73 1 year ago
@Kierkegaard73
Having read Marx is fundamental to understanding the terms of Marxism as a critique of Capitalism and thus the aptly titled masterpiece Das Kapital. Anyway, you are out of the loop for the purposes of this discussion and obviously have neglected to read any of Parenti's work either. Capitalism is a failed 19th cent utopian materialist economic theory that in real terms redistributes wealth upward irrationaly away from its origin which is labor. Capitalism failed on its own terms
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Capitalism is nothing more than bartering using money as a representation of value. Capitalism does not fail nor ever has. It is not Capitalism vs Socialism/Marxism. It is Individual Rights or Natural Law vs. Socialism/Marxism. There may be unethical men but there is no unethical part of Capitalism. Ethics do not revolve around Capitalism.
Kierkegaard73 1 year ago
Hamilton shmamilton. Capitalism is the ethic of a lynchmob & its supreme value is power disguised as profit. The bodies of coal miners are consumed for the profit of the owner at the expense of the miner. Capitalism is that strange alchemy by which people are suffocated in mines a mile underground to make possible the lifestyle of other men who maintain comfortable lodgings and wear silken robes while having never visited thehellholes that enrich them with their profits.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@Kierkegaard73 I have always admired "natural law" as a classic among political oxymorons. Might an example of "natural law" be when say; a hypothetical young man named Candide encounters a "PRIVATE PROPERTY" sign fixed to a tree along a hedgerow. Would Candide be safe in assuming that the sign was a naturally occuring structure and part of the tree or would he be wiser to recognize the sign and its meaning as the probable work of a nearby farmer? Your Socialism/ Marxism has a similar appeal.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
Ok, you're wrong about the other points as well, but Nazism? Nazism is the opposite of Marxism. I don't know where this myth about Nazism being related to Marxist originated. Probably FOX News. They hated and still do hate each other fervently. It's easily one of the longest political rivalries in history. Look up Antifa.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Don't shift the argument because you have not read Hegel. Any ideology that uses Positive Law(the State can coerce the Individual) is related. I shall leave you with a quote from A. I. Solzhenitsyn's: "The Gulag Archipelago"..."And they deprived her of newspapers too.(However the Secret Political Department of the GPU permitted her to have complete sets of Marx and Engels, Lenin and HEGEL in her cell). Any Socialist or Marxist should read this book.
Kierkegaard73 1 year ago
You're confusing "influenced by" with "derived from." Marx was very critical of Hegel, though not altogether opposed to Hegelian thought. Please read Marx or stop wasting my time.
As for the Positive Law, that is both a pathetic straw man and non-sequitor.
So what if they let her read Hegel? That doesn't prove anything.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Wasting time eh???Hmm I have read Marx. But what is the power of reality to someone that dreams speculative philosophy in an ivory tower? So you dreamers, you Kantians, you Hegelians, You Marxists; you just keep dreaming your fantasy laden logical systems upon systems. In vain does history try to gain your attention, In vain does it try to tell you that this always ends in mass murder and genocide....Yes, but it's no match for the charms of perfect speculating.
Kierkegaard73 1 year ago
@Kierkegaard73 You've failed in proving your point so you crank out this gem of a red herring.
Hahaha I bet you think communism killed 100 million people, don't you? Oh the horror!
In our whitewashed history books, the west are always the heroes. Never is it directly mentioned the genocide and lebensraum conducted against the natives by the U.S. or the millions upon millions killed by the British in India. NOT to mention the millions that starve every year in capitalist nations.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Since you haven't read Hegel it is unfair of me to point out that in every part of Marx theory and historical justifications he uses Hegel's concept of 'mediation' So instead I am simply going to ask you to ponder Karl's Logic. Logic employs transition. i.e., "then", "next", "therefore" "thus" etc. Transition is movement. Whenever there is movement there is action. In what category is "movement" or "action" or "transition" located in? Does Logic contain it? ...
