?

Log in

No account? Create an account
The United Socialist Front [entries|friends|calendar]
The United Socialist Front

[ website | The United Socialist Front ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Doom. [24 Oct 2005|07:37pm]

smantie
[ mood | inquisitive ]

I try not to be negative, but the world faces a dire crisis.

The threat of corporate power is spreading now greater than ever. The unemployment rate is threatening to rise and it will soon. We're losing jobs left and right and not creating jobs fast enough to meet our nation's needs.


Wall St is in shambles. Although NASDAQ is on a bit of a rollercoaster, up and down, it's going to crash at some point soon. The problem is that most stocks are speculative and don't reflect the real value of a company. As we saw with Enron, a company can go bankrupt while having high stocks. There's too much to jump in head first now, but I predict that within 5 years the stock market will crash and the housing market will have a crisis at the same time. Unemployment (a number which is always higher than represented, since people on unemployment are only counted for 5-6 months and people aren't getting jobs back) might already be at 10% and is probably much higher in places like Appalachia.


The moral of my story is this: We have problems which need to be solved. We are in a crisis and we need to do something before it's too late.

Revolution

[28 Jan 2007|10:29am]

game_whino
My college Econ teacher is a socialist :D just thought you guys might get a kick out of that
Revolution

[14 Mar 2006|03:23am]

