DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Geopolitics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9989--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 21, 2018, 9:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Capitalist Demonization and Violent Abuse of
Communists/Socialists/Anarchists in the US before 1947[/center]
Capitalist Demonization and Violent Abuse of
Communists/Socialists/Anarchists in the US began in earnest, not
after 1947, but in the 1880's. The post WWII Red Scare was a
more polished repeat of past nefarious activities against labor
for the purpose of destroying labor's ability to successfully
demand decent wages and safe working conditions.
--- Quote ---
> The US labor movement had emerged as a national force in 1877,
the same year Reconstruction came to its anti-climactic end.
That year, more than one hundred thousand workers went out on
strike in the Great Uprising. Spurred by wage cuts for railroad
workers, the wildcat strike announced the working class’
presence as a force in American society.
>
> For capital, it brought flashbacks to the Paris Commune, which
had briefly terrorized the entire Atlantic ruling class. In St.
Louis, the uprising developed into a general strike that united
black and white workers.
>
> The wealthy moved quickly to protect 🦍 their
privileges. Militias and private armies battled with strikers
across the country, and eventually the National Guard was
deployed to put down the strike city by city. Over one hundred
workers ultimately died in the fighting, and the strike was
crushed.
>
> The Uprising of 1877 set the general pattern for American
labor history for much of the rest of the century. Compared with
the rest of the capitalist world, the American union movement
remained small and defensive, constantly subject to the threat
of violence both legal and extralegal.
>
HTML https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/rise-and-fall-socialist-party-of-america
--- End Quote ---
The other general pattern set from that crushed strike was the
use of Capitalist owned newspapers to demonize Socialists.
Xenophobia was stoked then, as it was in the Haymarket Affair
and the First Red Scare and the Second Red Scare by demonizing
"foreigner"Socialists/Anarchists/Reds/Communists. Before the
infamous McCarthy (the post 1947 Anti-Socialist tool of J. Edgar
Hoover) was even born, Anti-Socialst Newspaper Propaganda and
the use of the police and the government to physically attack
socialists was common.
The Haymarket Affair established the Capitalist PATTERN for the
Red Scare, as an excuse to destroy the Socialist inspired labor
movement that threatened Capitalist Routine Cruelty.
As the Industrial Revolution's horrendous working conditions and
massive accident and death rate increased, labor fought harder
to be treated with dignity.
The Capitalist elite in the USA already had the police harassing
or even killing who they identified as leaders, but that was not
effective enough. They needed a sort of "9/11" to demonize the
Socialst movement. The Haymarket Affair began as a protest of
the killing and wounding of several workers by the Chicago
police the day before. The very LAST THING the workers wanted
was to kill police! They were protesting wanton killing by the
police!
The Capitalists saw this protest as an opportunity to demonize
the Socialist protesters while portraying the police as
"martyrs".
For those who think this is a conspiracy theory without merit,
ask yourself HOW a person who HAD to have been known, either by
the police or by the protesters in order be able to walk
casually among them just before he threw the bomb, could NEVER
be identified. TPTB DID NOT want that person to EVER be
identified because he was an agent provocateur working FOR TPTB,
PERIOD.
--- Quote ---
>
>
> U.S. LABOR IN THE 1800S
>
> Strikes by industrial workers were increasingly common in the
United States in the 1880s, a time when working conditions often
were dismal and dangerous, and wages were low.
>
> The American labor movement during this time also included a
radical faction of socialists, communists and anarchists who
believed the capitalist system should be dismantled because it
exploited workers. A number of these labor radicals were
immigrants, many of them from Germany.
>
> HAYMARKET RIOT BEGINS
>
> The May 4, 1886, rally at Haymarket Square was organized by
labor radicals to protest the killing and wounding of several
workers by the Chicago police during a strike the day before at
the McCormick Reaper Works.
>
>
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210618183505.png[/center]
>
> Toward the end of the Haymarket Square rally, a group of
policemen arrived to disperse the crowd. As the police advanced,
an individual who was never identified threw a bomb 💣 at
them. The police and possibly some members of the crowd opened
fire and chaos ensued. Seven police officers and at least one
civilian died as a result of the violence that day, and an
untold number of other people were injured.
>
>
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210618183822-02079.png[/center]
>
> AFTERMATH OF THE HAYMARKET RIOT
>
> The Haymarket Riot set off a national wave of xenophobia, as
scores of foreign-born radicals and labor organizers were
rounded up by the police in Chicago and elsewhere. In August
1886, eight men, labeled as anarchists, were convicted in a
sensational and controversial trial in which the jury was
considered to be biased and no solid evidence was presented
linking the defendants to the bombing.
>
> Judge Joseph E. Gary imposed the death sentence on seven of
the men, and the eighth was sentenced to 15 years in prison. On
November 11, 1887, four of the men were hanged.
>
> Of the additional three who were sentenced to death, one
committed suicide on the eve of his execution and the other two
had their death sentences commuted to life in prison by Illinois
Governor Richard J. Oglesby. The governor was reacting to
widespread public questioning of their guilt, which later led
his successor, Governor John P. Altgeld, to pardon the three
activists still living in 1893.
>
> In the aftermath of the Haymarket Riot and subsequent trial
and executions, public opinion was divided. For some people, the
events led to a heightened anti-labor sentiment, while others
(including labor organizers around the world) believed the men
had been convicted unfairly and viewed them as martyrs.
>
>
HTML https://www.history.com/topics/haymarket-riot
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> The Contested Haymarket Affair: 130 Years Later
>
> Chicago in the post-Civil War decades became a major railroad
hub, center of industrial production and heartland engine of
unrestrained capitalist development. That rapid expansion was
built on the exploitation of a primarily immigrant working class
subjected to incredibly long hours, poor pay, and horrific
working and living conditions.
>
> The city, through the mid-1870s, was convulsed by a severe
economic depression resulting in mass unemployment and wage
cuts, working class upheaval and attempts to organize that were
met, in turn, with “industrial titan” countermeasures often
involving violence and state repression.
>
> By the early 1880s, a loose coalition of local labor
organizations led by the reformist Knights of Labor but
including the forerunner of the American Federation of Labor and
more radical anarcho-communists joined in a call for a
nationwide general strike on May 1, 1886 to demand an eight hour
day.
>
> Some 80,000 Chicago workers marched through the downtown that
day and strikes continued afterward. On May 3rd, police fired
upon strikers killing three at the city’s McCormick Reaper
Plant. In response, local anarchist federation leaders called
for the emergency protest at the Haymarket, at which the bombing
occurred.
>
> The “Haymarket Affair” — the bombing, subsequent repression,
trial and execution of the “Haymarket martyrs” — had huge
ramifications. It influenced the thinking of generations of
labor and left activists of every persuasion, and directly
shaped the contours of radical and reform strategy and tactics
in regard to political action and labor organization for
decades.
>
>
HTML https://solidarity-us.org/atc/182/p4654/
--- End Quote ---
Capitalism and socialism were sworn enemies WAY BEFORE the 20th
century began. The newspapers were almost totally owned by the
Capitalists, so they provided the demonizing propaganda against
the "evil foreigner" Socialists/Anarchist/Communists.
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210618184231-14052034.png[/center]
The anti-Socialst attacks in England were based on exactly the
same Capitalist ideology as they were, and still are, in the
USA.
--- Quote ---
> The thesis, "Anti-Socialism in British Politics, 1900-1922,"
is an attempt to combine the approaches of intellectual and
political history in explaining the development of Conservative
Party politics at a crucial period of social and political
change.
>
> It pays particular attention to the relationship between
political thought and action through the
> medium of 'ideology.' It attempts to illuminate this process
with an extended case-study of the ideological opposition to
'Socialism' between 1880s and 1920s; it then traces the impact
of these ideas to the strategic calculations and policy
programmes of the Conservative party.
>
> It concludes by arguing that the ideological character of
inter-war Conservatism can be best understood by reference to
its resistance to Socialism, and it is through this doctrinal
prism that the transformation of the Party into one dedicated to
protecting the interests of industrialists and the middle-class,
suburban salariat can be best understood.
>
> The thesis examines the processes of ideological innovation
and operationalisation by which these interests were appealed
to, and also reveals the political constraints which prevented
Conservatives making too overt an appeal to the propertyowning
classes.
>
> The first half of the thesis is concerned with various
intellectual and ideological responses to 'Socialism'; the
contents of these critiques are treated as interesting in their
own right, but are also related to the demands of a wider
political culture, particularly as they were constructed with
political needs in mind.
>
> The second half examines the political impact of
Anti-Socialism in British politics at local and national level
after 1906. It concludes by arguing that the relationship
between Conservatism and the free market, limited government
ideal of 'liberal' Individualism was closer than sometimes
argued, that 'Anti-Socialism' brought the two creeds together,
but in the end it was the 'common sense' Conservative
modification of the Individualist creed which dominated
political rhetoric and helped overcome many of the hidden
tensions present in creating a Party for the 'property-owning
democracy.
>
>
HTML https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:9c80bc93-3fe6-4fa8-a43c-2536084f48f4/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=602325174.pdf&type_of_work=Thesis<br
/>
--- End Quote ---
Socialism was NEVER about "revolution". In fact, Marx himself
claimed they did not have to DO anything to destroy Capitalism,
because Capitalist was self-destructive. Marx made it clear (see
video at the end of this post) that the actual Revolutionary
Force was, and still is, Capitalism, which requires constant
upheaval to profit from worker insecurity through unbridled
exploitation. Most reading this, like myself, were brainwashed
to think that Capitalism wants peace and Socialism/Communism
wants war. The exact reverse is true.
