President's Day Weekend -- Celebration of Genocidal Monsters
5 Comments Published by LeftyHenry on Monday at 9:09 PM.
While President's day serves as a welcome rest from the usual, much like Colombus day, few actually take the time to reflect what the day is for. It seems like people just forget around this time what president's day really is; a celebration of genocidal racist maniacs. The featured presidents, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for example, who President Bush has spent the weekend praising while comparing the Iraq war to the Revolutionary was, and who are the centerpieces of any American history propaganda session oops! I mean high school/college American history course, were the two presidents, who of any president, owned the most slaves. George Washington for example, "owned" over 200 slaves! Thomas Jefferson, who "owned" 161 slaves, and was famous for saying, "all men are created equal," expanded on the genocidal views of George Washington, by beoming active in the Native American genocide and encroachment of Native lands movement that the patriots of the revolution rallied around. On numerous occasions he called Naitve Americans "savages" inferior to whites.
This, of course, is (hopefully) well known, just forgotten by people in general. In "celebration" of these "heroes," I was active distributing leaflets and literature on the oppression this system is based on, focusing on the fact that this system runs heavy with the blood of slaves. The truth is that this system still oppresses minorities. In place of Thomas Jefferson's whip, there is a cops riot stick and pistol. In place of slavery on the fields, there are pockets of share cropping, the re-emergence of chain gangs, as well as the disgusting sweatshops all over the underdeveloped world. on this day as well as thursday (George Washington's birthday), people should really recognize the truth about this "holiday," and the oppressive nature of this system and its' "heroes."
This, of course, is (hopefully) well known, just forgotten by people in general. In "celebration" of these "heroes," I was active distributing leaflets and literature on the oppression this system is based on, focusing on the fact that this system runs heavy with the blood of slaves. The truth is that this system still oppresses minorities. In place of Thomas Jefferson's whip, there is a cops riot stick and pistol. In place of slavery on the fields, there are pockets of share cropping, the re-emergence of chain gangs, as well as the disgusting sweatshops all over the underdeveloped world. on this day as well as thursday (George Washington's birthday), people should really recognize the truth about this "holiday," and the oppressive nature of this system and its' "heroes."
Labels: U.S. History
The following is a scenario on the efficiency of socialism and capitalism. I thought of this the other day and I think it is scenarios like this that make the production relations of capitalism so bankrupt.
My experience with shoplifting has been extremely pro-socialist. There is a cafeteria where we all eat lunch at around 12 everyday. Its very open, and most of us have little money. Most of the time there are people who steal food and drinks from the cafeteria which is essentially a food court. The other day, my friend was ordering a burger when the fry guy winked and said, "you're not gonna put that in your bag are ya?"
He did anyway and walked out. No one stopped him.
My conclusion is that the workers in the cafeteria (who are paid around minimum wage) have little stake in the success or failure of the institution. They just don't give a shit. They are paid a set wage by a private hand which they work for.
In a socialist society, the workers will own the factories and workplaces while the farmers own the farms and the people own the community.
...
The revolution has taken place and we are now in that same cafeteria but now, the workers own the cafeteria. They aren't producing for the profit of a private hand but rather for the public and because they control the cafeteria and have a stake in it.
When my friend takes a candy bar and is seen by a worker, the worker will stop him because he is now in control of the cafeteria, it's in collective hands not private, and stealing will affect him as well as the guy waiting on line next to my friend stealing the candy bar. Why? Because there is now one less candy bar for the community, and when the guy next to him goes to get his candy bar, it'll have been stolen. This is obviously a simplistic example but it can be applied to just about everything.
In conclusion, since the means of production are collectivly owned, the people have more of a stake in reporting or ignoring theft. Under the capitalist-imperialist system, private ownership makes it so that no one gives a shit whether you steal because only the private owner loses. On the otherhand, the popular ownership of socialism affects everyone because its owned by everyone and thus is not only a more just and democratic system, but also, a more efficient one.
My experience with shoplifting has been extremely pro-socialist. There is a cafeteria where we all eat lunch at around 12 everyday. Its very open, and most of us have little money. Most of the time there are people who steal food and drinks from the cafeteria which is essentially a food court. The other day, my friend was ordering a burger when the fry guy winked and said, "you're not gonna put that in your bag are ya?"
He did anyway and walked out. No one stopped him.
My conclusion is that the workers in the cafeteria (who are paid around minimum wage) have little stake in the success or failure of the institution. They just don't give a shit. They are paid a set wage by a private hand which they work for.
