The new "Normal" in America

reply to post by nenothtu

We have agricultural collectives and co-ops in the US, too, and they work fairly well. The big difference is that they are not forced. People elect to join them or not, and their lands and livestock are not seized by the state in a bid for forced collectivization.

In the days of my grandfather, and great grandfather, and on back, that was how the family farms succeeded, but they did not form any kind of official or organized collective. In the Midwest rural areas, people worked together, and helped each other out, some were good at one thing, and others were good at another, and they came together and made things happen, developing a procession of accelerating production on a historical scale.

The big thing is everyone remained independent.

Corporatism, where big Ag buys up all the farms, is only a more deceptive form of communism. They call it a free market, to get people to voluntarily settle into slavery.

If you pay attention, you will notice the walls being put up everywhere, the check points being established, the call of conformity as the highest calling to achieve.

If there ever really was a cold war, we lost. Sold out by those who were supposed to be serving our best interests.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Under Reagan?

You and Clint stormed the beaches of Grenada together? You are a real hero. Were you in the movie?

(Note to self, request better emoticons)

Maybe the Korean war could be called a part of the cold war, but that was a long time before Reagan took office.

Vietnam, possibly the same, but looked more like a war of imperialism.

By the time Reagan took office, the USSR was a paper dragon, and the U.S. public had already decided that they have no stomach for propping up corporate puppet dictators in third world countries under the fear of communism.

Bush did invade Panama, when his puppet got out of control.

Yes, under Regan... and Carter.

I didn't go to Grenada - that was more of a Regular Army/USMC sort of thing. I wasn't invited.

Before me, my uncle fought the Cold War in Vietnam, which was one of the innumerable "proxy wars" that dragged one of the big boys in, much like Afghanistan did for the Soviets - Afghanistan was another of the innumerable proxy wars, which sucked in the big boys on the other side of the curtain.

Before my uncle, my father fought the Cold War in Europe. Not gonna say just where or how, but it was in the 50's, and not in Korea.

It was a long war, with innumerable brush-fire proxy wars popping up all over the globe as extensions of it. Africa, Central America, Asia, mostly.

You may call the USSR a "paper dragon" all you like, but that dragon had teeth to back up the paper cuts. Nuclear teeth, and a massive war and materiel machine. Military expenditures in the Soviet Union ran to around 15% of their entire GDP at the time, and a large portion of that material and support was finding it's way to tiny battle fields in tiny countries all over the globe, much the same as the US war machine was doing in opposition. it was a huge, deadly chess game.

The US public didn't give rat's ass about "corporate puppet dictators". Didn't give a damn about foreign corporations at all (other than the Japanese proclivity to flood the US market with cars). Anyone who says otherwise is just being revisionist to fit their own agenda.

I think you could stand a bit of education on the time period - what you have been taught so far is misleading and skewed, going by your post here.

By King George the First's reign, I'd already had enough.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by nenothtu

 

We have agricultural collectives and co-ops in the US, too, and they work fairly well. The big difference is that they are not forced. People elect to join them or not, and their lands and livestock are not seized by the state in a bid for forced collectivization.

In the days of my grandfather, and great grandfather, and on back, that was how the family farms succeeded, but they did not form any kind of official or organized collective. In the Midwest rural areas, people worked together, and helped each other out, some were good at one thing, and others were good at another, and they came together and made things happen, developing a procession of accelerating production on a historical scale.

The big thing is everyone remained independent.

Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about. The guy with the plow does all the plowing for the neighborhood, because he has the equipment and more experience with using it... right on down the line, including the kids going out and working the fields by turn, since that is where they are most useful. You'll be happy to know that it's not just in the days of your grandfather and great grandfather - the same thing still goes on in some rural areas of the US - the Appalachians where I was raised, for example. It extends to other areas of endeavor as well. For example, my dad used to go around fixing things for the neighbors and doing carpentry work where needed, particularly for the old folks, and never accepted a dime for it.

Corporatism, where big Ag buys up all the farms, is only a more deceptive form of communism. They call it a free market, to get people to voluntarily settle into slavery.

You'll get no argument on that from me. Is not a "corporation" just another word for a giant combine - a collective?

If you pay attention, you will notice the walls being put up everywhere, the check points being established, the call of conformity as the highest calling to achieve.

Again, no argument. it would take a head of the densest sort to miss it. That is what I STILL rail against, even in my doddering old age, and I suppose I always will - to the day I die.Forced collectivization is the evil of our times, and it doesn't matter in the least whether the force is physical or psychological - it's still force. Always, along with the force, comes a centralization of power and decision-making. They have to centralize the collective in order to concentrate the power they intend to bring to bear on the peasantry. Doesn't matter at all whether that collectivization is political or corporate. Same thing, different wigs.

If there ever really was a cold war, we lost. Sold out by those who were supposed to be serving our best interests.

Again, no argument. it was real, and we lost because we couldn't keep up with the tactical changes. I noticed it some years ago, and had that "aha!" moment when I realized that all of my efforts had been in vain, and that the enemy was right here amongst us. We lost, without a doubt... at least it appears so. I have an odd notion, however, that it ain't over until the fat lady sings. In other words, you've not "lost" until you give up and throw in the towel. I have no intention of doing that until I draw my last breath... I'm just not as effective at it as I once was. As times have changed, and opposition tactics have changed, so must my own tactics and methodology change in order to keep up. My strengths have changed over time, so I have to employ a new skill set to keep on trudging along in the trenches.

I'm still scrambling to get there.

reply to post by nenothtu


Me too.

I don't know how I will get there, but I will.

"Normal" is nothing more than what the majority of people are willing to accept.

51% are making the decisions for the other 49%, and NONE of those elected by the 51% want things to change.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by randyvs


Most americans are so damn spoiled we don't just want to survive.

And that's why we'll never have our 2nd revolution.

If they can live in their small safe part of the city then they don't care. But that changes as soon as the ghetto comes to them:

www.aricherlife.org...

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by randyvs


Most americans are so damn spoiled we don't just want to survive.

And that's why we'll never have our 2nd revolution.

If they can live in their small safe part of the city then they don't care. But that changes as soon as the ghetto comes to them:

www.aricherlife.org...

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner


Because of zoning, and how voting district are broken up, less than 50% of the people are dictating policy.

The republicans who control the house actually had less people vote them into office than the minority democrats.

The additional problem is that the minority can block legislation through established rules that enable small groups to hold legislation hostage.

Still, it is a lot better than a small group of people controlling everyone else's lives.

reply to post by stormcell


The bigger problem is that not everyone is playing by the same rules.

When not everyone is willing to share, then sharing becomes giving away what is yours to people who don't believe in giving back.