The Capitalists Newspapers in the USA had to portray Socialists
as evil bomb throwing, violence loving goons in order to
successfully demonize them in the eyes of the American public.
That massive propaganda effort, laced with Red Scares, began in
the 1880's and has not stopped to this day.
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210618183822-14012166.png[/center]
--- Quote ---
> Socialism in the United States began with utopian communities
in the early 19th century such as the Shakers, the activist
visionary Josiah Warren and intentional communities inspired by
Charles Fourier.
>
> Labor activists—usually British, German, or Jewish
immigrants—founded the Socialist Labor Party in 1877. The
Socialist Party of America was established in 1901.
>
> By that time, anarchism also established itself around the
country while socialists of different tendencies were involved
in early American labor organizations and struggles which
reached a high point in the Haymarket affair in Chicago which
started International Workers' Day as the main workers holiday
around the world (except in the United States, which celebrates
Labor Day on the first Monday of September) and making the
8-hour day a worldwide objective by workers organizations and
socialist parties worldwide.[1]
>
>
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States
--- End Quote ---
Newspapers wasted no time jacking up their negative propaganda
effots shortly after the 20th Century began.
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210618183822-1402231.pnghttp://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210618183822-14032361.png[/center]
J. Edgar Hoover came into the picture after the turn of the
century. He was actively fabricating trumped up charges against
Socialists/Anarchists on behalf of Capitalists. J. Edgar
Hoover's skills reached a fever pitch when Woodrow Wilson needed
to demonize as "un-patriotic and treasonous" the principled
Socialist resistance to the US entering WWI.
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210618184231-1407332.png[/center]
This factoid misses the fact that Hoover was rabidly
Anti-Socialist well over a decade before 1917.
--- Quote ---
> Shaped by the anticommunist hysteria in the aftermath of the
successful Russian Revolution of 1917, Hoover took part in the
Palmer Raids against radicals and spent the rest of his life in
the service of espionage and undermining suspected “subversives”
of every sort.
>
HTML http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/cointelpro.shtml
--- End Quote ---
Hoover's carefullly developed malevolent plethora of tools to
attack "subversives", which later provided the COINTELPRO mens
rea modus operandi pattern had EVERYTHING to do with defending
Capitalism and ZIP to do with his homosexuality and racism,
despite the rather convenient historical narrative about
Hoover's "motives".
--- Quote ---
> Contemporary histories tend to focus on Hoover's maniacal
egotism and closeted homosexuality to explain his lifelong
fixation on repressing minorities who fought discrimination and
reds who challenged the status quo.
>
HTML http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/cointelpro.shtml
--- End Quote ---
The "status quo" Hoover was actually tasked to defend was the
Capitalist System, PERIOD.
Hoover was up to his eyeballs in skullduggery for at least a
decade before the First Red Scare in 1919. He was routinely
fabricating evidence to bring trumped up charges against
Anarchists and other Socialists during this period.
When the military draft was instituted by Woodrow wilson Hoover
helped round up Pacifists, most of whom were Socialists or
Anarchists who, true to Socialist ideology did NOT want war. The
Capitalists WANTED the US to enter that war. Do you see how
upside down the propagnda against socialists is? THEY are
PACIFISTS by ideology. Capitalist are violent warmongers by
ideology. Hoover continued to serve loyally the Capitalist
System.
The common thread from the 1880's to the present running through
ALL this brutallity and mendacious demonizing propaganda against
workers who strike and/or are pacifists that did not want to go
to war is the Capitalist PROFIT motive.
In 1919, Hoover officially begins practicing this (later called
COINTELPRO) style of heinous skullduggery on "subversives",
trotting out the First Red Scare for Woodrow Wilson.
What was REALLY behind this Red Scare was the fact that the
business community DID NOT want to pay decent wages in the slow
period after WWI. The workers weren't having any of that. So,
the Capitalists had to divide and conquer them with some
hysterical scaremongering pretext. Again, continuing the war
against Socialst Ideology while keeping the workers harassed was
killing two birds with one Hoover stone for the Capitalists
😈. They laughed all the way to the bank.
And you thought it was about the "Evil Red Russians", didn't
you?
Here's one of these to remind you of what Capitalists think of
you:
[center]
HTML https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/aa/28/eb/aa28eb9ab39c78912e1c15ec82f81633.jpg[/center]
J. Edgar Hoover engaged in Eavesdropping, Bogus mail, Black
propaganda, Disinformation, Harassment arrests, Infiltrators or
agent provocateurs, Bad-jacketing, Fabrication of evidence and
Assassinations. Hoover was a career destroyer, jailer, and when
he thought it expedient, a killer for Capitalism.
But Hoover's agenda was embraced by every president he served,
including Democrats Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B.
Johnson.
Here is the sanitized version of history:
--- Quote ---
> A special division of the Bureau of Investigation—precursor to
the FBI—charged with collating all information on leftist
radicals was created by Palmer in 1919 in response to the bombs.
>
> J. Edgar Hoover, a Justice Department lawyer at the time, was
put in charge of the group. Hoover coordinated intelligence from
various sources to identify those radicals believed most prone
to violence.
>
>
HTML https://www.history.com/topics/palmer-raids
--- End Quote ---
Hello? Socialists and Anarchists were, and still are, PACIFISTS!
Hoover invented that "various sources to identify radicals
believed most prone to violence" BULLSHIT out of thin air, with
no legal grounds whatsoever!
The Capitalist owned newspapers, of course, did their, by now
well polished, demonization of all things Communist/Socalist.
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210618184231-14061157.png[/center]
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210618184232-14081300.png[/center]
[center]FIRST RED SCARE
HTML https://cahsredscare.weebly.com/cause--effect.html[/center]
Those bombs were NOT the work of pacifists! Hoover was up to his
eyeballs in that agent provocateur/fabrication of evidence for
at least a decade BEFORE the 1919 Palmer "response" to the
bombs.
--- Quote ---
> Are anarchists socialists?
>
> Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This
is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation
(see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the “notion that men
cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a
percentage of their product” and think that in an anarchist
society “the real workmen will make their own regulations,
decide when and where and how things shall be done.” By so doing
workers would free themselves “from the terrible bondage of
capitalism.” [Voltairine de Cleyre, “Anarchism”, Exquisite
Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]
>
> (We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all
economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation,
including feudalism, Soviet-style
“socialism” — better called “state
capitalism” — , slavery and so on. We concentrate on
capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just
now).
>
> Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social
anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves
“socialists.” They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his
classic essay “Modern Science and Anarchism,” “{s})o long as
Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true
sense — as an effort to abolish the exploitation of
Labour by Capital — the Anarchists were marching
hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time.” [Evolution and
Environment, p. 81] Or, in Tucker’s words, “the bottom claim of
Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession of its
own,” a claim that both “the two schools of Socialistic thought
. . . State Socialism and Anarchism” agreed upon. [The Anarchist
Reader, p. 144] Hence the word “socialist” was originally
defined to include “all those who believed in the individual’s
right to possess what he or she produced.” [Lance Klafta, “Ayn
Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism,” in Anarchy: A
Journal of Desire Armed, no. 34] This opposition to exploitation
(or usury) is shared by all true anarchists and places them
under the socialist banner.
>
> For most socialists, “the only guarantee not to be robbed of
the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of
labour.” [Pyotr Kropotkin , The Conquest of Bread, p. 145] For
this reason Proudhon, for example, supported workers’
co-operatives, where “every individual employed in the
association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the
company” because by “participation in losses and gains . . . the
collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits
for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all
workers.” [General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223]
Thus, in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour
by capital, true socialists also desire a society within which
the producers own and control the means of production
(including, it should be stressed, those workplaces which supply
services). The means by which the producers will do this is a
moot point in anarchist and other socialist circles, but the
desire remains a common one. Anarchists favour direct workers’
control and either ownership by workers’ associations or by the
commune (see section A.3 on the different types of anarchists).
>
> Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being
authoritarian as well as exploitative. Under capitalism, workers
do not govern themselves during the production process nor have
control over the product of their labour. Such a situation is
hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor can it be
non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This
perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon’s (who
inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism
would see “[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped
everywhere [and] the wage system abolished” for “either the
workman. . . will be simply the employee of the
proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate . . . In
the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his
permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case
he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part
of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the
slave . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it
is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because
without that, they would remain related as subordinates and
superiors, and there would ensue two. . . castes of masters and
wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic
society.” [Op. Cit., p. 233 and pp. 215–216]
>
> Therefore all anarchists are anti-capitalist (“If labour owned
the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism” [Alexander
Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 44]). Benjamin Tucker, for
example — the anarchist most influenced by
liberalism (as we will discuss later) — called his
ideas “Anarchistic-Socialism” and denounced capitalism as a
system based upon “the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent
and profit.” Tucker held that in an anarchist, non-capitalist,
free-market society, capitalists will become redundant and
exploitation of labour by capital would cease, since “labour. .