smantie
Throughout history man has strived, and sometimes struggled, to bring about equitable and beneficial systems of economic, social, and political order. Social evolution has created a world in which the two doctrines of capitalism and democracy have emerged as the dominant systems of trade and government. The primary feature of capitalism is the corporation, and when one analyzes the history of corporations, corporate motives, the role of the corporation in society, democratic rights of corporations, and corporations’ affect on people it is possible to draw stunning conclusions. Conflicting interests between economic and social systems cause corporations to undermine democracy.
In order to grasp a full understanding of the modern corporation it is necessary to analyze the history and development of modern corporations. The very first modern corporations were founded during the Industrial Revolution. Corporations were state-contracted for a specific purpose, usually one which required efforts beyond the state’s financial or legal means. As modern intellectual Noam Chomsky briefly summarizes, “corporations were originally associations of people who were chartered by a state to perform some particular function like, a group of people want to build a bridge over the Charles River or something like that” and were dissolved as soon as their task was completed (Corporation 10:30). Mary Zepernick of Law and Democracy’s Program on Corporations adds that early corporations had “…clear stipulations in their state-issued charters, how long they could operate, the amount of capitalization, what they made or did or maintained … was in their charter and they didn’t do anything else. They didn’t own or couldn’t own another corporation. Their shareholders were liable.” making corporations both well-regulated and temporary entities (Corporation 10:47). However, in 1889 the case of Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Beckwith, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a corporation is guaranteed the same rights as people for due process and equal protection, firmly establishing what is now known as “corporate personhood (Reclaim).” Since then, corporations have been granted freedom of speech, freedom from search and seizure, advertising freedom and tax exemptions in some cases. Most importantly, the 1976 ruling of Buckley v. Valeo declared that corporate donations are considered speech, and therefore corporations may contribute funds at their will to political parties and campaigns (Reclaim). Since the American Civil War, corporate restrictions have been severely diminished and almost entirely eliminated in many cases. Modern corporations are now given the same legal rights as humans, and have no restrictions put on the amount of capital gain they may make. The role of the corporation has also changed. The primary function of the corporation formerly was to perform a task such as building a bridge or maintaining roads, something which was beneficial to society in some way or another either through maintaining something which was previously built and freeing the government from maintaining it which saves tax money or through creating or supplying something which is useful. Early corporations also guaranteed jobs. This primary function of the modern corporation was changed however. In 1919 the corporation’s role officially changed to one of “stockholder primacy,” meaning that the primary function of a corporation is now to make profit for its shareholders (Reclaim). In fact out of the one hundred largest economies in the world, only forty-nine are countries while fifty-one are corporations (Global Issues).
Although the official motive of a corporation is officially to make profit for its shareholders, corporations have many more motives than simply that. The primary motive of the modern corporation is the accumulation of wealth. This strive for profit is not for the profit of shareholders, but for the profit of the corporate bank account which benefits the heads of the company the most. For example, multi-billion dollar corporation Wal-Mart generated 285.2 billion dollars in revenue in the fiscal year 2005. Their corporate executive officer, Lee Scott received over twelve million, four hundred forty-four thousand dollars for his job (Wal-Mart Wikipedia) for a total of about six thousand dollars an hour, assuming he works for forty hours a week fifty-two weeks a year. Meanwhile Wal-Mart employees received an average of ten dollars and eleven cents an hour, a total of twenty-one thousand twenty-eight dollars a year (Wal-Mart Facts). In 2002, Wal-Mart generated two hundred eighteen billion dollars in revenue, and their stock rose to an astounding sixty-three dollars per share. However in the year 2005, with Wal-Mart’s already gigantic profits, Wal-Mart shares were at only forty-two dollars and thirty-one cents (Wal-Mart Wikipedia) and the ‘compensation’ given to corporate officials rose nearly two million dollars each. These facts suggest that corporate motives are not for the stockholder but for the benefit of a select few individuals. Clearly the interest of the corporation is not in the employees or those with stock in the corporation, but rather the interest lies within those heading the corporation. The question arises, “if a corporation serves not for the good of the employee or shareholder, what purpose does it serve?” Within a democratic system citizens and corporations alike are taxed so that the government may function and keep the many social programs such as education, police, fire departments, waste management, unemployment benefits, military operations, and other necessary elements of society functioning. The government must collect taxes, and can do so either from a corporation or from a citizen. A corporation can gain profit from citizens and retain it for taxation, creating a sort of ‘middle man’ between the government and citizen, helping the government gain tax revenue while avoiding a portion of the tax burden directly on the citizen. Therefore, corporations serve a small positive purpose to the government and citizen alike.
Within the economic community, corporations have a much different role than that stated on paper. The modern economic system of capitalism was firmly established through the 1776 work The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (Smith). Modern opinion believes this work advocates a style of unregulated commerce which would supposedly regulate itself through an “invisible hand” which would benefit everyone. However this belief is highly misconstruing Smith’s work. Smith believed that economies could only function under relatively stable conditions of equality (Democratic). His primary belief was that liberty would lead to equality, thus the liberty of trade would bring about greater equality. “He held in fact that only under conditions of relative equality and tendencies toward equality would market competition be efficient or fair” says Noam Chomsky (Democratic). Adam Smith was also a great moral philosopher who spent time with other great philosophical contemporaries of his such as Ben Franklin, Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He published his Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759 (Smith). Smith believed that equality would contribute to ‘further ends.’ “The further ends were realization of human capacities and potentialities” which could be achieved through the market under equal conditions, which would then bring freedom (Democratic).
Modern economics differs sharply from the sentiments put forth by Adam Smith however. The most prominent version of capitalism in modern time is that of neoliberalism, essentially the belief that large-scale corporations should not be regulated. This policy originated after World War Two with an economic model known as the Washington Consensus as became state policy during the Reagan presidency. This system gives corporations relatively free reign to do as they please. The essential fear of Adam Smith that a system of “all for ourselves amd nothing for other people” is now almost official policy (“Profit” 52). The advantages of this system are that a corporation is free to do what it deems in its best interests and the “invisible hand” is free to govern in accordance with what is best for the market at a given time. However there are also clear disadvantages. Important issues such as worker’s rights, the environment and equality are all but ignored, and a plutocracy is established. James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the United States of America expressed his concern in 1792 that the current capitalist system was leading to “a real domination of the few under the apparent liberty of the many (“Profit” 52).” That is the essence of neoliberalism, the economic domination of the few above the many and it is the primary system which allows corporations to dominate the economic and political spectrums of society. When one discusses the tax rates of both private citizen and corporation they may see some similarities which neoliberal doctrine has created. A corporation making 74,000 dollars a year will be taxed twenty-five percent, just as a private citizen with the same earnings would be. However, a private citizen earning 336,550 dollars a year will be taxed more than a private corporation earning the same amount, with the citizen being taxed thirty-five percent of their income, and the corporation being taxed only thirty-four percent (Tax Rates). This is stunning to consider that by a ratio of almost twenty to one the general public feel that corporations “should sometimes sacrifice some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities (“Profit” 55)” and therefore the public is clearly opposed to corporations accumulating so much weath for their own purposes.
Major corporations are increasingly anti-union. The world’s largest retail corporation, Wal-Mart, believes that “there is simply no need for a third party to come between our associates and their managers” and therefore don’t believe in government regulation or unionization (Wal-Mart Facts). Under the Wagner Act of 1935, unions are given the right to organize and corporations are prohibited from interfering with unionizing efforts and disallowing workers to use their right to unionize and partake in union activities (Labor Laws). A corporation is legally entitled to become unionized after worker’s efforts to unionize through a democratic process are successful. Workers may insist a democratic process to form a union takes place, and the employer must allow this to happen. Should the union movement be successful, a business must then allow the union to operate. Corporate powers are still opposed to unionization. Wal-Mart has had charges brought before the National Labor Relations Board sixty times since 1995 (Wake Up) and had forty-three unfair labor practice complaints brought against them just in 2002 (Wake Up). Numerous accusations have also arisen that Wal-Mart has illegally fired workers for discussing unionizing (Wake Up). Unions are designed to ensure equitable wages, benefits, and work hours for employees. Corporations’ clear contempt for them shows contempt for democratic law.
A main element of corporate power is the privatization of wealth, industry, property and ideas. “Privatization does not mean you take a public institution and give it to some nice person. It means you take a public institution and give it to an unaccountable tyrrany” whose motives are not that of the public good, Noam Chomsky states (Corporation 1:09:02). Privatization occurs for profit motives. For example, most modern societies have universal public healthcare, but in the United States we do not. This is because more profit can be found in a private sector than a public one. Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, Maude Barlow says, “there are those who intend that one day everything will be owned by somebody. We are not just talking goods here. We are talking about human rights, human services, essential services for life, education, public health, social assistance, pensions, and housing. We are also talking about the survival of the planet. The areas that we believe must be maintained by the commons or under common control or we will collectively die. Water and air (Corporation 10:10:37).” This brings up some shocking and horrifying possibilities which modern philosopher Mark Kingwell points out used to exist, for example “fire fighters started out as private companies. If you did not have the medallion of a particular fire fighter brigade on your house, those fire fighters would just ride on by because you did not have “a deal”. We gradually evolved a provision of public trust for safety on that very specific level. This is important. We should not go back from that and say “why don’t we put that back on the market and see what happens... maybe it will make it more efficient.” There are some things where we should not tinker with the public trust for the sake of what might be a marginal gain in efficiency, and might well not be (Corporation 1:08:00).” There is no need to eliminate public service, if not simply for the horror which public safety might face. Chomsky further adds in great detail that “public institutions have many side benefits. For one thing they may purposely run at a loss. They’re not out for profit; they may purposely run at a loss because of the side benefits. So for example if a public steel industry runs at a loss, it’s providing cheap steel to other industries. Maybe that’s a good thing. Public institutions can have a counter cyclic property, which means that they can maintain employment in periods of recession... which increases demand... which helps to get out of the recession. A private company cannot do that. Recession comes- throw out the work force. This is the way that you make money (Corporation 10:09:19).” Advocates such as Michael Walker, Executive Director of the Fraser Institute admit that “It sounds outlandish that we want to have everything in the universe owned” but clarifies that “does not mean that I want to have Joe Blogs owning this particular square foot, but it means that the interests that are involved in that stream are owned by some group who are interested in maintaining it” and that it “is not such a loony idea (Corporation 10:11:15).” As private entities corporations are also legally allowed to privatize their interests. Because almost any non-governmental property may be bought and made private, it is possible for the entire world to become privatized, including water supplies, shelter, and even air.
Corporations are the cause for concern among many environmental activists as well. The United Nations Environment Program recognized what it called “a growing gap between the efforts to reduce the impact of business and industry on nature and the worsening state of the planet” and urged member nations to require stricter environmental protection (Global Issues). Corporations however, acting on behalf of their own interests find environmental laws hazaardous to them. The way to make profit is by squeezing the most out of the resources available. That means more output per man-hour, more cars per man-hour, more steel per man-hour, more computer chips per man-hour, all at the lowest price possible. Spending money to meet environmental standards is not the most efficient way, and it would be costly to first implement. Corporations are not willing to give up precious capital to meet the needs of the world’s future. Corporations have funded lobbyists with millions of dollars to lobby against political action to combat global warming (Global Issues).
Corporations affect the lives of citizens on a daily basis. The business community spends over one trillion dollars per year on marketing campaigns, roughly one-sixth the gross domestic product (“Profit” 58). There is very little space in society which is not subject to advertising, from public parks to baseball stadiums to television and the clothing people wear, it is nearly impossible to avoid corporate marketing techniques. With the globalization of corporations, the world has seen a stunning shift towards material values and a general indoctrination of them. An example of this is that of the most well-known words in the world is “Coke,” the nickname for popular soft drink Coca-Cola.
It has been believed that the complimentary economic system to democracy is capitalism. However, true democratic governments do not interact as well as this assumes. A democratic government is a government meant to give the people being governed the maximum amount of input regarding the affairs that affect them. In theory, this would range from the building of roads, the functioning of public schools, international affairs, and economic affairs. One of the founding fathers of America, Thomas Jefferson, expressed his fear that the country was becoming “a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institutions and monied in corporations” and that if this were to continue it would “be the end of democracy and freedom” recognizing the conflicting interests of business or that of a select few who control corporate power and that of the common citizen. Speaking in 1826 at the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson said that there were “those who fear and distress the people and wish to draw all power from them into the hands of the higher classes” and “those who identify with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe depository of the public interest, even though not the most wise.” A democratic government supports the latter sort of government, which puts power in the hands of the people. However, when seventy percent of the populace believes that “business has gained too much power over too many aspects of American life” one can see clearly that it is in a corporation’s best interests to keep power out of the hands of those people, which form a majority of the common citizens. It is no surprise that the first major period within the fifty years where worker’s wages stagnated or even declined in some cases, and benefits provided by corporations were at an all-time low since the Industrial Revolution came at a time when the business press reported that “Mr. Clinton and his administration come down on the same side as corporate America.” This caused the 1996 elections to have the lowest voter participation, declined public interest and a lack of voter confidence (“Profit” 61). A record eighty percent of citizens believe the government is now being “run for the benefit of the few and the special interests, not the people (“Profit” 55).” This is not surprising however when it is taken into account that the vast majority of political campaigns are funded not by contributions of private citizens, but by private corporations. This naturally causes the government to cater to business, partially because of political contributions, and partially because of the amount of tax revenue generated. Consider this: The wealthiest man in the United States is worth 44.8 billion dollars. The wealthiest corporation in the United States is worth 285.2 billion dollars (Wal-Mart Wikipedia). Not only do democratic governments get influenced negatively by corporations, but they in turn protect corporations against the will of the people. Consider the chain of events surrounding the privatization of a Bolivian water supply by Bechtel Corporation in 2000. Bechtel, a company who has close ties with the American government and has contributed millions of dollars to campaign funds signed a contract with the Bolivian government to privatize the water supply in Cochabamba, Bolivia’s third largest city (Bechtel). This demonstrates a democratic government giving away its public resources to private sources. After Bechtel’s subsidiary, Aguas del Tunari, privatized the water supply, water rates raised over fifty percent on average than what was previously being payed (Bechtel). This caused massive organized protest and chaos. Parents were forced to choose between sending their children to school or obtaining health care and getting clean drinking water, something which is essential for human beings to live. During these protests, Bolivian police forces declared martial law and surrounded the area where Bechtel was situated. The government protected the corporation Bechtel over the common needs and interests of the democratic body of citizens to which it was supposed to serve. This is just one of many classic examples of the government putting profit over people.
The Bolivian government eventually withdrew Bechtel’s contract, but after much political unrest and the threat of being overthrown in a popular uprising. This properly demonstrates that although not the most highly considered, power always lies somewhat dormant within the masses. Bechtel Corporation sued the Bolivian government for twenty-five billion dollars. Yet another victory was handed two the people when Bechtel settled for just thirty cents due to the efforts of grassroots political activism (Bechtel).
Corporate power, when unchecked, can undermine the systems in which people place confidence in and deem just and fair. Corporations have evolved from highly-regulated temporary groups to sieze power and become somewhat immortal. As corporations gain more power and become even larger and corporate interests become increasingly contrasting to the public interest, it is necessary to keep the dreams of Adam Smith, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson alive by striving for an equal, free and fair society. A society where democracy may be cherished and preserved as a way of enacting the public good and securing the blessings of liberty for the present and future. The regulation of corporations can only extend democracy further.
1Welfare| Revolution