In a socialist society, the workers will own the factories and workplaces while the farmers own the farms and the people own the community.
...
The revolution has taken place and we are now in that same cafeteria but now, the workers own the cafeteria. They aren't producing for the profit of a private hand but rather for the public and because they control the cafeteria and have a stake in it.
When my friend takes a candy bar and is seen by a worker, the worker will stop him because he is now in control of the cafeteria, it's in collective hands not private, and stealing will affect him as well as the guy waiting on line next to my friend stealing the candy bar. Why? Because there is now one less candy bar for the community, and when the guy next to him goes to get his candy bar, it'll have been stolen. This is obviously a simplistic example but it can be applied to just about everything.
In conclusion, since the means of production are collectivly owned, the people have more of a stake in reporting or ignoring theft. Under the capitalist-imperialist system, private ownership makes it so that no one gives a shit whether you steal because only the private owner loses. On the otherhand, the popular ownership of socialism affects everyone because its owned by everyone and thus is not only a more just and democratic system, but also, a more efficient one.
Labels: Socialism
Last November, Rafael Correa was elected by a wide margin over his conservative opponent sending chills down the spine the American capitalist class which has had Ecuador on a leash for as long as anyone can remember (like the rest of Latin America aside from Cuba).
Rafael Correa is a "leftist" according to them, and a friend of Chavez. Since his election he has moved closer to Chavez alerting American businessmen even more. Yesterday, his supporters clashed with police in an action for support of the formation of a popular assembly and progressive constitutional reforms, shouting "kill them all" to the police and conservative congressmen. Why? Because the people are fed up. The world's economy is supposed to be great, yet ask an Ecuadorian farmer living in deep poverty and see what he says about that. Latin America is a disaster as anyone who travels or even listens will realize. The situation is so bad, tourists who go to completly Americanized destinations are starting to realize the objective truth; the rich are doing great and the workers are getting fucked. Their furry is shown in actions like this, the Oaxaca rebellion, and the election of "progressive" politicians. All throughout Latin America "leftists" like Chavez, Ortega, Morales, and Correa have been elected in the hopes that life will improve for the workers and toilers. What we are going to see however, is more reforms which will be washed away by a conservative pro-American politician who will eventually follow in their footsteps. That is the problem with the social democratic process and the reason why it rarely accomplishes significant gains; it does not give the workers state power. Immediatly after Correa heard of the actions in his support, he scolded them saying he only supported "peaceful" protest. It is this attitude that makes "Socialism by the ballot box" and "21st century socialism" bankrupt. Anti-imperialist, yes, and that is good for a continent that is enslaved and impoverished by its dependency on the United Leeches of America, however the only way socialism can be accomplished is through a vanguard revolution. That said, and in conclusion, the international communist movement is weak in this day and age, my personal opinion; we should support anti-imperialists of all colors in their struggle as it is the first step to bringing down this wretched system.
Rafael Correa is a "leftist" according to them, and a friend of Chavez. Since his election he has moved closer to Chavez alerting American businessmen even more. Yesterday, his supporters clashed with police in an action for support of the formation of a popular assembly and progressive constitutional reforms, shouting "kill them all" to the police and conservative congressmen. Why? Because the people are fed up. The world's economy is supposed to be great, yet ask an Ecuadorian farmer living in deep poverty and see what he says about that. Latin America is a disaster as anyone who travels or even listens will realize. The situation is so bad, tourists who go to completly Americanized destinations are starting to realize the objective truth; the rich are doing great and the workers are getting fucked. Their furry is shown in actions like this, the Oaxaca rebellion, and the election of "progressive" politicians. All throughout Latin America "leftists" like Chavez, Ortega, Morales, and Correa have been elected in the hopes that life will improve for the workers and toilers. What we are going to see however, is more reforms which will be washed away by a conservative pro-American politician who will eventually follow in their footsteps. That is the problem with the social democratic process and the reason why it rarely accomplishes significant gains; it does not give the workers state power. Immediatly after Correa heard of the actions in his support, he scolded them saying he only supported "peaceful" protest. It is this attitude that makes "Socialism by the ballot box" and "21st century socialism" bankrupt. Anti-imperialist, yes, and that is good for a continent that is enslaved and impoverished by its dependency on the United Leeches of America, however the only way socialism can be accomplished is through a vanguard revolution. That said, and in conclusion, the international communist movement is weak in this day and age, my personal opinion; we should support anti-imperialists of all colors in their struggle as it is the first step to bringing down this wretched system.Labels: Axis of Hope, Correa, Latin America
