About this user
Socialists all over the world united!
Workers all over the world united!
--------------------------
--------------------------
About Marxism
Is Marx is wrong?
Is the tradition socialism a real totally socialism?
The tradition socialism is just a mixture of socialism and slavery of power!
Is the bourgeois demacracy is a real totally demacracy?
The bourgeois demacracy is just a mixture of demacracy and slavery of private capital!
Marx said the relations of production should be adjust to the level of productivity,so when the productivety is developed,there should be more socialism!
i believe the finance crisis is partly beacuse of Fed ,which is controlled by internatinal bankers like Rockefeller! international bankers and Greenspan all know that their low interest rate policy will lead to great asset bubble,but they did it! they controlled and understand the market and let most of people trapping in the market!
Rockefeller is much much more powerful and weathy than Buffter! he is a fake philanthropist. he donate his money to the foundtion which is still controlled by himself,this is just like put his money from right hand to left hand! the foundtion is without regulation and tax ,so it is a good tool to evade and conserve his weathy!
but the mainstream media will not tell you about this! Dick Cheney is a servant of Rockefeller,Bush is a stupid puppet.Obama is a smart puppet! Kennedy was the last real president of the USA,the internetional bankers believed Kennedy would listen to them at first,but Kennedy did't,so the international banker killed Kennedy openly!
watch the vedio "obama deception"and "freedom to fascism "!
-------------------------
-------------------------
Chomsky on Sympathy
Gabriel Matthew Schivone: In the so-called reconstruction in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2004, one of the policy-initiatives championed by the Bush administration right up to the present was the dismantling of the New Orleans public school system. The New York Times reported that, of those who could return, children and families were coming back to a "much different" New Orleans with "a smaller [educational] system dominated by new charter schools," along with the termination of nearly seven thousand public school employees. What are the implications of private control of public resources, such as education, in this instance, or health care, telecommunications, Social Security, etc.?
Chomsky: Well, there are actually two components to that, both of them leading themes of the Bush administration's domestic policies, and of reactionary policies generally. One of them is, to put it simply, to put as many dollars as you can in the pockets of your rich friends: that is, to increase profits for the wealthy -- to increase the wealth and power of concentrated, private capital. That's one driving force in the administration's policy. The other is to break down the social bonds that lead to people having sympathy and supportive feelings about one another. That contributes to transferring profit and decision making into the hands of concentrated private power. A component of that is to undermine the normal relations -- sympathy and solidarity -- that people have.
Take Social Security. Social Security is based on a bond among people. If you earn a salary today -- somebody your age -- [young people of twenty or so] you're paying for the welfare and survival of your parents' generation. Well, okay, that's a natural feeling. If you want to increase the control of concentrated private power you have to drive that out of people's heads. You have to create the kind of people that Ayn Rand is talking about, where you're after your own welfare and you don't care what happens to anyone else. You have to think, "Why do I have to care about that disabled woman across town who doesn't have enough food to eat? I didn't do it to her. That's her problem. She and her husband didn't invest properly; she didn't work hard enough, so what do I care if she starves to death?" Well, you have to turn people into pathological monsters who think that way, if you want to ensure that unaccountable, concentrated, private power will dominate the world and enrich itself. So, these things go together.
I don't happen to have children in the local school -- I did, but my kids are all grown up. So, if I were to follow this line of reasoning, I would say, "Well, why should I pay taxes? My kids don't go to school; I'm not getting anything out of it. What do I care if the kid across the street doesn't go to school?" You can turn people into pathological monsters who think like that. And eliminating the public school system is one part of it.
The public school system is a sign of solidarity, sympathy, and concern of people in general -- even if it doesn't benefit me, myself. There's a pathological brand of what's called libertarianism which wants to eliminate that and turn you into a monster who cares only about yourself. And tha
yjh606
favorited
5 months ago