Some thoughts on U.S. intervention in the Middle East... [14 Dec 2005|10:48pm]

smantie
Note: This is written in the form of a rant, please excuse any innapropriate language

So basically, going to war in Iraq and spreading "Democracy" was the worst idea ever. If they have true democratic elections, the Shiite majority wins. Of course, the Sunni's (more liberal, we like them more, the US made them make the constitution basically) are outnumbered, and relatively unpopular, and one of their leaders was assasinated today. But if the Shiites win (like they should, otherwise the US rigged the elections), they are the same religion as Iran. You might as well erase the Iranian/Iraqi border, but then the Kurds will get pissed off, and in Iran too, and want to leave and form their own separate countries. This causes something close to total chaos, but nothing totally out of control. At the same time, Israel is preparing to attack Iranian uranium deposits in 4 months. We'll back Israel of course, and Iran will say "Hey fuck you U.S.A." and they will harbor more terrorists than they do now. They have incredible oil resources of which to fund them too, and a terrorist is amazingly simple to ship anywhere in the world in less than 3 days while avoiding ALL security. As this occurs, we STILL haven't caught Osama Bin Laden, haha, and he's most likely in Pakistan. Of course, the Pakistani government is weak, and it's militarily dominated. They also have nukes. They are muslim and they hate India. Osama Bin Laden is a muslim, meaning when he left Afghanistan (which is almost certain) he could have gone to A) Pakistan or B) Iran. He's more likely to go to Pakistan, because he can get lost better, since there is relatively no control in the government (their president was the outcome of a military coup) and it's much more mountainous than Iran. Common sense says he would go there. The Pakistani's will not let us into their country at all. If their military tries to aprehend Bin Laden, it will fall apart, and so will the country, as the military thing is the only thing holding it together. If it falls apart, "terrorists" have an immediate shot at nukes, and BAM! WWIII. At this time, Iraq is out of the picture, because it's virtually aligned with Iran, although it's fighting over the Kurds, if our troops are still there, it's the next Vietnam, and then you have a whole collapse of the entire middle eastern area east of Saudi Arabia and west of India.
2Welfares| Revolution