Kierkegaard73 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 ...does logic bring about transition? Or is transition from another category. Perhaps maybe Ethics? Does not Ethics bring about transition? Whenever there is action their is Ethics. And what does Ethics always concern itself with? Does Ethics concern itself in speculation or with the Individual? And I ask you again think about Marx's theories and ask yourself again what brings about its transition? Don't answer it, just ponder it
Kierkegaard73 1 year ago
Kireregaard73
Any ideology that uses the economic leverage of one class to coerce another is a statist order in effect,either CP or US. Understand that a choice of meanial wages or starvation is not a a frame work in which conceptions of liberty are meaningful.The US has a prison population of nearly 2.5 million dispraportionately black and latin prisoners. Solzenitsyn would have stood a better chance of being raped or murdered in the LA County jail, than he would have in Siberia.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135
What did Marx have to say about the role of a central bank?
flyhead2 1 year ago
@flyhead2
Marx had nothing to say on that, much less Marxism. Marx wrote some "planks," yes, but those where specific recommendations to the revolutions of 1848. Didn't you read the disclaimer on Marx's later version of the manifesto? Oops! Faux news didn't show that!
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Ive always found revleft to be too stalinist havent you?
And your right, Marxism has very little to say about Socialism and its particulars( aside from the communist manifesto)
patient0Studios 1 year ago
@patient0Studios
Stalinist? Far from it. MLs are not an especially large portion of the board. All of the Admins are Leftcoms and anarchists.
Marx's work can be more appropriately described as a critique of capitalism and an analysis of human history. But we can get a good idea of his model of socialism by certain bits and pieces from his works and from his debates against Bakunin, for example, in addition to the general framework shared by all socialists.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 - What is Revleft ?
Fike2308 1 year ago
@Fike2308
A forum and online community for socialists of both the Marxist and anarchist schools.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135
Pfft, i'm a member of Revleft.
Much of it is bullshit.
Be wary if you join.
phenethylaminedreams 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135
zizek argues marxism requires a powerful state to function. but so does capitalism, and even more so.
D2NNY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IPlay Capitalism is the Monetary bondage of immense humanity in a politically manipulated,armed,tyrannical MARKET MECHANISM of alienation,exploitation and suffering. The Business as usual is the negation of our common humanity in cooperation and harmony to take care of our real needs and well being. Capitalism dominated by Corporate criminals or State dictators is the abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration. Profit system is historically outdated ,destructive and dehumansing
arzoyan 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135. The Soviet Union of Stalin was essentially a state capitalist. There was a central body that controlled the working class, rather than the reverse. This is not much different from the undemocratic capitalist realm of the "modern world".
raptorkiller2k5 1 year ago
@raptorkiller2k5
The Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin was a society in the dictatorship of the proletariat that took the form it did as it adapted itself to the needs of development and war, as well as power politics within the party and state itself.
To put the myth of the possibility of a democratic revolution to bed, before Lenin pushed for workplace discipline, the railways and other vital things had become grossly inefficient. It just wasn't advanced enough, not even in 1940's USSR.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
any fully-functioning state is authoritarian, in that you have state officials, elected or otherwise, controlling the lives of others via legislation, decree, etc. How else can wealth and resources be redistributed without some sort of compliance apparatus enforced by the state. Collectivism is authoritarianism disguised as equality. Indeed Marxism is widely misunderstood, particularly by those who support it as some sort of panacea against the evils of capital ownership.
geezb 1 year ago
@geezb You know there are some types of collectivisim that really work? The Amish, Pacific Islanders, & other tribal cultures. Notice the Common Themes? No Government, uneducated, no bettering ones self ect.