. will. . . secure its natural wage, its entire product.” [The
Individualist Anarchists, p. 82 and p. 85] Such an economy will
be based on mutual banking and the free exchange of products
between co-operatives, artisans and peasants. For Tucker, and
other Individualist anarchists, capitalism is not a true free
market, being marked by various laws and monopolies which ensure
that capitalists have the advantage over working people, so
ensuring the latter’s exploitation via profit, interest and rent
(see section G for a fuller discussion). Even Max Stirner, the
arch-egoist, had nothing but scorn for capitalist society and
its various “spooks,” which for him meant ideas that are treated
as sacred or religious, such as private property, competition,
division of labour, and so forth.
>
>
HTML https://medium.com/anarchist-faq/a-1-4-83ba7fe75e15
--- End Quote ---
One must never forget that, as the 20th Century begins, the
efforts of the Capitalists to keep Socialism weak and defeated
intensify.
--- Quote ---
> The United States thus emerged as a world power with the
dynamism of England, the most advanced capitalist power, and the
labor relations of Russia, the historical laggard in the
economic race.
>
> This combination goes a long way to explaining the supine
position of American labor. While theories of “American
exceptionalism” often focus on the working class, a more
profitable route is to look at the power of the US ruling class,
and to look at labor’s various strategies as attempts to deal
with it. In this light, the history of the American working
class looks a good deal less exceptional.
>
>
HTML https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/rise-and-fall-socialist-party-of-america
--- End Quote ---
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210618144130.png[/center]
--- Quote ---
> Red Scare and Anti-Radical Violence
>
> One important aftermath of the failed strike wave of 1919,
however, was a powerful reaction by government and business
against radicals in labor and politics.
>
> [center][img
width=400]
HTML http://cahsredscare.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/0/5/53051531/9905909.jpg?1433179376[/img][/center]
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> Ascribing the unions' postwar militancy to communist intrigue,
Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer encouraged J. Edgar Hoover,
an aggressive young agent of the Bureau of Investigation
(today's FBI), to arrest thousands of radicals around the
country.
>
>
[center]
HTML https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51J2R01WVCL._SX340_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg[/center]
>
> These police actions, combined with private vigilante attacks
such as the deadly 1919 raid of American Legionnaires against
the Industrial Workers of the World hall in Centralia,
Washington, decimated America's radical groups and made the
decade safe for free-market capitalism.
>
>
HTML https://www.shmoop.com/1920s/economy.html
--- End Quote ---
Socialists were being ACTIVELY and CONTINUOUSLY attacked by
Capitalist Oligarchs at the turn of the 20th Century.
Marx put out his Communist Manifesto in 1848. The Capitalists
began planning their attack against all things Socialist in the
USA (and England and France and Germany, etc) THEN. The appeal
of Socialism is ethical, as Columbia University history
professor Eric Foner makes clear in the Video at the end of this
post.
Capitalists do not DO "ethical". The only "ethics" that
Capitalists practice are "situational ethics", otherwise known
as Orwellian ethics. An economic system based on ethical
behavior is a threat to Capitalism, which is based on greed,
euphemistically defined as "enlightened self interest"
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418193910.gif.<br
/>
Consequently, Capitalists
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif<br
/>have pulled every murderous dirty trick they could think of,
from the start, to demonize Socialism. It has never stopped.
The so-called "friendly period" towards Communism and Socialism
during the 1930's where many small Socialist and Communist
newspapers did okay, though they never came close the New York
Time level of circulation, was a lull caused by Capitalists
having their Fascist hands full trying to keep FDR from exposing
their dirty tricks. Capitalists cause "things to hapen" by
BUYING people to commit crimes. Money was very tight during the
1930's, though they did manage to demonize Cannabis for the
paper oligarchs and burn down a Chermurgy refinery that made all
sorts of things from plant fiber, including plastics. The Big
Oil Capitalists did their thing to crush that.
But yeah, the money was too tight go around jailing or shooting
Socialists then. Socialists did have a sort of friend in the
White House, after all. That probably made anti-Communist
routine skullduggery less cost effective. However, it is just
wrong to categorize the 1930's as a period "friendly" to
Communism. A J. Edgar Hoover Bulldog on a leash might not bite
you, but it is a stretch to claim that bulldog is friendly. And
YES, friends, Hoover had his finger in every pie you can imagine
DURING the 1930's. The Supreme Court loved that bastard.
Had a group of Socialists/Communists entered into a conspiracy
to overthrow the US Government, as Campbell's Soup Capitalist
Oligarch and a few others DID, said Socialists would have been
shot on sight! NONE of those CAPITALIST TRAITORS even went to
jail! Hoover didn't do ZIP about it BECAUSE he was ALWAYS a
murderous TOOL of Capitalism, PERIOD.
The Depression temporarily weakened the brutal power of
Capitalists to wreak havoc with working people who wanted a
Socialist System, but Capitalists NEVER respected
Communists/Socialists.
The Capitalists, and Hoover right there with them, bided their
time to return to the Business as Usual of Demonizing Reds after
FDR was out of the picture.
Durng the 1930's there was a LULL in Capitalist anti-Communist
activity, NOT a "friendly to Communists/Socialists" activity.
After WWII, a similar "few jobs and angry workers wanting decent
pay" situation, like that which existed after WWI, materialized.
So, the Busness Community remembered exactly what good old
Hoover did for them back in 1919. It was rinse and repeat time.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png
In 1947, with 100% approval from Truman, they turned Hoover
loose to provide McCarthy with all the fabricated evidence he
needed to, once again, keep labor at bay.
McCarthy was not stupid. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing and
who (i.e. the business community) he was doing it for
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png.<br
/>It's ALWAYS BEEN about protecting Capitalist Business profits
by
Hook AND by Crook.
The following video is innocuous and not inflammatory in the
least. Nevertheless, the Erudite Prof says some important things
that Brainwashed Capitalist Ideologues do not get about
Socialism in general and Marx in particular.
Too bad they won't watch it.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
--- Quote ---
> FEBRUARY 29, 2012
>
> Socialism in Early 20th Century America
>
> Columbia University history professor Eric Foner examines the
rise of socialism in America in the early 20th century. He talks
about the Socialist Party in New York City and Milwaukee, and
looks at the Socialist Party of America presidential campaigns
of Eugene Debs ( VIDEO).
>
HTML https://www.c-span.org/video/?304569-1/discussion-socialism-early-20th-century-america
--- End Quote ---
Have a nice day.
#Post#: 10008--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 23, 2018, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: K-Dog link ---
>
> Thank you agelbert for all that. Tactics used by DHS are
rooted in J Edgar's legacy. I'm sure we only know a few of the
dirty tricks that were pulled back then and that is too bad,
because some of the despicable tricks from back then continue to
be used and not enough people know.
>
> The master of frame narration did no write this because it was
a fairy tale he thought up.
>
>
[center]
HTML https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/SecretAgent.jpg[/center]
>
> Something like the Boston Bombing was pulled off and he was
writing about it. Not directly related to American repressions
but skulduggery was well developed back in the day. Those
repressing now are students of the past who fill the jobs
created way back then. They are getting paid to continue the
project. They turn a well worn crank. Sometimes they activate
a crank, or make a new one.
>
--- End Quote ---
You are welcome, K-Dog. and thank you for your many posts with
graphics that shed light on this and other issues people have
been brainwashed to think wrongly about.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png
#Post#: 10009--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 23, 2018, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Surly1 link ---
>
> [quote author=agelbert link=topic=11222.msg156367#msg156367
date=1529637781]
> [center]Capitalist Demonization and Violent Abuse of
Communists/Socialists/Anarchists in the US before 1947[/center]
>
--- End Quote ---
A spectacular summary. What an amazing thing to find after a
week away.
[/quote]
Thank you, Surly. I'm glad to be of service.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png
The genesis of that post where I put my knowledge of this
particular bit of American History together was a discussion
between Eddie and I. Since you were gone for a while, here's the
back and forth from a few days ago:
--- Quote from: AGelbert link ---
>
> [quote author=Eddie link=topic=11213.msg156254#msg156254
date=1529531169]
> Communism wasn't a negative buzzword here before the war. It
all changed in about '47. The exact circumstances of how that
changed are of interest to me. I think it was the deliberate
work of people like the Dulles brothers and Wild Bill Donovan,
the guys who gave us the real Deep State.
>
> In spite of Palloy's assertions that the story is well
understood in "other countries", I don't really think that's
true, beyond the superficial stuff.
>
> There was a conspiracy at the highest levels. It involved lots
of people who probably went to their graves with secrets they
never told. Now we'll never know.
>
> I thought it was interesting that Trump backed off on
declassifying all the JFK files. There are threads there that
somebody might unravel.
>
> Yeah the one group its okay for any American to hate is the
communists. We learned that sh it. When the Soviet Union fell,
it left a big gap in our "hated enemy" category. So lucky we
found al Quaeda and ISIS before it was too late.
>
--- End Quote ---
I totally disagree that Communism was not a negative "buzzword"
before WWII. You are right about the history after 1947. You are
wrong about it before. I know that history well. Palloy's views
have nothing to do with my extensive knowledge of American
History, sir.