Buy the Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices movie! [22 Nov 2005|03:17pm]

smantie
There is a new, powerful and moving epic documentary on the practices of Wal Mart, the biggest big business on the planet. Buy this new documentary and see for yourself! Some proceeds go to the USF so support human labor rights!

Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95 DVD


Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95 VHS


Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95 DVD
Revolution

USF Party Platform [13 Sep 2005|10:54pm]

smantie
Excuse us if this sounds conservative... it needs to sound as moderate as possible to appeal to as many people as possible.
-Smantie



To further establish and extend Democracy within our nation.


To establish a free market society in which the individual and their business is respected and protected above all.


To prevent a large increase in taxes while providing more social services and education in order to meet international standards and make society stronger and more efficient on the world market.


To adjust the taxation system, analyze and adjust they way we spend our capital.


Define greater sources of revenue in order to provide lower taxes.


Reduce corporate tax cuts in an effort to minimalize the national deficit.


Strenghthen America's labour unions to guarantee worker's rights (benefits, pay, overtime, et cetera) in order to be make a more efficient labour force.


Guarantee equal protection of property, wealth and welfare under the constitution.


Advocate just standards of labour.


Create new ways to curb outsourcing of labour.


Establish a peaceful and benevolant relationship with the international community both politcally and economically.


Regulate oil prices and encourage the improvements and construction of refineries to drastically lower and eliminate rising gas prices and encourage environmentally friendly public transportation.


Assist in peace between middle-eastern states and America.


Improve public education for all communities - raised standards and increased funding.


Avoid costly war engagements unless absolutely necessary. Let diplomacy reign over military aggression.


Provide international aid for countries greatly in need of it - let them build their economies so we may reap the rewards in trade.


Prevent gross human rights violations at home and abroad. Meet all standards set forth in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Revolution

A New Idea For Goodwill Acts Towards Homeless People [12 Jul 2005|12:21pm]
finneyishedwitu
Yesterday i was escorting a comrade to my house brainstorming new ways to help the poor and homeless. We saw someone on a corner begging for food, and although we had no food I had an idea: we could purchase ham and/or cheeseburgers and the USF could distribute them to homeless people around cities and places like Harvard Square, which has many beggars and homeless people concentrated in a small area. Cheeseburgers cost less than a dollar a piece and giving one cheeseburger to someone whose hope is gone, with their stomach pleading for nourishment, could mean the world to them. This new idea would be a moral and excellent way for the United Socialist Front to help communities in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and any other place we can reach with our current members. -Ashleigh Thomas, United Socialist Front
5Welfares| Revolution

[24 Jun 2005|08:54am]

king_fungus
A short article about the current leader of Canada. It simply shows that either way we go in this form of Government, we're screwed...

Read more...Collapse )

A friend at school also gave me a site that she was enraged by. Perhaps you'll find it interesting.

http://www.unitednorthamerica.org
9Welfares| Revolution

Where Art Thou Revolution? [12 Jun 2005|09:57pm]

king_fungus
Short and anger article after watching a documentary on the notorious Battle of Stalingrad. There really is not much content to it. Just getting some anger down on paper.

WhereCollapse )
Revolution

Hate Only Motivates And Creates Hate. [18 May 2005|09:47pm]

smantie
A Young American's Perspective On America



I have a problem. Our whole country has a problem and no one wants to admit it.
As you are no doubt probably well aware, by the year 2008, the United States of America will be spending more money on "defense" than the entire rest of the world will. Does America not see how messed up it is to spend the entire budget of an average-sized country just on war? We are not only distancing ourselves from our global community but we are selling ourselves, and more importantly our children short of success. We spend billions upon billions solely on war and violence and only a very small fraction of that on education.

Our education systems are so bad (and I know from personal experience, I live in a state with some of the best public education in the country and it stinks!) that no one truly learns anything, we have decreased the amount people are taught so much in the past 50 years that now we are actually having to import our doctors from the Middle East. That's right, the same "terrorists" the Bush administration is going after now will be my children's doctors. Our engineers are coming more and more frequently not from within America, but from India and China. This country is already short more than 16,000 teachers, and with the current average age of teachers in America, laws such as No Child Left Behind, and almost 18% of children now living in poverty, within twenty years we will be short over 200 thousand teachers. Seeing that the primary source to a better life in our Capitalistic society is through education, how will our society advance with no one to teach us? By refusing to advance our society, the Bush administration and Capitalism in general has literally sold our future out from under us, and no one seems to care!

By blatantly promoting our global militarism we have declared a war on the world. Our country has had wars in 1776-1781, 1812-1815, 1846-1848, 1861-1865, 1898, 1917-1918, 1941-1945, 1950-1953, 1962-1975, 1990-1991 and now 2001-2005. Does any other country in the world feel safe knowing that we have nuclear weapons left and right and want to declare war on anyone who doesn't perfectly agree with our Christian-Fascist policies? Is it not natural for a creature to, when threatened, fight back? Will not the entire world seek America's demise?