The reason Collectivism typically fails as western culture tends to view it is because they try and implement it with government by force when what they really need to do is create a family. But the political socialists don't want to hear that.
russkeller 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Marxism and other collectivist ideologies, endlessly debated among and relabeled by academia, are all alternatives of centralized control of human life. Marxist thought fails to recognize the true power structure of the West, namely the secret societies and central banking cartels who pull the strings from the shadows.
geezb 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 - I am reading Das Kapital. I have to admit, and not reluctantly, he realy has something. 'They' are beating us at our own game...
onceANexile 1 year ago 2
@IPlayWithFire135
"socialism is not state control of the economy"
It is, at least, if you are talking about the Scientific Socialism presented by Marx. He makes it clear in several occasions, the most notable, at The Communism Manifesto and The Capital.
Swordman85 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Dude, what's your username there?
xx1994xxversion2 8 months ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Wonderful comment. I was just wondering if you could provide me with some insight on how you think an alternative system (whether it be Marxist, anarchist, etc.) would work. We we be like a subsistence society and be educated in the practice of farming? Or would we somehow utilize technology to produce and distribute food? How would transportation work? What would houses be built from and who would build them? Thank you for your input.
mdrndrum 8 months ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Abba Lerner said authoritarianism and dictatorship are anathema to socialism. Most socialists agree to this today.
freedomthrough 6 months ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Marxism is indeed a misunderstood political theory. You might happen to believe that socialism doesn't require the use of state power to gain control of the economy and repress counterrevolution, but then you're not a Marxist. Marx thought it was fairly obvious that revolutions entailed the exercise of organized authority, and to be honest, he was probably right.
jammoexii 5 months ago
@IPlayWithFire135
"A fully-functioning workers state wouldnt be authoritarian in the least"
All states are authoritarian.
Onepretentiousdude 5 months ago
The Nazis tried their best to appear socialist by adopting a leftist-sounding name and platform because the German public was sympathetic to leftist ideas at the time. But their policies once in power were quite different, and had nothing to do even with what is commonly considered proper socialism (the USSR). Parenti wrote on this.
Nazi Germany and the USSR had almost nothing in common internally or externally.
IPlayWithFire135 2 years ago 2
The Nazis were the complete opposite of socialism. They were fascists.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Some socialists are for big state governments and some aren't. There are socialists who are libertarians and anarchists. There are socialists who use socialism as a critique of state government and even of all modern civilization. There are all kinds of socialists because it's a broad category.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
I was going to list more, but leave it up to others to look them up on their own. Especially relevant are points 20, 21, 23, and 24. For someone to argue that the internationalism of Socialism/Communism is any different from the nationalism of German Fascism is patently ludicris. I understand the Nazi's truly hated the Marxists, as is illustrated by a plethora of writing, but that is because the Nazi's and Bolsheviks were competing for the same constituencies within Germany.
roguesteg 2 years ago
So even the founding fathers wanted a centralized government? So much for the "states' rights".
juliaisafilmbuff123 2 years ago
Have any medical research facilities found a cure for Progressivism yet?
TacoEqualsFtw 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please watch my video. It's about earth changes. People changes too.... (slight images on "the downfall of imperium"
Thanks!
fridaysabtu 2 years ago
bla bla bla, scholars,yale potical scients??lol., we wantt solutions, no what we o ready no
nosupecualponerme 2 years ago
"Progressive" is a Marxist key word. This guy is talking like the founders were bad because they wanted to protect the right s of property owners (from the government). What would he have a mob rule democracy, Nazi style or Communist style Marxism? I agree with his information, but diametrically oppose his tone and conclusions.
Afghanishef 2 years ago
They wanted the landowning oligarchy to control the country.
People need to recognize the "founding fathers" for the sick fucks most of them were.
IPlayWithFire135 2 years ago
That's pretty messed up. Having spent time behind the iron curtain and in other lesser countries, I can only have gratitude for what they set up. I am now a land owner, thanks to them. I have an education, thanks to them. I can do and be anything I want thanks to them.
Protecting property rights from the government is a noble cause.
They wanted a Constitutional Representative Republic, which is what we have - protection from tyranny and protection from the mob.
Oligarchy? You are funny.
