SOCIALISM INVOLVES AN EXTENSION OF DEMOCRACY INTO THE ECONOMIC SPHERE, NOT TOTALITARIANISM.
FOR ABOUT THE LAST SIX MONTHS, I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE LOCAL, TWIN CITIES 9/11 TRUTH GROUP, WHICH ATTEMPTS TO EXPOSE THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPLICITY IN THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01. PEOPLE FROM BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAVE BEEN MOVED TO LOOK INTO THE MANY UNEXPLAINED ASPECTS OF 9/11 SO THE GROUP ENCOMPASES A BROAD SPECTRUM OF POLITICAL VIEWS. I WROTE THE FOLLOWING ON APRIL 8, 2007 IN RESPONSE TO AN AN ANTI SOCIALIST POST ON THE LOCAL 9/11 MEETUP GROUP.
When Tim Booth attacks socialism, he neglects to consider that a group of people can own property together. A maaried couple, whether they are a same or oppisite sexed couple, can own their property in common without either partner feeling that they have been forced to give up their time or property to another. Two business partners can also own their business together without either feeling that they have been enslaved by some collective duopoly. And more than two, in fact many, even thousands or more can own property jointly by incorporating.
Once you allow vastly disproportinate concentrations of private wealth, those who possess the wealth will inevitably be able to and thus will use that wealth to influence and even control the government. Look at the funds already raised for the 2008 presidential campaign. The funds raised has already reached 25 million and her secone place challenger has raised 23 million. You can't even run a campaign, in fact you can't even make many of the voters aware that you even exist, without going to those that own that kind of money!
You might try the thought experiment of imagining a feudal system. with the feudal lords owning the great wealth that comes from their large landed estates, but also having the added feature of one person, one vote elections and universal suffrage so that the peasants and other classes could elect the government. The feudal lords would still control the government through their great wealth, since no one could run for office without going to the feudal lords for money. It would be ridiculous to think that either a democracy or a republic could exist under those conditions, but no more ridiculous than to think that either a democracy or a republic can exist under captalism with its vast accumulations of private wealth. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said: "We can have Democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few...but we cannot have both."
Time Booth has written and talked at length on the Federal Reserve which he says has resulted in trillions of dollars being owned in private hands. I have pointed out to Tim that if this is true, it was precisely the owners of the great wealth which capitalism made it possible for private individuals to own who used their influence to cause Congress to pass the amendment establishing the Federal Reserve. Tim argued that it was pushed through Congress when most of the Congress had gone home for recess. But this does not matter. It was precisely the owners of the great concentrations of private wealth made possible by capitalism who influenced Congress to pass the Federal Reserve amendment when few were around. Indeed, I would say compelled, since, even then, it was impossible to campaign or even let the voters know you existed without going to these owners of great wealth, hat in hand, to ask for the money needed to campaign.
As I have pointed out, the 9/11 truth movement has attracted people from both the right and the left. I come from the left with a socialist background. Socialism is not what they had in Red China or the Soviet Union where a small caste controls the economy to provide their own wealth and priviledge. Socialism involves an extension of democracy to the economic sphere in that the workers in a given work site would elect their managers instead of those managers being appointed from above to order them around. This democratic selection would be extended to the workers in a given industry or geographhic area electing their managers and this would be continued on up to the national and eventually, planetary legislature. The means of production would be owned by everybody collectively but no one would have reason to feel that they were being forced to give up their time or property to some vaque collective since they would each be one of the owners. Their elected representative, with the constant imput that results from being elected and subject to a recall election if a sufficient number of people petitioned for it, would be able to plan the economy and the allocation of resources rationally, thereby avoiding the cycles of boom and bust and some people living in abject poverty.
Some of the people in the 9/11 truth movement may attribute the threatening and urgent problems of the world to the Illuminat or the Federal Reserve Bankers. I attribute them to a small ruling class, the capitalist class, who are responsible for the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004, the abandonment of the poor in New Orleans during Katrina, and 9/11, which was intended to set off the wave of super patriotic hysteria that was intented to facilitate the establishment of the totalitarian dictatorship necessary for carrying out the plans of the Project for a New American Century and the establishment of a new American World Empire.
Robert Halfhill
When Tim Booth attacks socialism, he neglects to consider that a group of people can own property together. A maaried couple, whether they are a same or oppisite sexed couple, can own their property in common without either partner feeling that they have been forced to give up their time or property to another. Two business partners can also own their business together without either feeling that they have been enslaved by some collective duopoly. And more than two, in fact many, even thousands or more can own property jointly by incorporating.
Once you allow vastly disproportinate concentrations of private wealth, those who possess the wealth will inevitably be able to and thus will use that wealth to influence and even control the government. Look at the funds already raised for the 2008 presidential campaign. The funds raised has already reached 25 million and her secone place challenger has raised 23 million. You can't even run a campaign, in fact you can't even make many of the voters aware that you even exist, without going to those that own that kind of money!
You might try the thought experiment of imagining a feudal system. with the feudal lords owning the great wealth that comes from their large landed estates, but also having the added feature of one person, one vote elections and universal suffrage so that the peasants and other classes could elect the government. The feudal lords would still control the government through their great wealth, since no one could run for office without going to the feudal lords for money. It would be ridiculous to think that either a democracy or a republic could exist under those conditions, but no more ridiculous than to think that either a democracy or a republic can exist under captalism with its vast accumulations of private wealth. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said: "We can have Democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few...but we cannot have both."
Time Booth has written and talked at length on the Federal Reserve which he says has resulted in trillions of dollars being owned in private hands. I have pointed out to Tim that if this is true, it was precisely the owners of the great wealth which capitalism made it possible for private individuals to own who used their influence to cause Congress to pass the amendment establishing the Federal Reserve. Tim argued that it was pushed through Congress when most of the Congress had gone home for recess. But this does not matter. It was precisely the owners of the great concentrations of private wealth made possible by capitalism who influenced Congress to pass the Federal Reserve amendment when few were around. Indeed, I would say compelled, since, even then, it was impossible to campaign or even let the voters know you existed without going to these owners of great wealth, hat in hand, to ask for the money needed to campaign.
As I have pointed out, the 9/11 truth movement has attracted people from both the right and the left. I come from the left with a socialist background. Socialism is not what they had in Red China or the Soviet Union where a small caste controls the economy to provide their own wealth and priviledge. Socialism involves an extension of democracy to the economic sphere in that the workers in a given work site would elect their managers instead of those managers being appointed from above to order them around. This democratic selection would be extended to the workers in a given industry or geographhic area electing their managers and this would be continued on up to the national and eventually, planetary legislature. The means of production would be owned by everybody collectively but no one would have reason to feel that they were being forced to give up their time or property to some vaque collective since they would each be one of the owners. Their elected representative, with the constant imput that results from being elected and subject to a recall election if a sufficient number of people petitioned for it, would be able to plan the economy and the allocation of resources rationally, thereby avoiding the cycles of boom and bust and some people living in abject poverty.
Some of the people in the 9/11 truth movement may attribute the threatening and urgent problems of the world to the Illuminat or the Federal Reserve Bankers. I attribute them to a small ruling class, the capitalist class, who are responsible for the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004, the abandonment of the poor in New Orleans during Katrina, and 9/11, which was intended to set off the wave of super patriotic hysteria that was intented to facilitate the establishment of the totalitarian dictatorship necessary for carrying out the plans of the Project for a New American Century and the establishment of a new American World Empire.
Robert Halfhill
posted by Robert Halfhill at 10:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home