America has promoted our own demise though; we have failed to meet the needs at home. We have ruined our education systems, made the workforce so terrible that 47% of Americans must work one or more part-time jobs or for minimum wage. Has anyone looked how low minimum wage is lately? Less than six dollars. Seeing that the average family needs to maintain an income of over nine dollars an hour to stay above the poverty line, that does not seem just. When a man has to work two jobs daily just to keep his family alive, and barely has enough time to see his children a few minutes a week is not healthy for a family. I do not consider it family values to force a family into conditions like this. Our own president of the United States of America speaks about "sacrifice" and how it is a great deal to sacrifice your life for your country, but what about for your family? We have 47% of working America caught in a terrible life, sacrificing endless hours for their families just so their families can stay alive. We have mothers and fathers who sacrifice every single day and wake up and go to jobs they do not like (4 in 5 Americans are dissatisfied with their jobs) and work from morning until night to keep their family. The system is against them and I don't consider that moral.

In America we need a college education to get a well-paying job. We know it's true and we've come to accept it as fact. I have also seen an increasing trend of citizens marrying for the wrong reasons. One of the reasons I am disgusted over is people marrying for money. It makes sense that people would do this though, because when you have a high school degree (or lack one) and can't make enough money yourself to feed a family, nevertheless yourself, you try to find that money in other people. Money has become such an essential part of our lives and our system our society has made it seem like we need it to survive more than we need love and family. The facts are, when you marry for money and not love you're creating an unhappy family. The rich sign pre-nuptial agreements to protect their assets because it truly is a trend to marry for money. Talk about morals and family values.

As I mentioned earlier America has participated in war during the years of 1776-1781, 1812-1815, 1846-1848, 1861-1865, 1898, 1917-1918, 1941-1945, 1950-1953, 1962-1975, 1990-1991, and currently 2001-2005. Forty-one years of our 229 year history have been dedicated to war. Eighteen percent of American chronology has been dedicated to war. Eighteen percent. That isn't including the twenty years we spent with Manifest Destiny slaughtering Native Americans. That is just official wars that have been declared on other countries with the exception of the American Civil War. If you include the 20 years of genocides it comes out to be an astounding 27% of American history devoted towards war, towards killing.

America has not gone over 32 years without a war in our history.
Right now we know people who know people who died in war. If we keep going to war our children will be the ones knowing people who die in war. Then if we continue, our grandchildren will be dying in war. That is not my America. That is not my American Dream.

If our "fearless leader" was even anything like the 'compassionate conservative' he'd like to think he is he would do something. I looked up the word "compassion" in the dictionary and I found this: "Noun; Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it." If our president were compassionate he would seek help for the 39 million Americans living in poverty. He would feel the pain of the 17% of American children living in poverty and understand the true American sacrifice of parents who work for minimum wage at part time jobs in order to support their families while getting no recognition or help from the government. Any human being can see that the tax burden he says he is lifting is not being lifted on the middle and lower class, but rather being placed there while being lifted off the wealthy, why can't he? If George W. Bush was compassionate in any way, he would put an end to war, he would put an end to all war. It seems as if the rest of the world has managed to avoid war for the past few centuries pretty well without us in comparison to our rather improvident war-mongering history. If the president of the United States of America were indeed compassionate, he would think for the many generations that have suffered and lived oppressed. If he had the brain power he would analyze the current system and seek a reform within it. We cannot allow our children to be subject to this unfair and cruel atmosphere while we've been destroying it before they're even born. If Bush was a man, if he was a hero, if he had half the decency to do even half of what's right, moral, just and logical, he would seek change. It's too bad America voted for a coward, I feel let down by every voting adult in America.

Bush has lied to the American people, we now even see documented evidence with the release of the Downing Street Memo that this is fact, but more importantly he has lied about who he is. While the newly released Downing Street Memo, an official British Document released recently quotes “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” It’s obvious Bush has drawn us into an unjust war for an unjust cause, but the real lie was not in going to war, the real lie has been how he lied about who he is. Bush has sold himself as a 'compassionate conservative built on grassroots for America' but has done nothing to demonstrate that. He has been in office for over 4 years and he has done everything to show that he is not. He is NOT compassionate, and he is not a true conservative. He is pro-big government and spends wilder than Donald Trump in a toupee store. He is a social conservative yes, but for all the wrong reasons. He has actually had the audacity to use the name of God to justify war and his attempts to oppress women's and gay's rights when the bible clearly says nothing to justify his claims. He is some form of lunatic at the very least, decreeing what god says and what he doesn't. He is not the pope and he doesn't respect two of the most essential laws in American society, Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State. I don't know about you and the rest of America, but I have been taken to understand that Dubya's definition of "compassion" goes slightly more like this: "Noun; Something one has only for rich Capitalists and people who donate to one's campaign fund. Note: This is not an emotion one has for the working class, gays, bisexuals, transgengers, women, African-Americans, people of Hispanic or Latin American origin, immigrants, Democrats, any Liberal, Communists, Socialists, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Zack de la Rocha, Noam Chomsky, the middle class, the lower class, environmentalists, peace activists, ect."



Contrary as though it might seem, I am not anti-American in any way. Nowhere in the world is there a better place to live, but at the same time it is our duty as Americans to question authority, question the directions we as a nation, a society and a culture are headed in. Right now we have the poorest air quality of any first world country. We give out less in humanitarian aid as a percentage of GDP (.07%) among the twenty-two most developed nations in the world. Our poverty level is 11% and we have close to 16 million people unemployed or looking for work. Do not take for granted the luxury you live in, the next time you choose to spend money on yourself, think of the tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford to think for themselves. That is not the America I was raised to believe in. I was raised to believe in the Frederick Douglass’ and the Noam Chomsky’s, the Underground Railroads and the labor unions of the late 19th century. I believe in the Martin Luther King Jr. and the men and women who go to work every day with a dream and support their families who are not afraid to do the right thing and set a good example no matter what the cost to themselves. I am not proud of the direction America is headed and the shameful if not sometimes genocidal acts of corporate America, but I am incredibly proud of the American spirit. It’s not the slave-owning fathers and the cross-burning segments of our society and history that stands out in my mind when I think of why I am proud to be an American. I am proud of the American idea that allows us to question ourselves, encourages diversity and equality at the same time and the courageous attitude people have had to bring about change. Change has been the major element of history and it has been inevitable. We all change the world in some way, but in what way will we change the world? Do we change the world in the way we want to? How do we want change in our world? Do we really want to see people living in poverty in the greatest nation in the world, or do we want to demonstrate compassion?