Afghanishef 2 years ago
Funny that you should thank them, because they're not the ones that are responsible for the standard of living the average person has in the US, much less the possibility of being dealt a good hand in capitalism and getting ahead. The American Revolution was not a popular uprising, as commonly depicted in high school history books. Barely 30% were rebels, the rest were Tories or neutral. It was a rebellion not so unlike the Civil War years later - instigated and supported by rich landowners.
IPlayWithFire135 2 years ago
And that's exactly who the founding fathers intended to protect. The oligarchy. mr1001nights has a video on this. What changed the US was the industrial revolution and the rise of the labor movement. Instead of the "founding fathers," you should be thanking the Knights of Labor and other militant unions (as well as fictitious capital) for your "opportunity" (which, by the way, is probably not going to last much longer. You better enjoy it before capitalism goes through its own perestroika).
IPlayWithFire135 2 years ago
@IPlayWithFire135
How true it is! While serving as US president James Madison operated a tobacco plantation in Virginia with the help of 100 slaves. George Washington, a plantation worked by 350 slaves. In fact it is the long history of often violent struggles by the American Labor Union movement that accounts for the social progress of working people.Government institutionalized reforms like public education and social security only after massive public uprisings against the class "fathers"
jazzbo66zz 2 years ago
Furthermore, one does not "protect" property rights from the government. The historical role of the state is to protect the privilege of the opulent. Anyone who honestly views the privileged and the state as opposing forces simply doesn't understand human society.
IPlayWithFire135 2 years ago
@Afghanishef All property is theft.
technatezin 2 years ago
@Afghanishef
I would argue that democracy is designed to strike an equitable BALANCE between individual property rights or the amassing of wealth and power in private hands against the legitimate interests of society as a whole. It is critical to understanding the fundamental failure of America to sustain the development of community or public resources and the ultimate undermining of the social contract by polarizing the economic and social spheres then played off against one another.
jazzbo66zz 2 years ago
And Nazism is not Marxism. It is the complete opposite. Nazism is Fascism.
IPlayWithFire135 2 years ago 37
That is another false idea pushed by our white-washed history books. Read Mein Kampf and compare it with communist manifesto. They were open Socialists. Don't believe comparative philosophy, ask a European over 50.
One of the Nazi's struggles was branding. They wanted to separate themselves from Russian Communists - apparently they succeeded with you...
Afghanishef 2 years ago
So the history books are good when they tell you Stalin was nothing but a baby-eating killer and the founding fathers were gods and the US can do no wrong but when it doesn't confuse a far left ideology with a far right one, its somehow liberal propaganda. Yeah ok. Why don't you read Mein Kampf? Almost every chapter is dripping with venom against Marxism and the Bolsheviks. You're right - the Nazis sought to brand themselves. Which is why they adopted a Socialist-sounding name.
IPlayWithFire135 2 years ago
This "National Socialism" was not Socialism in the slightest. Funny that these "Socialists" didn't advocate the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production, huh? The Nazis actually busted unions and gave tax cuts to big business. Fascist Corporatism is really just extremely Keynesian Capitalism, though Hitler didn't want to call it that. Where Nazism is extremely racist, Marxism is anti-racist and internationalist.
IPlayWithFire135 2 years ago
Some of the Key points from the Feb. 1920 National Socialist Party Program, proclaimed at the first party gathering in Munich:
Point #11 Abolition of unearned work and labour incomes. Breaking of rent slavery
Point #12 We demand total confiscation of war profits
Point #13 We demand the nationalization of all associated industries
Point #14 We demand a division of profits of heavy industries
Point #15 We demand an expanision on a large scale of old age welfare
roguesteg 2 years ago
@IPlayWithFire135
What!?! All real Americans know there is true American conservatism and everything else is Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Nazism, and Fascism. Our Founding Fathers were Christian Republicans who hated abortion and gays. I know this is true because Beck told me so. Beck also said that Obama is the bastard child of Hitler created by a Nazi genetic experiment. Hilary Clinton was the surrogate mother. It's true! lol
MarmaladeINFP 2 years ago
@IPlayWithFire135
I think it would surprise you to know that Hilter came to admire Marx for what he said about Jewish capitalism and freely admitted that Marx' economic theory played a major role in structuring the state economy.They are not opposites, they are variations on a theme.