We had troops in Russia after the Communist Revolution. They
were not there to provide good will. There is a lot more. If you
want chapter and verse about Hoover's activities, I will dig
them up. If you want to know what went down right around the the
turn of the century (19th to 20th) that was RABIDLY
anti-Socialist in this country, I'll dig it up. Remember the
"anarchists"? They just wanted to get paid properly for their
labor. Their polices were socialist to the core. They were
demonized and crushed because they saw through the Capitalist
bullshit. The "bombings" attributed to the anarchists was part
of that demonization. The real violence was that of our
government against them!
Hoover
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>was very busy in the early 20th century MANUFACTURING the
First
Red Scare on behalf Capitalists who DID NOT want to pay people
fair wages. It's too long to quote here, but I learned much
about Hoover's skullduggery from reading about Oliver Wendell
Holmes Jr., who is famous for all his principled dissents on the
Child Labor and Capitalist Cruelty defending Supreme Court
(1902-1932). That is NOT taught in American History courses,
even in college. You've got to DIG to find the truth. And that
truth is the US Government (spare me the FDR talk. He could just
barely control the Capitalist Crazies) AND the police were, and
still are, anti-Communist/Socialist to the core!
Here are some quotes that somewhat address the issue:
--- Quote ---
>
>
[center]
HTML https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Step_by_step_greene.jpg[/center]
> [center]Capitalist Propaganda BEFORE Bernays!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/center]
>
> The First Red Scare was a period during the early 20th-century
history of the United States marked by a widespread fear of
Bolshevism and anarchism, due to real and imagined events; real
events included those such as the Russian Revolution and
anarchist bombings. At its height in 1919–1920, concerns over
the effects of radical political agitation in American society
and the alleged spread of communism and anarchism in the
American labor movement fueled a general sense of concern ;).
--- End Quote ---
Now just WHO 💵 🎩do you think was "concerned", if
not the Capitalist Business Community🐉🦕
🦖 that OWNED Hoover?
--- Quote ---
> J. Edgar Hoover, then director of the FBI, was an ardent
anti-communist whose influence had perpetuated the first Red
Scare.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png
> Hoover and his investigators used espionage tactics of their
own to locate potential communists, including wiretaps,
surveillance, and infiltrating leftist organizations. The
efficiency of the FBI ;)
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png<br
/>was critical in many high-profile cases.
--- End Quote ---
The following exercise in US Propaganda happy talk totally
conveniently misses the FACT that many Americans believed all
this hysterical scaremongering because they were lied to about
the "Communist threat" by our government, which manufactured it
out of thin air.
There WAS NO Communist threat in regard to WAR. The REVERSE was
true. Russia wanted to work with us avoid an arms race and
nuclear proliferation. Truman knew that and did not give a rat's
ass about it. Yeah, there was money to be made by our Capitalist
MIC pretending Russia was gonna git us. But, that was just a BAU
benefit of our mens rea modus operandi.
The actual rationale behind BOTH Red Scares was that Socialism
threatens Greed Based Capiitalist BAU and therefore must be
demonized, period. If you believe otherwise, I must vigorously
disagree with you.
--- Quote ---
> Second Red Scare
>
> The Second Red Scare (1947-1957) was a fear-driven phenomenon
brought on by the growing power of communist countries in the
wake of the Second World War, particularly the Soviet Union.
Many
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png
in<br
/>the U.S. feared that the Soviet Union and its allies were
planning to forcefully spread communism around the globe,
overthrowing both democratic and capitalist institutions as it
went. With the Soviet Union occupying much of Eastern and
Central Europe, many in the U.S. perceived their fears of
communist expansionism as confirmed. The U.S. also feared that
communist agents had infiltrated the federal government. A
massive witch hunt to root out communist sympathizers
ensued.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png
>
HTML http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Second_Red_Scare
HTML http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Second_Red_Scare
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
--- Quote from: AGelbert link ---
>
> [quote author=Eddie link=topic=11213.msg156264#msg156264
date=1529541667]
> Unions and the robber baron capitalists certainly had some
major clashes. But the unions ultimately won a lot...for a
while. My father walked the picket lines. I remember his union
was on strike for months when I was about 10 years old. It was a
tough time. When I was young I was actually a shop steward in
the plant where my Dad worked. I paid union dues. So long ago
now, nearly 40 years. Seems like another life.
>
> I'm not questioning your history knowledge. Don't be so
touchy.
>
> I'm not saying that the capitalists with their private cops
and strike breakers weren't bad guys. I know about Joe Hill and
Sacco and Vanzetti, and the IWW and all that. The Haymarket
Riots. I took American History too, although none of that stuff
was stressed in the curriculum where I went to school, as you
can imagine.
>
> I even read some of Steinbeck's book In Dubious Battle, which
is very dark and so sad it made me cry. I never could finish it.
>
> But in the 30's it was cool to be communist if your were an
intellectual in say, NYC. That's why the stupid McCarthy
hearings were so damaging. There were plenty of people to
accuse, and they were guilty, if going to a meeting once or
twice made you guilty of something. There was a time during the
Depression when socialism looked pretty good to a lot of
out-of-work Americans.
>
> But something did change materially around the time of
Churchill's famous speech. From that time, there was an intense
campaign by the Bernaysians to make sure every American hated
communism. It certainly was intentional, and in my view, was the
brainchild of someone. And that someone was probably more like
one or more of the people Carroll Quigley wrote about. The
powers behind the throne. And the guys who started the CIA and
founded the USMIC.
>
> If you can point me to a book that covers that part of it, I'd
like to see it. I don't think the story has been told, but I
could certainly be in error.
>
> A very interesting character in the Red Scare was a well-known
radio personality who grew up and lived here. His name was John
Henry Falk. He's dead now. There isn't much left of his work,
but there are a few bits. This utoob is him going off on Reagan
in the late 80's.
>
> He sued the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and finally
won, although it was a pyrrhic victory. One of my heroes.
>
> [center]
HTML https://youtu.be/909rB30uwe8
HTML https://youtu.be/909rB30uwe8[/center]
>
--- End Quote ---
Touchy" has nothing to do with the fact that you have an
incorrect view of anti-communist activity in the USA before
1947. You are wrong about that. I have just posted the correct
history to prove you are wrong. Yet, you want to discuss my
"touchyness", followed by a lot of info that is frankly not
relevent to the FIRST RED SCARE, which is the subject you do not
want admit you were mistaken about.
Eddie, I know you. You will NOT back down.
I won't waste any more time explaining to you why you are wrong
about the "fact" that anti-Communist/Socialist sentiment in the
USA "only began after 1947". Capitalism is the reason for ALL
anti-Communist/Socialist sentiment in the USA, even before
"Socialism" actually had a NAME! ANY attempt to defend the
workers and give them a fair shake after the Industrial
Revolution began was BRUTALLY CRUSHED by the Capitalists,
period.
The Haymarket Affair is probably the first exposure of an
in-your-face Capitalist attack on Socialists. The enmity of
Capitalists for employee rights has never abated. I know you
don't think so. Therefore, I respectfully must claim that you
are wrong. Have a nice day.
I'll dig up some quotes from historical documents tomorrow. You
are free to believe what you wish.
[/quote]
Furthermore, the above discussion was an extension of the
following discussion:
--- Quote from: AGelbert link ---
>
>
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200618131341.png[/center]
>
> [quote author=Eddie link=topic=11213.msg156242#msg156242
date=1529519403]
> I think capitalism is a very mixed bag (some very, very bad
issues, I do admit) , but people should be allowed to be
communist if they want to be. Including West Point cadets.
>
> Including anybody.
>
> What I find abhorrent is the lack of tolerance. Kicking this
young man out over his political beliefs is very obviously a
clear violation of his rights as guaranteed by the US
Constitution. But who cares, right? He's a communist.
>
>
>
> First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Socialist.
>
> Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak
out—
> Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
>
> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Jew.
>
> Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for
me.
>
> ------------ Martin Niemoller
>
--- End Quote ---
Capitalism US Style 🦍 has always been totally intolerant
of Communism and any of its Socialist iterations here and
abroad. There never has been any freedom in this country to be a
Communist/Socialist, unless you plan to live in poverty with
your Socialist principles. That is NOT "freedom". Yeah, you are
"free" to believe any old thing you want and embrace any "ism"
you want, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T CRITICIZE DA PROFITS OF DA
BIDNESS.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817135149.gif
The hysteria over the "Communist threat to our freedoms" goes
all the way back to Hoover, even before that Capitalist Crook
became he head of the FBI.
And even decades before that, the tyranny against the Socialists
in Chicago (Haymarket arrests and Kangarro Court trials)
evidenced the deep hatred and brutal intolerance for Socialism
in this country by the business people who NEVER want to be on
an equal footing with their employees in regard to pay, no
matter how valuable the employee.
The Capitalist DISEASE forces people with high work skills to
start their own business, thereby perpetrating the
disease.
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/Smileys/dd1/ranting3.gif<br
/>It pits all against all in an insane race to see who pays
their
employees LESS, rather than motivate people to build a better,
more caring society where people look to help each other, rather
than stomp each other into the ground for profit.
The reason Italy did not go Socialist after WWII is because our
CIA KILLED all the leaders of the movement there. Now Italy is
going full fascist AGAIN, thanks to OUR Capitalist Skullduggery.
After WWII, the CIA sent a nice message to France, as well.
France was leaning towards Socialst egalitarian policies and our
CIA massively overdosed a WHOLE TOWN in France with LSD.