The America that was once ours is washing away down the drain. Our culture is being chopped away at the very roots and sold out from underneath us. Our society is being murdered and the people murdering it have names, addresses and business titles. History has showed us the path we’re choosing to take. History is showing us that we are following the same path the Romans did that led to their fall. Science has shown us that for every action there is an equal and opposite action, it applies not only to physics but to life. The further our society and culture becomes demolished, the further we will seek change.
I encourage you to consider before you go to the polls to vote, please consider the children, please consider our future. Please consider America.

The hardcore truth of the matter is that George W. Bush is not a politician. No member of Congress seems to be. A real politician is a man like the late Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. Che spent years traveling about South America and observing how people live. He observed and then took action on his morals and ideals. Sure he was violent at times, but he took wounded members of the opposing forces and personally healed them, he went into the Cuban countryside and built schools and roads, hospitals and homes personally. He was a politician of the people who was not afraid to be seen helping people. He was not afraid when he stood in front of the United Nations and delivered some of the most influential and moving speeches in history. He knew what people needed and he stood for it until his death. Why don't American politicians do that?
18Welfares| Revolution

My response to the RCP charging $10 for a Communist documentary at a theatre [06 May 2005|12:20pm]

smantie
I don't think it's very communist to charge that much money for a movie, the whole problem with the movie enterprise is that they spend so much money on making bullsh-t and charge $11 for a ticket and another 16 for food and they exploit the consumer audience. Same problem with pro sporting events. A sudden revolution wouldn't create a morality at all, it would create bloodshed and anarchy to many even with a vangaurd party at the forefront of the revolution. What should happen to establish a morality is the establishment of a Socialist system through the current system we have. Through that we may establish a better equality, but also a better education system, so that the working class can educate themselves without having to pay outrageous prices for private school that they cannot afford. Through education comes better morals, better happiness, and a better society. In a better society of course everyone needs a real and satisfying job, with benefits. This will assist in curbing the violent tendancies and complete destruction and demoralization of our society through violence, for many violent acts are committed through dissatisfaction in ones self, and science has proven us that when a person has a full-time job that they succeed at, they are much more satisfied with themselves. Common sense tells us that if a person is at work doing their job, they are not out killing people.
The most important aspect of a Socialist system is to reflect good morals in it's government. If the government is not setting and practicing a prime example of morals in everyday politics, the people will be left to fend for themselves on the moral front, and lose faith in their own government. Government is created to serve it's citizens, not to dominate them, and you cannot impose good morals on anyone, but you can reflect what good morals are in everyday life and everyday politics.
As Conservatives agree, many morals are lost through lack of real family. With a good education, good jobs, and a structure of the work environment that allows parents to be with their children more through early childhood and nurture them into good people and gives them a better schedule to work on, mothers and fathers will not have to work a full-time job and two part-time jobs just to keep their family afloat. How can a family exist anyway if parents don't have the time to see their children or each other? In a new more Socialist and equal society, people would be able to have the time to actually work for peace and equality also, but to establish a true democracy of the proletarian it is necessary to educate them in that society on how a Communist state would be better, then overthrow the Socialist state via a mass revolution organised mainly peacefully by a sincere Communist vangaurd. The first step to fighting the Capitalist system though is, and always will be the education of the Proletarian class. Once the Proletariat are educated, then, and only then can the Capitalist system that promotes inequality, pollution of the mind spirit and envronment, hatred, dishonesty and exploitation so potently be overthrown.
Revolution

WWW.UNITEDSOCIALISTFRONT.COM [20 Apr 2005|02:30pm]

smantie
Extensive updates have been going on at our official website (UnitedSocialistFront.com) and will continue for some time.

For some truth and new ideas, click HERE.
7Welfares| Revolution

U.S. Used Mustard gas, Nerve gas, and Burning Chemicals on Iraqis in Fallujah [29 Mar 2005|07:12pm]

catapillargirl
U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah - Health ministry
An official in Iraq’s health ministry said that the U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah

Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq’s health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli was assigned by the ministry to assess the health conditions in Fallujah following the November assault there.

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.

The health official announced his findings at a news conference in the health ministry building in Baghdad.

The press conference was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper, the U.S. Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli started the conference by reporting the current health conditions of the Fallujah residents. He said that the city is still suffering from the effects of chemical substances and other types of weapons that cause serious diseases over the long term.

Asked whether limited nuclear weapons were also used by U.S. forces in Fallujah, Dr. ash-Shaykhli said; “What I saw during our research in Fallujah leads me to me believe everything that has been said about that battle.

“I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.”

Dr. ash-Shaykhli promised to send the findings of the researches to responsible bodies inside Iraq and abroad.

Fallujah residents said napalm gas was used

During the U.S. offensive, Fallujah residents reported that they saw “melted” bodies in the city, which suggests that U.S. forces used napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt.

In November, Labour MPs in the UK demanded Prime Minister Tony Blair to confront the Commons over the use of napalm gas in Fallujah.

Furious critics have also demanded that Blair threatens the U.S. to pullout British forces from Iraq unless the U.S. stops using the world’s deadliest weapon.

The United Nations banned the use of the napalm gas against civilians in 1980 after pictures of a naked wounded girl in Vietnam shocked the world.

The United States, which didn’t endorse the convention, is the only nation in the world still using the deadly weapon.
Revolution