flyhead2 1 year ago
@flyhead2
Came to admire Marx? Are you serious? Every word he ever uttered about Marxism or the Bolsheviks was dripping with venom. And it couldn't have played a role in structuring the fascist state-when the Nazis got into power, they privatized almost everything that was state owned in the Weimar days. Corporatism is about giving power to the corporate elite.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135
I think you fall into the now familiar, and fatal, trap of thinking that public speaches define the politician; it takes little understanding and knowledge of political rhetoric to see through this ploy. Hitler regarded the right to private property as being secondary to state interests, was for centralisation and planning of the economy and was anti-capitalist. Take off your hat.
flyhead2 1 year ago
@flyhead2 No, not public speeches (which is where "Hitler is an anti-capitalist" comes from), but Mein Kampf. Regarding private property as secondary to the state or even wanting central planning (Not true in Hitler's case, he was clear in his support for private property and in creating private initiative in the economy to get Germany out of the depression) don't make a Marxist. In fact, a lot of Marxists don't want planning, What are the criteria for being a Marxist? Being left of Bush?
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135
"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun..... National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."
flyhead2 1 year ago
@flyhead2
Hitler was not referring to any alleged similarities or influences between himself and the Marxists, he was talking about political strategy. The Nazis wisely used leftish imagery to appeal to the labor movement. But it's not surprising that his fellow rightists like to quote him out of context. By the time he called his ideology national socialism, he was fervently anti-Marxist.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135
'Leftist' and 'rightist' are empty epithets unless qualified. E.g. the accusation is often made by self-identifying 'leftists' that imperial designs are in and of themselves identifyers of 'rightist' strategies. This is simply not so. Look into the goals of the original fabians in the UK; imperialism was very much part of their agenda. Google 'Euston Manifesto'.
flyhead2 1 year ago
@flyhead2
You have a point, but imperialism has always been practiced by right wing governments, with the exception of the USSR (to some extent. By that time, it's political culture had lost most of its socialist flavor) Imperialism is not an ideology anyway, but a practice. Traditionalism favors imperialism, and right-wing politics typically favor traditionalist policies.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago 2
@IPlayWithFire135
"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the nation."
flyhead2 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 : they're both fascism
geezb 1 year ago
@geezb
No, fascism is a specific ideology of which nazism is a variant. It is considered far-right for its ultra-conservative social politics and its tendency to be very friendly to the business community. It is closer to the old absolute monarchism than any post-enlightenment ideology.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 Fascism is business enterprise organized on a monopoly basis, and in full command of all the military, police, legal and propaganda power of the state. Communist Russia was also a dictatorship of monopoly capital i.e. disguised as public ownership. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were created by monopoly capital working through secret societies. A Nazi general visiting Russia in the 1930's remarked that Communism was a "mirror-image" of Nazism. They were both socialist.
geezb 1 year ago
@geezb No. They were both authoritarian. Socialism is not necessarily or always authoritarian or state-based. There is such a thing as stateless socialism.
blackmichael75 1 year ago
@IPlayWithFire135 The only difference was that one peddled race while the other peddled class. Indeed both were created by the central banking cartel
geezb 1 year ago
The Vatican-Pope-Jesuits-illuminati-NAZIS-CFR run the world. they have all the judges, attorneys, doctors, major corporations, etc. all in their back pocket. bought & paid for, etc. our country is no longer free -we live in tyranny! truth an obscure thing, Oppression & lie is the norm. Were all slaves- our masters, the elite, r at least 50 years ahead of us in knowledge, technology, info., secrets & r using all of it against us!
Go here:
truthknowledge. com
Spread it! Time is running out!