It wasn't to "try the drug out".
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817135149.gif
There are around ten or more other countries where other
anti-socialst murder and mayhem Capitalist skullduggery was
practiced. It continues to this day.
The Black Panthers, a NON-VIOLENT (though the propaganda
BULLSHIT claimed otherwise) Socialst group were ruthllessly
gunned down in various cities in the USA.
The McCarthy era witch hunts against Socialsts/Communists has
never really gone away for a Capitalist reason.
Equality of opportunity and payment for work done, the basic
idea behind Socialism, is a threat to any greed based system in
general, and Capitalism in particular.
Capitalists don't give a rats ass about anybody's "rights". All
that lip service about "freedom" is fine and dandy as long as
the Socialist doesn't try to unionize da bidness. It's okay in
the USA for Socialists to be "noble = poor", but the moment they
actively question the bankrupt ethics of Capitalists, they get
Capitalist Police State Crushed.
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-251117173820.png[/center]
THAT is the REAL history of Capitalism and Capitalists in the
USA.
[center]
HTML https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f269a0531f54fd1c1618278fe0144f1a4c83cc284aa96b523caece2ad390f752.jpg[/center]
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-190218175943.png[/center]
[move]
Donald Trump is, and always has been, a TRUE REPRESENTATIVE of
what Capitalism (which is nothing but dressed up Fascism) is.
[/move]
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-281017143754.jpeg[/center][/quote]
#Post#: 10010--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 23, 2018, 4:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Agent Graves link ---
>
> Its wrong to say Anarchists support socialism, just not soviet
style. Capitalists are actually more supportive of Socialism
than Anarchists. Anarchists do not want a govt at all, so they
definitely don't want a govt to tax them to provide social
services. Democratic Socialism actually depends on Capitalism.
If they dont have capitalism to tax to provide healthcare,
education and social security, it can only be done through
communism, for a while. Theres a reason China didnt go down with
the Soviet Union and Cuba is doing better without Castro calling
the shots, pun intended. Pointing this out doesn't give me an
affinity with Mitch Romny either.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sir, you are splitting Socialist hairs. That part about
Anarchists not agreeing to Soviet style Communism, which
Anarchists NOW, AT PRESENT, label as "State Capitalism", is not
relevant to Anarchist total solidarity with the Socialst
movement in the USA, even before the 20th Century began. Had you
watched the Columbia University video in my post, the common
ground between Anarchists and Socialists, due to the brutal,
dangerous and deadly working conditions in the USA when the 20th
Century began, would have been made clear to you.
Hoover was out to GIT the Anarchists BECAUSE they recognized,
like the Communists/Socialists, the moral bankruptcy of
Capitalism.
The attitude of Capitalists towards ANY economic sytem based on
Liberty and Justice for ALL has always been negative, to put it
mildly.
Your posts usually concentrate on the negative track record of
Socialist/Communist governments while studiously ignoring the
massive record of human rights abuse by Capitalist governments,
especially our US Fascist Paradise Government. That is a
sophistic debating technique. Yes, it is clever but it is
fallacious.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png
I suggest you try to be more even handed in your comparison of
the two systems (yes, there are basically ONLY TWO systems in
discussion here). All human run systems are flawed and it is
easy to cherry pick the negative aspects of any one of them.
Nevertheless, it is incorrect to claim that Capitalism has the
moral high ground over all things Socialist. The exact reverse
is true.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png<br
/>
The two comments in the following graphic provide Prima Facie
evidence that Capitalists=War Loving, Greed Inspired, Conscience
Free Predators are the sworn enemies of all things Socialist AND
that Capitalism is morally bankrupt.
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200618131341.png[/center]
--- Quote from: Palloy2 link ---
>
> The only solution is to LEAVE NOW, before the next and final
financial crash.
>
--- End Quote ---
I have considered it. Being in the belly of the beast is no fun
at all. But, as many have accurately posted here in regard to
said Imperial Capitalist Beast, it's better to hide behnd the
spear than to be target practice for it.
I am old. I am weak. My orthostatic hypotension is getting
worse, despite the fact that I have a pacemaker for Bradycardia.
Ive got to be careful when I lean over for any reason to
straighten up slowly to avoid a dizzy spell.
All I can do is live frugally, as an example to others, and
expose injustice and inequality based on profit over people and
planet with posts here and on my forum while I still have the
ability to do so. The Moral Bankruptcy of the Capitalist Powers
That Be who presently Dominate the World Economy = Inevitable
Collapse FOLLOWED BY a thousand years or so of an overheated
planet that humans are NOT adapted to surviving in.
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070815234504.png[/center]
I know, Palloy, it IS a tough world. But, there is no planet B.
[center]
HTML https://rlv.zcache.co.uk/no_planet_b_round_sticker-rcb9b00ae55034b85b5cb888d8eb0a2c6_v9waf_8byvr_324.jpg[/center]
#Post#: 10011--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 23, 2018, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Surly1 link ---
>
> FWIW, my reading of history agrees. Few people know and NONE
are told we sent troops to Russia in 1919. I once did a
documentary of Armand Hammer's art collection, which he amassed
during that time. The Russian government in the early 20s was
being economically strangled (sound familiar?) and had no access
to forex. Supposedly (this is what the curator told me) Hammer
brought in shipments of food and medicine to Russia and took
artwork as payment. Which was the start of a collection to which
he added for the rest of his life.
>
> A lot of nineteenth-century French art, with significant
examples of different schools represented. Plenty of
portraiture and landscape. There are some surprises as well:
Gustave Moreau’s King David and evocative Salomé Dancing before
Herod are really first rate and are two of the artist’s most
renowned works, while masters like Rembrandt, van Gogh, degas,
renoir, Durer, Mary Cassatt, Thomas Eakins, John Singer
Sargent, and Gilbert Stuart are also in the collection.
>
> Sorry, took a trip down memory lane there.
>
> The point of the reply was to affirm the historical antipathy
that TPTB have had for ANY sort of collective action. And that
screaming crimson line shrieks out from the pages of labor
history, traced from Homestead to Haymarket to Ludlow to Blair
Mountain. And it continues today, but just like colonial
exploitation, it shows up in more civilized drag, for
appearances' sake.
>
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png
#Post#: 10012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 23, 2018, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Eddie link ---
>
>
> All this stuff about brainwashed capitalist ideologues
believing this thing that's wrong or that thing....it's so
obvious that you have this construct in your mind about what
"other" people (like me in particular) believe. I'll tell you
just like I told Palloy. You really don't have much of a clue
what I believe. And it's because you don't pay much attention to
what I write here, since you have so many pre-conceived
erroneous notions.
>
> And you thought it was about the "Evil Red Russians", didn't
you?
>
> Uh, no. Actually, I didn't think that.
>
> Durng the 1930's there was a LULL in Capitalist anti-Communist
activity, NOT a "friendly to Communists/Socialists" activity.
>
>
> Actually, in the 1930's there were millions of people with no
money, no food, and no prospects. This created a powerful
impetus for change. Change did occur.
>
> As recently as the 1920's we had people like Scott Nearing
being fired from his faculty position at the Wharton School of
Business because he wrote articles criticizing child labor in
NYC sweat shops. We don't have sweat shops now, and that's
because, between the labor unions and the New Deal, which
instituted America's version of what you could call Social
Democracy Lite, the plight of working people in this country
improved a lot. My opinion is that the success of what real
socialists would consider very minor improvements were enough
keep working people from fomenting revolution.
>
> POLITICS IN THE GREAT DEPRESSION
> BACK NEXT
> Radical Alternatives to a Collapsing System
> In retrospect, we know that during the Great Depression the
American people never rose up en masse to demand the
overhaul—much less overthrow—of their long-established system of
democratic capitalism, even though that system largely failed to
relieve the miseries of the Depression for more than a decade.
>
> In retrospect, we know that most meaningful long-lasting
reform that emerged from the crisis of the Great Depression came
from Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which permanently
enlarged the role of the federal government in American society
and tempered, for half a century, the volatility of the free
market.
>
> At the time, however, it wasn't at all clear that the New Deal
marked the outer limit of possible sociopolitical change. The
structural breakdown of the American system led many Americans
to embrace much more radical alternatives to the status quo. And
while none of those radical alternatives were ever fully
realized (and many of them seem downright quixotic in
hindsight), they did profoundly alter the boundaries of
political possibility while influencing the direction of the New
Deal.
>
> American Communists: From Sectarianism to Popular Front
> For communists, the Great Crash of 1929 and its bleak
aftermath seemed definitive proof of Karl Marx's assertion that
capitalism contained within itself the seeds of its own
destruction. While communists hoped—and most everyone else
feared—that the Great Depression would lead to a proletarian
uprising, the revolution never materialized.
>
> Always a tiny minority in American society, the communists
weakened their position further through their own rigid
adherence to counterproductive doctrine. Until 1935, the
Communist Party U.S.A. (CPUSA), following the direction of the
Communist International in Moscow, insisted that the greatest
threat to worldwide workers' revolution came from the false
promise of other liberal and left-wing groups. So, throughout
the early years of the Depression, American communists devoted
an inordinate amount of their time and resources to attacking
New Dealers, socialists, Wobblies, American Federation of Labor
trade unionists, Lovestonites, Musteites, and other obscure
groups of non-communist left-wingers as "social fascists."