[25 Mar 2005|07:22pm]

catapillargirl
March 19th 2005Collapse )
Revolution

This is an article i wrote awhile back [08 Mar 2005|07:02pm]

catapillargirl
Freedom, democracy and hypocrisey
By: Kevin Young



What is this country really about? The founding fathers wanted to promote peace & freedom for all its citzens. I personally beleive that you dont just promote freedom and peace for just one country but you promote it for all. but, even so thefounding fathers wanted to promote peace and freedom but Look at what this country has become. This country was never free. no matter how much you argue. 1-4 child live in poverty. Millions of homelss people flow the steerts. Opresssion of minoritys is everywhere. The cost of goods and demands are privately owned so the rich can profit. anyone making under 40,000 dollars has to live pay check to pay check. This country has a history of war in different places. millions of woman and children have did becasue of u.s. imperalism. This country is not a land of freedom or peace it is a land of opression, greed and unjustice, This is a land of hypocrisey. This is a land that says it ended segregation in the 1960's but yet segregates its citzens by class. Leaving the lower and middle class to suffer. The majority of americas anti abortionists support war and the death penalty. Democracy is not what is was supposed to be. I am not for an american democracy becasue i beleive a democracy leaves the minority out. but even so the democracy america claims is nothing more than a dictatorship. Democrats and Repubicans are the same people with different names(Even the green party). This country always talks about freedom of speech and freedom of expression when every single day i personaly see a violation of those rights. One might say to me "Will if u don't like america than move". There are many ways around that comment. First of all one might want to stay and fight agianst the injustice. MLK stood agianst racism and even tho racism will always exist he still changed alot. I believe leaving america would take one more mind out of america. I am not a coward. I will stay in america till i feel i have done my part. I will not however live by standards of society i dont agree with. When i have done my part to help out the less off in the usa i will leave with joy in my eyes. Yes every country has injustices, but in my own personal opininon america has more than brainwashs its citzens into thinking it doesn't. Yes the middle east cut of there citzens hands but not as much as the american media says it does. America kills people legally who kill others. Isnt that the same? in the end i would tell you no matter your belief. Stand up, fight with non violence, do something. becasue if you dont do something this country is going to swim up and bit you in the ass.
2Welfares| Revolution

[01 Mar 2005|05:57pm]

catapillargirl
look at this and than tell me, american invasion is justifyed


who would want to fight for the piece of shit who did this?Collapse )
5Welfares| Revolution

foreign policy [24 Feb 2005|03:42pm]
porgytirebiter
The United States has a very distinct foreign policy. According to our politicians, it is based on the belief that every human being deserves fundamental rights, and spreading democracy and freedom. However, when this issue is more closely examined it comes to light that our international relations are instead governed by pragmatism; what will benefit America in the short term. One can argue that the job of a government is to look after its own citizens. Even if this is the case, the actions of the US government are eroding stability across the world, and in the long run will make the world a more dangerous place for everyone. This can be clearly seen in the US' Middle Eastern Policy.

The US supports the Egyptian government, lead by "president" Mubarak, despite its consistent abuse of its citizens rights. The US has supported the Egyptian government since its freedom from Britain purely because it is secular, as opposed to reflecting the will of the Egyptian people. If Egypt were to hold a free election it is probable that the newly elected president would be a muslim. The US is willing to disregard its ideology of spreading democracy in order to keep a muslim from coming to power. Today, the US gives Egypt 3 billion dollars a year. 1 billion of this is allocated to humanitarian aid and infrastructure. The other two billion are being used to fund the Egyptian military and police forces, with the purpose of keeping the current government in power. An Islamic government may not support our interests, and could end Egypts peace treaty with Israel. However in the long run the US’ foreign policy of supporting Mubarak does not serve the best interest of America. The majority of muslims in Egypt are moderate and support a union of demmocracy and Islam. But every day there are more and more radical muslims in Egypt. They are fed up with not being allowed freedom of speech, or a say in how their government is run. The longer that Egypt possesses an oppressive anti-muslim regimes, the more will Egyptians rebel in disgust of the corruption they see in the secular western world.

A similar situation can be viewed in Saudi Arabia. The US and Saudi Arabia have been allies since the 1920's and the discovery of oil in the Saudi desert. Saudi Arabia is ruled by the house of Saud, a monarchy. It is extremely corrupt and does not allow its citizens basic rights. In an interview with Frontline, prince Bandhar, of the House of Saud, answered "so what" to the charge that the Saudi government wasted $40 billion dollars in corruption on a recent project. In addition more than half of the annual revenue is spent on the military, which is used to prevent a popular revolution. What makes the matter more complicated is the House of Saud's link with the Wahhabi's. Wahabbism is a conservative branch of Islam. They are in charge of education and health care, and even have their own branch of religious police. Religious police are allowed to arrest people for not being a good muslim. Possessing pornography leads to a beheading. The police has a large amount of power due to an elaborate spy network. The Saudi government does not object to this due to the enormous influence and support the Wahhabi's possess.

The question must be asked of why the United States would support a monarchy/theocracy which does not allow its citizens basic rights, and exceedingly corrupt. The answer of course is oil. Saudi Arabia has 25% of the world's oil, more than any other nation. The US is dependent on oil, and thus supports the Saudi government at all costs. If we were to end our support, and the house of Saud were to fall in a popular revolution the US economy would crash. Instead of supporting a government such as this it is necessary to take steps that will ease the US' dependance on Saudi Arabia. This can be done through installing extensive public transportation. Also, through forming relationships with other leading oil producers, such as Canada and Venezuela, and in the long term developing alternative energy. If the US continues to support the House of Saud in return for oil, it will suffer tremendously in the event that Saudi Arabia's oil production is halted, and will be seen as supporting an oppressive government by the Saudi citizens.

In both of these circumstances the US supports autocracies in order to secure its interests. This contradicts the assumption that America supports freedom and democracy across the world. Instead of supporting democracy, the US is guiding its policy as to what will benefit itself. Even by this standard its policy is deficient. We fear the rise of an islamic government in Egypt so we grant Mubarak billions of dollars to be spent on his military; to be used on his own people in case of a popular rebellion. Similarly, the US is supporting a monarchy which denies its citizens rights in Saudi Arabia. It does this in order to secure its oil. The number of radical muslims in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are growing due to the lack of rights, and poverty they see in their country. The US will be linked with these oppressive governments by muslims across the world. Instead of promoting our short term material interests, the US should strive to support the will of the people across the globe, for in the long run this will lead to peace and ease anti US hatred.
3Welfares| Revolution

Capitalism Causes Problems. [22 Feb 2005|04:34pm]

smantie
Capitalism at it's foundation is not necessarily a bad thing. People work and reap the rewards of whatever they achieve without government intervention and it is possible for a poor person to become rich overnight. This sounds like a great thing, all the poor people in the world have the chance to become rich. So what is the problem with Capitalism?