MopDMTBARTL 2 years ago
michael parenti for president
skollywhop 2 years ago 2
whats with the voice, come on, i can't stand this. whenever patriots want to make an effective video they never think about quality and if people will actually want to hear it. Well i believe in all this stuff but I can't stand this video because of the voice over
fatkidinabucket 2 years ago
thanks mr parenti for putting this into focus. and thanks suryu.
CaptainBluebear08 2 years ago 2
Nothing has changed...
GodBlesstheWorld2008 2 years ago
over suffraged legislatures and emasculated state executives, combining with an impotent confederation congress, resulted in the vast land depreciation, paper schemes, trade woes, expropriation laws, etc... i am appalled and saddened deeply that anyone would misconstrue the truth so blatantly. this is untruth at its finest!!!
Kierkegaard73 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
having read almost all the primary letters, newspapers, and state archives, I can tell you that this is the most distorted and preposterous bunch of BS. Perhaps mr. parenti might explain how the most abused classes in the time frame were actually the wealthy, why shay's rebellion took place, and what happened to the loyalists remaining after the war...all results coming from the rise of demagogues(aka parenti) using the uninformed to pass tyrannical legislation...
Kierkegaard73 2 years ago
LOL
The wealthy ruling classes were the most oppressed in history?
Is that what your defending? I don't think I understood you right.
yakooza 2 years ago
i did not say all of history, but at that time period. strange is it not that there is not even a single personal letter from that time showing the a person of the lower economic class railing against the system...yet in the new york legislature we can find such wonderful benevolent acts like the "confiscation act" whereby a supposed loyalist(the bulk of which were middle and upper class) was stripped of his home and disenfranchised. to listen to a ...
Kierkegaard73 2 years ago
You don't of course hear about the poor's troubles because none of them had the time to write about it.
Really? Your defending the oppressors against the oppressed? I certainly hope your not going to say present day capitalists are suffering a lot more than the homeless? And the Kings and nobles over the serfs too?
Your forgetting high taxes, long hours, low pay, hunger and starvation. These things of course go undocumented.
What was so hard about a rich mans life? A slave running away?
yakooza 2 years ago
high taxes??? except for Massachusetts trying to be honest with its debt, nothing but expropriation against creditors to the union took place...wages??? hunger and starvation??? -19/20's of the pop. were small independent farmers, so unless you imply that they chose to pay themselves low wages what you state is not applicable. btw...do me a favor and read the debates at the new york and mass. ratification conventions. you might find it interesting
Kierkegaard73 2 years ago
Lol what?
yakooza 2 years ago
this isnt a difficult subject...here, i will make it easy for you....type in google: "alexander hamilton's first letter from phocion". and if your actually interested in the truth in a quick curious scholarly point of view, search amazon or abes books for forrest mcdonald's: "intellectual origins of the constitution", and e james furgersen's "the power of the purse".
Kierkegaard73 2 years ago
and to pose a question to all those who think the poor were repressed back then...does anyone have an idea why the men at the 87' convention spent so much time debating and hammering out a bicameral legislature? why was it so important to have two houses in congress and why did the founders desperately not want the upper house(senate) voted directly by the people?...of course the vile 17th amdnt in 1913 has totally thwarted the spirit and ideal of the U.S. constitution.
Kierkegaard73 2 years ago
,,or believe in a disingenuous demagogue such as mr parenti is to be either a.) limited in critical thinking or b.)intellectual laziness. the constitution is designed to protect life, liberty, and "property". there was no protection during the articles of confederation on property, not all founders owned slaves either. the most important founder of all, the man on the 10.00 bill, was adamantly against it.
Kierkegaard73 2 years ago
Ironic how you can seem stupid yet have kierkegaard in your username.
seigneurvoland666 2 years ago
irony...i daresay, if one has read S. K.'s: "a literary review" and then preceded to advocate mr. parenti's leveling principles, well...then indeed i would be quite the target of irony. however, striking up an argument about the american founders with an 18 yr old from canada...now that is ripe for irony
Kierkegaard73 2 years ago
lol. blank bullets
seigneurvoland666 2 years ago 2
he forgets about bank of england and us wanting our own currency
robaquarian 2 years ago
Polyarchy = Republic.
elsamuraiguapo 2 years ago
What the fuck? This is like a left-wing Kung Fu movie. The words and the mouths are two different animals.