>
> The average American worker—who surely couldn't distinguish a
Musteite from a Muscovite if his life depended on it—found
nothing appealing in the communists' extreme sectarianism. By
1934, despite the seemingly favorable circumstances for
recruitment created by the Depression, the CPUSA still had fewer
than 30,000 members nationwide.26
>
> After 1935, however, international communist doctrine changed.
Rather than denouncing non-communist liberals as "social
fascists," communists would seek to make common cause with them
under the banner of the "Popular Front." The new strategy freed
American communists to work with New Dealers and trade
unionists, which allowed the CPUSA to achieve the widest
influence in its history. Communist activists took up leading
roles in organizations defending civil rights and civil
liberties, advocating friendship with the Soviet Union,
representing the unemployed, and—especially—organizing the huge
new unions of the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations).
>
> While the Communist Party never gained a mass following in the
United States, and Americans never came anywhere close to a Red
Revolution, the Popular Front did allow the communists to
achieve a wider influence in American society than ever before
or since.
>
> "Bring Back Some of That Grub!"
> In the 1930s, the communists were far from alone in advocating
the redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots.
Bombastic Louisiana Democratic Senator Huey P. Long shot to
national prominence by promising to "Share Our Wealth." Long
sold his simple vision—which called for limiting wealthy
individuals' fortunes to a few million dollars and
redistributing the "excess" to the masses—with a uniquely
folksy, if demagogic, personal style.
>
> Long memorably likened the Depression-era economy to a
Louisiana barbecue.
>
> "How many men ever went to a barbecue and would let one man
take off the table what's intended for nine-tenths of the people
to eat? The only way you'll ever be able to feed the balance of
the people is to make that man come back and bring back some of
that grub that he ain't got no business with!
>
> Now we got a barbecue. We have been praying to the Almighty to
send us a feast. We have knelt on our knees morning and
nighttime. The Lord has answered the prayer. He has called the
barbecue. 'Come to my feast,' He said to 125 million American
people. But Morgan and Rockefeller and Mellon and Baruch have
walked up and took 85 percent of the victuals off the table!
>
> Now, how are you going to feed the balance of the people?
What's Morgan and Baruch and Rockefeller and Mellon going to do
with all that grub? They can't eat it, they can't wear the
clothes, they can't live in the houses... when they've got
everything on God's loving earth that they can eat and they can
wear and they can live in, and all that their children can live
in and wear and eat, and all of their children's children can
use, then we've got to call Mr. Morgan and Mr. Mellon and Mr.
Rockefeller back and say, come back here, put that stuff back on
this table here that you took away from here that you don't
need. Leave something else for the American people to consume.
And that's the program."27
>
> The program, crude as it was, may have been entirely
unrealistic, but that didn't stop it from becoming wildly
popular. By 1935, Long claimed that more than 7.5 million
Americans subscribed to the mailing lists of the 27,000 Share
Our Wealth clubs scattered throughout the country.28
>
> Long, who criticized the New Deal as too conservative,
pondered an independent run for the White House in 1936—and
Democratic polls indicated he might win as many as three or four
million votes, potentially costing President Roosevelt his
re-election. Some even feared that Huey Long's populism and
personality cult made him a likely candidate to become an
American fascist dictator; Roosevelt called him one of the two
most dangerous men in the country.
>
> Huey Long's left-populist challenge to Roosevelt ended on
September 8th, 1935, when he was assassinated inside the
Louisiana state capitol by the son-in-law of a local political
enemy. A faint echo of Long's Share the Wealth program survived,
however, in Roosevelt's "Wealth Tax" of 1935, which boosted the
highest tax rate for the richest Americans to a nearly
confiscatory 79%.
>
> EPIC Threat In California
>
> In 1934, the New Deal received another major challenge from
the left—this time in California. Upton Sinclair—a writer
remembered today mainly as the author of The Jungle, the classic
1906 muckraking exposé of the meatpacking industry—was a
lifelong socialist who became frustrated with the New Deal's
inability to end the Depression and founded EPIC (End Poverty in
California) to pursue more radical solutions.
>
> Rather than putting the unemployed on relief, Sinclair
proposed to put them to work within a state-organized
"production-for-use" economy totally independent from the
capitalist marketplace. Under Sinclair's communitarian scheme,
the state would take over idle farms and factories, allowing the
jobless to grow their own food or produce their own clothing and
other goods. Any surplus could be traded, through a system of
barter, only for other goods produced within the system.
>
> It was a shocking commentary on the state of the capitalist
economy that Sinclair's scheme—which wasn't really much
different from a pre-modern barter system—was seen by many
Californians as a visionary solution to modern America's
problems.
>
> Registering as a Democrat, Sinclair ran for Governor on the
EPIC platform in 1934, and pulled off a huge, surprising victory
in the primary election. Considered the front-runner in the
general election, Sinclair was subjected to intense attacks from
both Republicans and Democrats who feared that his victory would
effectively remove California from the capitalist orbit and pave
the way for communism.
>
> Meanwhile, Sinclair was also attacked by the communists
themselves, who stuck to their sectarian policy by attacking
EPIC as "social fascism.") Opponents of EPIC—including many New
Dealers who reluctantly backed arch-conservative Republican
Frank Merriam over the old muckraker—claimed that if Sinclair
were elected, California would be overrun by millions of hoboes
looking for a free lunch and that Sinclair "concealed the
communistic wolf in the dried skin of the Democratic donkey."29
>
> Sinclair lost the general election, drawing almost 880,000
votes to Merriam's 1.13 million. Still, considering the
radicalism (and even utopianism) of the EPIC platform,
Sinclair's vote tally was remarkably high; if 260,000
Californians had switched their votes in Sinclair's favor,
California would have embarked upon a socio-economic experiment
unlike anything in American history.
>
> Pensioners to the Rescue: The Townsend Plan
> California was also the origin of another radical scheme that
swept the nation toward the latter end of President Roosevelt's
first term: the Townsend Plan.
>
> Francis Townsend, 66 years old, was a retired country doctor.
Believing that the two fundamental problems underlying the
Depression were too little consumer spending and too many
workers seeking too few jobs, Townsend proposed a national sales
tax to fund a $200 monthly pension for all Americans over age 60
who pledged not to work and to spend the full amount within the
month. The scheme would remove the elderly from the work force,
opening up jobs for younger workers, while the seniors'
mandatory spending of $200 a month each would create the demand
for consumer goods needed to get the economy going again.
>
> Like Huey Long's Share the Wealth program, the Townsend Plan
was politically appealing but economically preposterous. Funding
Townsend's generous pensions for the aged would have absorbed
fully half the national income.30
>
> Still, like Share the Wealth, the Townsend movement attracted
millions of boosters throughout the country. As many as 25
million Americans signed petitions demanding that their
representatives pass the Townsend Plan as a federal law.
>
> In the end, the Townsend Plan was pre-empted by FDR's own
Social Security legislation, which passed in 1935 and provided
federal pensions to the elderly, at least in part to head off
Townsend's momentum. However, Social Security benefits initially
were only about one-tenth of those called for by Dr. Townsend,
and Townsend Clubs remained active in demanding more generous
old-age pensions well into the 1950s.
>
>
>
>
HTML https://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/politics.html
HTML https://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/politics.html
>
> You're making me into some kind of cut-out enemy in your mind.
It isn't your portrayal of the facts that I take issue with,
it's your venomous anger at what you perceive as capitalism
being the personification of evil, and the way you make it into
this black and white issue, whereby anyone who questions your
assumptions sends you off to write the definitive opus on the
history of capitalism...in order to set me straight on the
facts. Dude, I have some slight comprehension of the facts. I
just don't agree with you completely.
>
> I really don't find anything in this long rant that I didn't
know, at least in general terms...or anything in your broader
assessment that I even disagree with that much. But like all
your posts on this subject, it's the product of a very narrow
view, and it's the equivalent of a five minute book report on an
epic novel. It's very much the Readers Digest condensed version
for rabid socialists. There's a whole lot left out.
>
>
> Since the 1930's, this country has been a very weak social
democracy, no matter what you choose to call it. Marx was right.
Pure capitalism did run into big problems. But it wasn't
overthrown or eliminated. It was slightly modified, out of sheer
necessity, at a time when the capitalists were running scared.
This proved to be enough to keep the wheels from coming off.
>
> Marx never anticipated the information age, nor did any other
economic theorists. Just when capitalism started to hit the wall
again, the age of computers changed everything again, providing
a new economic engine from digital technology. At the same time,
the shift of manufacturing to China started making consumer
goods really comparatively cheap by historical standards.
>
> Too many people got fat and happy, and the foxes took over the
henhouse. There's more to it. At this same time Wall Street
predators like Carl Icahn learned to destroy US companies for
fun and profit.
>
> Maybe blame some of what's happened to the successful
Bernaysian brainwashing Palloy likes to talk about. I blame a
lot of it on schools that dumb kids down instead of making them
into critical thinkers.
>
> But now, most people just can't connect the dots. It's beyond
their limited ability to comprehend....it's a complex system
with lots of nuances. Not one person in 1000 has the least clue
what's going on.
>
>
> The 1970's was a time of great hope. But the public got really
complacent. The pendulum was allowed to swing very hard to the
right in the 1980's, and it hasn't quite even started to swing
back. It will, I believe. But I expect it will be a case of "too
little too late".
>
> I do agree with Palloy that media brainwashing played a roll
in creating the public attitudes that brought us the Reagans and
all that's followed. I just don't want him or you to think that
my POV comes from a lifetime of Bernaysian programming. If I
weren't capable of critical thinking, I probably wouldn't hang
out on a site populated by folks waiting for the end of Life As
We Know It.
>
> As I've said before, and I will repeat one more time, I'm not
a Reaganite or a Trumpite. I come from a working class
background, and I've never been any kind of apologist
whatsoever for the evils of capitalism. I'm an armchair student
of human social interactions, of which politics is a part. I'm
just as much as perplexed and upset about the failures of human
civilization as you are. I just don't worship socialism like you
do. I'd be happy, though, with a more equitable arrangement than
what we have now.
>
> But we aren't headed for a successful socialist revolution.
Even if we have one, it won't help much. Our birthright has
already been spent, and we can't get it back. We are primed for
a new socialist movement. But it won't be driven by a sensible
desire to share the wealth. It will be driven by the coming
collapse, which will push the have-nots to insist that the state
needs to save them from homelessness and starvation.
>
> If resources were plentiful, something good might come of
that. As it is, it will be a useless, last minute attempt to
stop the Titanic from going down, and it won't work.
>
> I take a critical view of most ideologies, including
capitalism, but also socialism. My objections to socialism as a
panacea have a lot to do with the nuts and bolts of how it
works, and not the broader ideas.
>
> We no longer have the same situation that we had in 1877 or
even in 1919.
>
> Taxation of workers, for instance. In 1900 there was no income
tax and no sales tax. Now those two consume as much as half of
what a worker makes.
>
> Taxation is the engine that's supposed to provide the cash for
the programs that a social democracy provides. I consider myself
a worker. I derive my income from highly skilled labor. The
investments I make come from the surplus I create. I don't steal
it from anybody, RE's rants to the contrary not withstanding.
This makes me fundamentally different from the people you refer
to as capitalists, who really are CORPORATISTS.
>
> If the transfer of wealth from overtaxation was passed through
to give benefits for the truly needy that'd be one thing. Or if
it went to good causes like university education. But the truth
is that taxation is a way of bleeding the poor and he middle
class, so that the rich can build these conduit schemes in the
course of administering the benefits.....that accrues even more
wealth to them and their infernal corporations.
>
> And it creates the system for deficit financing for a
permanent state of war, instead of creating the decent social
programs we should be paying for.
>
> We could fix all this pretty easily. But we don't. We haven't.
I have to assume we will not.
>
> So pardon me, but I object to wealth transfers that lead to
massive wasted resources and misappropriations. Especially when
it involves me writing six figure checks to the IRS, which I do
every year.
>
> If we could just:
>
> Limit terms for politicians.
>
> Limit the accumulation of massive intergenerational wealth.
>
> Take corporate money out of the election process.
>
> Three simple steps....this would change everything. But people
ARE too programmed and/or too dumb to figure it out. So
everybody loses. None of those obvious simple things can even be
accomplished.
>
> Your depiction of "capitalists" as if they were some nameless,
faceless group of evil smokestack era industrialists who all eat
dinner at the same club together and plot to keep the masses of
working stiffs in line? That might have made sense in 1920. But
it isn't an accurate depiction of where we are, and sadly, it
can't be fixed by the few well-meaning, ethical politicians who
are left. All three of them. (Maybe fewer, that's an optimistic
estimate.) Bernie can't fix it. I'd vote for him if I could, but
he still couldn't fix our predicament.
>
> So all this sturm and drang about the Workers Struggle and the
Evil Elites is just a lot of farting in the breeze now. It's all
over......all but the part where the anvil lands on Wylie
Coyote's head and squashes him flat.
>
> I'm not sure, but I suspect you probably were one of the air
traffic controllers that got **** over by Reagan, which was kind
of a watershed event, whereby the capitalists were finally able
to start taking things back off the table that workers of
previous generations worked so hard to get.
>
> I can understand that you might have a very personal reason to
be invested in your personal POV, which I consider completely
legitimate, btw. I'm not even arguing with you. I'm trying to
make you understand my points, which often get ignored, as you
folks with such strong belief systems want to put me in a box
that isn't even my box.
>
> I hated Reagan and the reactionaries who put him in charge.
Believe me when I tell you that I view Ronald Reagan's
presidency as The Beginning Of The End of America. I hated that
prick and everything he stood for.
>
> And just a couple more things. Just an aside, really. When I
mentioned Hoover, I wasn't talking about J. Edgar Hoover. I know
what a tool he was. I'm old enough to actually remember him.
>
> I was talking about ex-president Herbert Hoover, who headed
the Hoover Commission, the erroneous findings of which landed us
in Viet Nam for all the wrong reasons (among other negative
consequences).
>
> And that part about all anarchists being socialists? Not sure
if that was ever true, but it certainly is not true now. And
they aren't all pacifists either. Not Ted K.
>
> But this rant is over for me, and your follow-up, now doubt
delivered in a tone even more shrill, must remain unanswered by
me. I just don't care enough about what you believe to even
waste my time.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: agelbert link ---
>
> The gentlleman Eddie doth protest too much!
>
> Eddie said, after a long post where in which he assumes my
post is directed exclusively at him. That's rather arrogant of
you, Eddie.
>
> [quote]But this rant is over for me, and your follow-up, now
doubt delivered in a tone even more shrill, must remain
unanswered by me. I just don't care enough about what you
believe to even waste my time.
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Eddie, the reason I have engaged your erroneous view of
Capitalism and American Anti-Socialist skullduggery before 1947
is not to actually convince you of anything. I just wanted to
make it clear to everyone reading here that, as you said, you do
not care. I wish you did care. Nevertheless it is refreshing to
hear you admit you do not.
I had other reasons. Many here don't know the history and I
wanted to help them understand it. Capitalism is morally
bankrupt. It really bends you out of shape for me to say that
and you take it personally while trying to frame me as the
"touchy" hysteric. You shouldn't. You then ascribe all sorts of
hatefilled hysteria to me. You shouldn't. I'm for peace, not
hate. Capitalism is for hate, division, poverty and war for
profit. If you don't believe that, you are wrong.
#Post#: 10013--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 23, 2018, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Eddie link ---
>
> [quote author=agelbert link=topic=11222.msg156401#msg156401
date=1529692825]
> Eddie, the reason I have engaged your erroneous view of
Capitalism and american Anti-Socialist skullduggery before 1947
is not to actually convine you of anything. I just wanted to
make it clear to everyone reading here that, as you said, you do
not care. I wish you did care. Nevertheless it is refreshing to
hear you admit you do not.
>
--- End Quote ---
Once again you are trying to twist my words.
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/>I leave it to any readers who might have a shred of
intelligence
to figure that out. I expect there are some, but they probably
can see that you're a crank too, and won't waste time
responding.
That my view is or was erroneous is your take. And I have taken
the time to try to explain why I disagree, which is way more
than I should have done.
What I don't care about is what silly old cranks think, you
included. I do care about the subject material, which should be
obvious to anyone who took the time to read what I wrote. It's
not hard to follow unless you have real tunnel vision.[/quote]
That's Ad hom.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png<br
/>I thought you weren't going to "waste your time". Have a nice
day.
--- Quote from: Eddie link ---
>
> Oh, I'm ad hom now am I?
>
> What I am is tired of people putting words in my mouth. I
don't suffer fools gladly. Your bullshit about my "erroneous"
views is worse than ad hom. It's a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent my POV, which you are never going to get away with.
>
> Erroneous views....f u ck you, a s s h o l e.
>
> Now THAT is ad hom. Just so you know.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 10015--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 23, 2018, 4:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As I have previously posted, the historical narrative claims
that Hoover used his COINTELPRO tools only AFTER 1947. That is a
bold faced lie. Yes, they were more polished and high tech by
the 1950's, but they were a rinse and repeat of what Hoover
began doing as far back as the early 20th Century, when he
fabricated evidence against Anarchists/Socialists/Communists,
even before Hoover orchestrated the 1919 First Red Scare. By
that time most, if not all of the following heinous tools of
repression, were old hat for Hoover, who carefully developed ALL
OF THEM.
[b]Hoover
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817135149.gif[/b]was<br
/>engaged in Eavesdropping, Bogus mail, Black propaganda,
Disinformation, Harassment arrests, Infiltrators or agent
provocateurs, Bad-jacketing, Fabrication of evidence and
Assassinations.
[center]Here's an explanation of each morally bankrupt technique
plus some true US history NOT taught in the USA:[/center]
--- Quote ---
> The FBI, in close collaboration with local police units
(sometimes called Red Squads
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png),<br
/>used a number of techniques in its efforts to disrupt and
destroy leftist groups, the most important of which are
enumerated here.5
>
> Eavesdropping: This involved not only electronic surveillance,
but also putting “tails” on people and breaking into offices and
homes, as well as tampering with mail. The FBI's intention was
not simply to gather intelligence, but, by making their presence
known in various ways, create paranoia among activists.