HippieKillingMonster 2 years ago
LOL good call.
8Th3Worst1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Progressive Political Analyst = A Revisionist Historian who makes things up.
DarthByss 2 years ago
progressive political analyst = a Revisionist Historian who looks at things objectively.
there, that's better. ;)
kappy0405 2 years ago
Theres a reason Paine was left out, he was poor, and took his movement ons step forward towards tyranny in religion, he had to flee to France where he helped them set up a government, on that was not religion power friendly.
I for one like this book. Proves the corruption, and messed up programs for the people existed well before Obama was even born. Its amazing to see spin doctors at work, you can rewrite history so long as now one reads the fine print or gives it a second thought.
Blanman7 2 years ago
Wasn't he an abolitionist too.
DaHonestAbe 2 years ago
@Blanman7 yes, paine, with his remarkable success with the french constitution...how'd that work out...hmmm what did they call the time just after the french formed their new constitution...oh yeah..."the reign of terror".
Kierkegaard73 2 years ago
Leftists and liberals LOVE censorship. I don't get this complaining.
habbadou 2 years ago
in the end, it's us against them. it's the common citizen against the elite class. we all need to come together. it's not about political parties..you're getting decieved..you're falling for the facade they have constructed.
itzahazylife 2 years ago
bravo good point
seigneurvoland666 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No ...its not a Democracy...Its a Republic... If you so hate the Republic...Ship your ass else where...remember..you are FREE to do so...or would rather hang around and bitch about it??
gazhaulr 2 years ago
If you haven't noticed, these lefties have the White House now.
habbadou 2 years ago
i see that you're stuck in the illusion that it's still this WWF fight between left wingers and right wingers, liberals and conservatives..they have u stuck in the illusion that it's an issue of idealism..that if our administration was republican, everything would be better..and for others,since our administration is democrat, everything is going to be great..it's a 2 party monopoly..each party is 2 sides of the same coin..open your eyes..it's about classism,not political professional wrestling.
itzahazylife 2 years ago 4
Its a democratic republic... honestly, why can't people get this right?
We VOTE democratically for people to REPRESENT us. True democracies are chaos, true republics are unrepresented people.
DeadlyChinchilla 2 years ago
it's neither. It's an oligarchy headed by trans-national corporations... ie. covert fascism.
kappy0405 2 years ago 8
What's even more crazy is that I was leading to the same theory about the United States constitution.
xcookiemonster88 2 years ago
There's philosophy books but book based on reality are the best.
xcookiemonster88 2 years ago
This guy commented on the School of the Americas by Lesley Gill.How can I be so blind
xcookiemonster88 2 years ago
Can I buy this book
xcookiemonster88 2 years ago
So much for the "Enlightened" founding fathers! lol
Rockerboy2007 2 years ago
Nothing much has changed, you still have to be rich, or have the rich finance you no matter who you are, then you must dance to their music, keep you eye on the New Pied Pipper.
ngonea 3 years ago
He's written 20 books.
prospect42191 3 years ago
Most who took part in 911 were told it was an " exercise". Only a few knew it would soon become real.
Demetrenos 3 years ago
Great information for every American, well except congress and blue bloods.
CaliforniaHarpist 3 years ago
What a great man is Parenti.
RightCitizen 3 years ago
Depending on whom you ask hundreds of deaths were faked, demolitions were placed in the WTC without anybody noticing. And my favorite, these all powerful conspirators who pulled all this off couldnt seem to get their hands on a commercial airliner to crash into one of the towers, so they had to jerry-rig a military aircraft. Maybe it is easier to understand how option 2 is more logical if you are wearing a tinfoil hat.
mulahid 3 years ago