>
> Bogus mail: FBI agents would fabricate letters, ostensibly
written by movement activists, which spread lies and
disinformation. The Bureau sent many fake letters to American
Indian Movement (AIM) and Black Panther Party (BPP) leaders and
activists that were designed to sow confusion and division in
the ranks. The Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver wings of the
BPP, for example, were split after the FBI sent a number of
manufactured letters from disgruntled party members to Cleaver,
then in exile in Algeria, criticizing Huey Newton's leadership.
>
> Black propaganda: The distribution of fabricated articles,
leaflets, etc., that misrepresented the politics and objectives
of an organization or leader, in order to discredit the group or
individual and to pit people and organizations against each
other.
>
> Disinformation: The FBI often released false or misleading
information to the press to discredit groups or individuals and
to foster tension.
>
> Harassment arrests: The police or FBI often arrested leaders
and activists on trumped up charges in order to tie up activists
in legal and court proceedings, drain their financial resources,
and heighten their sense of fear and paranoia.
>
> Infiltrators or agent provocateurs: The infiltration of
organizations by police agents served two purposes. One was to
gather intelligence on the group. Provocateurs were used to try
and encourage individuals to engage in illegal activity that
could then be attributed to the group as a whole; to disrupt the
internal functioning of organizations; and to assist in
spreading of disinformation inside and outside the group.
>
> Bad-jacketing: This “refers to the practice of creating
suspicion-through the spread of rumors, manufacture of evidence,
etc.-that bonafide organizational members, usually in key
positions, are FBI/police informers.”6 The technique was used to
particularly deadly effect inside the American Indian Movement.
Talented AIM activist Anna Mae Aquash, for example, who was
murdered on Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota in February
1976, was first subject to a successful whispering campaign,
initiated against her by FBI informant Doug Durham, who had
joined the AIM chapter in Des Moines, Iowa. Durham's role in AIM
also seems to have been to encourage AIM members to engage in
“rash, inflammatory acts,” according to author Peter
Mathiessen.7 Durham, for example, released “several unauthorized
memos, disseminated on organizational letterhead, indicating
that AIM was preparing to launch a campaign of 'systematic
violence.'”8
>
> Fabrication of evidence: FBI agents, police, and prosecutors
routinely fabricated evidence in order to obtain convictions in
criminal cases against activists. A number of AIM and BPP
activists, including BPP leader Geronimo Pratt and AIM leader
Leonard Peltier, who has been in prison for three decades for a
crime he did not commit, were convicted on such trumped-up
evidence.9
>
> Assassinations: There is ample evidence that FBI and related
agencies played a direct role in the assassination of a number
of key radical leaders.
>
> Who did COINTELPRO target?
>
> While COINTELPRO was initiated against the Communist Party
(CP) in 1956, the program expanded to include civil rights
groups and the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP) by the
time Kennedy became president in 1961 and his brother, Robert,
served as attorney general. In fact, Martin Luther King Jr.'s
famous “I Have a Dream” speech at the 1963 March on Washington,
months before Kennedy's assassination, won him the FBI
designation as “the most dangerous Negro in the future of this
Nation.”10 President Johnson, while expanding the war in Vietnam
and rhetorically battling the war on poverty at home, used the
Black inner-city rebellions of the mid-sixties from Watts to
Detroit as a pretext to issue “'standing instructions' that the
Bureau should bring the 'instigators' of such 'riots' to heel,
by any means at its disposal.”11
>
> Among the many targets of COINTELPRO, the most serious
attention was paid to those movements that most threatened state
interests. The most violent repression under COINTELPRO was used
against the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X,
the American Indian Movement, and the Puerto Rican independence
movement. [B]It was fueled by the state's need to preserve the
near total political and economic disenfranchisement of people
of color in the face of the first serious threats to the racial
status quo since post-Civil War Reconstruction. The need of the
American empire to keep Puerto Rico in its colonial orbit, while
it was losing the war in Southeast Asia, drove the violent
repression there and against Puerto Rican immigrants in the
United States[/b].
>
>
HTML http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/cointelpro.shtml
HTML http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/cointelpro.shtml
--- End Quote ---
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/hRBm5eiBQIs
HTML https://youtu.be/hRBm5eiBQIs[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/hRBm5eiBQIs[/center]
Read more:
HTML https://www.noi.org/cointelpro/
HTML https://www.noi.org/cointelpro/
It is also germaine to this discussion of WHO gets marginalized
and WHY in our Capitalist "Paradise" to remember that the
"right" to VOTE for women, Native Americans. African Americans
AND Puerto Ricans (1916 Jones Act made them citizens so they
could be Cannon fodder for WWI), as long as they moved to the
continental USA, if they moved to the USA was obtained until IT
DID NOT MATTER. That is, the CORK on the maximum number of
Representatives in Congress was (illegally -it was NEVER
ratified by the required numberof States!) was rammed though in
1911. So, any semblance of a "Democratic" Republic that USA had
disappeared into the Capitalist Boardrooms who buy our
politiicians to make "laws" for them.
--- Quote ---
> In addition to setting the number of U.S. Representatives at
435 😈 💵 🎩 🍌[
img]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418193910.gif,<br
/>the Apportionment Act of 1911 returned to the Webster method
of
apportionment of U.S. Representatives. Adopted in 1868, Section
Two of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution had already removed the three-fifths method of
counting slaves, and instead required "counting the whole number
of all persons in each State."
>
>
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911
--- End Quote ---
[center]
HTML http://www.ragingpencils.com/2011/10-24-11-the-one-percent.gif[/center]
[move]This is an old graphic. A Capitalist RAT has been
replaced. But they are still a bunch Capitalist TOADY
RATS![/move]
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-201113213637.png[/center]
#Post#: 10016--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 23, 2018, 4:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RE link ---
>
> The issue here is that "if you are not part of the solution,
you are part of the problem". As long as you maintain the
position the "Capitalism has some good points, it was just
corrupted by a few Evil Men at the top", you are part of the
problem. This is the group of people who now try to make a
distinction between "capitalism" and "corporatism". Trying to
throw whitewash over a really bad system which has impoverished
billions for the profit of 1%. It's not the "few bad apples"
that make Capitalism bad, the system itself is rotten to the
core.
>
> Will Socialism fix all the ills of resource depletion and
population overshoot we have now? Of course not, but it would
provide a more equitable distribution of wealth during the spin
down. All the wealth of the top 10% should be stripped and used
to fund the rebuilding of public infrastructure. All excess
housing besides the dwelling a person actually lives in should
be converted to housing for the Homeless. All excess vehicles
besides the one the person needs for daily tasks should be
converted to a fleet for pbulicly available rental cars at
affordable prices. All wages should come within 1 Standard
Deviation of the mean, in our current economy around $70K
household income. Essentially this means nobody over $150K,
nobody under $35K. Medical care should be public and supported
by taxation on profits and excess income above the $150K
threshhold.
>
> Most industries should be converted to Worker Cooperatives,
run by the workers. The main conduits in particular, Energy,
Food, Housing, Medicine, Communications and Transportation.
Managers should be selected by the workers, not by the share
holders in a corporation. Banking and Money Creation should be
done by Goobermint, not by a private cartel of International
Banksters.
>
> Many other changes are necessary of course, but this would be
a good start towards managing the spin down we have ahead here.
Capitalism and its Apologists are the Enemy, they gotta go.
>
> RE
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: Eddie link ---
>
> This is all so incredibly f u c k i n' silly.
>
> It's ALL gonna go. Capitalist, socialist, monarchy, whatever.
>
> What's a socialist country anyway? Are there any in
existence? Where?
>
> I see some "social democracies". These are capitalist
countries, because it's the capitalists paying the taxes that
create the wealth to redistribute.
>
> Sweden is the poster child.
>
> Yesterday I got in trouble with Palloy because I said Russia
was socialist, and he corrected me. They have rich oligarchs.
>
> China has all kinds of rich oligarchs.
>
> Viet Nam?
>
> N Korea?
>
> Cuba?
>
> Are those your idea of a successful way to run a country. No
thanks. I'll pass. The Repressed Citizens of America are way
better off than the people in any of those places. Even smack
shootin' rednecks in the trailer park are better off. People in
NK are HUNGRY. The poor people here are obese.
>
> Do you mean some hypothetical socialist country where people
in power DON'T feather their own nests because they can? Some
perfect world socialist country. Yeah, I'll take that. But it'll
only happen when flocks of flying monkeys erupt from my ass.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 10017--------------------------------------------------
Re: Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 23, 2018, 4:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RE link ---
>
> [quote author=Eddie link=topic=11222.msg156407#msg156407
date=1529697537]
>
> Do you mean some hypothetical socialist country where people
in power DON'T feather their own nests because they can? Some
perfect world socialist country. Yeah, I'll take that. But it'll
only happen when flocks of flying monkeys erupt from my ass.
>
--- End Quote ---
LOL. I never said such a country or Goobermint currently
exists, or in fact has ever existed. But then again, no truly
"Capitalist" country ever existed either.
My main goal is to provide a roadmap to a Better Tomorrow. That
is the goal of the SUN project. I know the current system in
the FSoA is FUBAR and will collapse of it's own accord. So I
present ideas on how to improve on things as the spin down
progresses in terms of equity in collapse. It won't take
monkeys flying out of your ass either. It will just take empty
shelves at Walmart.
If you don't like the new system, feel free to hop on a sailboat
and go...somewhere else.
RE[/quote]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png<br
/> ;D
*****************************************************
Page 11 of 17
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page