Capitalism perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society and does nothing to correct the wrongs of the world. In Capitalism people can work as hard as they can possibly work for their whole lives, and not get anywhere. With Capitalism the government does not intervene enough, and allows millions upon millions of people every year to get swindled, cheated, and taken advantage of.

The laizes faire style economics that is Capitalism has only caused problems for the world throughout history. This spolicy during the European Industrial Revolution caused plebian citizens to be oppressed, taken advantage of and manipulated to their fullest extent, and allowed child labor and monopolies to run wild, while still not providing for the people basic human needs like sewers, affordable and reasonable housing, healthcare, reasonable working
conditions and hours and fair wages.

Capitalism set the stage for problems of world proportion, be it the conditions it set forth to pave the way into the French Revolution, the Robber Barons or city bosses of 19th century America, or the current war in Iraq. Perhaps the biggest and most global effect seen of Capitalism has been the Great Depression of the 1920's and 30's. The Republican-led government of the United States Of America allowed basic jobs that were necessary to the survival of any state to fall under, and then proceeded not to intervene while monopolies were created and people lost all their life savings. This problem escaleted into a worldwide crisis, and the only country that successfully cured it was Sweden. Sweden adopted a worker-oriented Socialist state (no transition into Communism was envisioned nor will take place) and created jobs for every citizen, making Sweden the most stable and powerful country of the time. The depression crisis across the world was not solved until Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) entered office and began to put more control of the economy in the hands of the government. Only when Roosevelt created goverment programs to work for the people was this crisis successfully on it's way to recovery.

When Bill Clinton was in office again we saw a president who was not afraid to stabilize the economy and send America on to the most economically strengthened state we have ever been. You see, when a government is strong and doing what it was created to do, work for it's citizens, it's people reap the rewards. Under Capitalism people are forced to work multiple part-time jobs one-hundred hours a week and barely struggle to make it through. This means no healthcare, no eight hour work days, no living wages, no weekends off, and no vacations. Sometimes in America we take for granted that we can go on vacations, but think of all the proletarians we are stepping on to do so, think of all the proletarians that cater to us while we are on vacation. They are forced to do slave to people on vacation and pretend as if they are happy because they themselves cannot afford to leave their jobs, for risk of going under.

The system we support is responsible for the very destruction of society. As Americans we find it fitting to take the easiest way out of any given situation. We have the mentality that the goverment cannot push us around, and that we can watch anything, no matter how inappropriate it is on our televisions, and allow our children to watch this too. We have given up our children to televisions and videogames instead of organized sports because it's easier for us, even though sometimes it may cost more. We choose to buy SUV's not because we choose to go out in the wilderness and use them as a sporting utility, but because they seem fashionable. Do you recall when the next big thing in automobile transportation was the minivan? It seems like a long time ago, but in reality it has only been about eight years. Capitalism is not happy with us being happy. Capitalism is greed. Capitalism wants MORE. More money, and nothing else. Capitalism does not care what it gives you, it cares that you give it money. Capitalism brainwashes you into striving only for money. Capitalism wants you to buy that new SUV, because Capitalism does not care about the environmental effects, Capitalism cares that you feed the system of which it perpetuates. Capitalism doesn't care that it's forcing people to live miserable lives. Capitalism does not care that it does not treat people like people. Capitalism does not care that the rich and the poor, although "we hold these truths self evident, that all men are created equal," do not die equal. Capitalism DOES NOT CARE.
8Welfares| Revolution

[16 Feb 2005|11:57am]

smantie
"...Government is best which governs least"
-Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience; 1849

It is not of my nature to believe that it is in a government's devine cause to "govern" it's people. A government's true purpose is to support it's citizens.

Politicians are supposedly said to be "civil servants" but how many truly serve? The great Socialist leader Ernesto 'Che' Guevara spent most of his time after the Cuban revolution actually serving his community. He spent time and effort of his own and organized volunteer brigades to travel through the country and rebuild what was lost and build what was never had. He himself could be seen working alongside common citizens who were also donating their time in an attempt to form a more perfect society. Oftentimes I wonder, "howcome our politicians don't do that?" Why not? What have we wrong with our government that they refuse to provide us with basic human dignities such as healthcare? Why are our politicians afraid to come to work with us? They tell us to better our communities, but do they expect us to do this alone? What is our government expecting from us? When our own congress has more criminal offenses than any other business in America, don't you think it is time for a change? Couldn't congress could benefit from some community service and a hard days work once in their lives?

A government need not govern and herd their people while making no attempt to understand them, a government should simply provide shelter, health, stability and peace to it's people. Why can't we do this?

"...Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
-John Fitzgerald Kennedy

In retaliation to the classic statement, I say all you need do for your country and your community, is to pay your taxes, get the best education you can, live the healthiest life possible, and commit not acts of crime, but acts of which will benefit your fellow man. I say, when our government becomes a real government for the people, the rest will be done for you.
2Welfares| Revolution

I don't quite know what I'm thinking right now. [03 Jan 2005|06:40am]

smantie
The outsourcing of American jobs NEEDS to be stopped. Already we have lost 3-8 MILLION full-time jobs because big businesses find it easier to pay their workers less money overseas. Now, using the logic that a company would make more profit by having workers over there, wouldn't you think those companies should sell their product overseas, where they've created jobs and put money in people's pockets? Wouldn't it make the most sense for a company to sell a product where the consumers have jobs? Why aren't these companies selling their product overseas? They've obviously taken so much effort to make the product there. The reason companies don't want to sell overseas, is overseas they don't pay their workers a living wage, even though many of these workers work more hours a week than Americans do, and these businesses are responsible for numerous workers rights violations that they don't hold themselves credible for.

I'm no expert on business, but wouldn't it make sense to try to sell a product where the consumers have the most money to spend? When you take away that many millions of jobs from consumers and workers, and force them to go unemployed or work part time without benefits, they are not only at the mercy of the bosses and their employers who will pay them nothing more than minimum wage just so they don't dig into their profits to pay them, the also don't have the kind of money that they would to pay for your product.

If we want profits to increase, we need to start paying workers more. When we pay workers from one company more, they go and buy from other companies, allowing those companies to pay more to their workers, whose workers in turn fund more businesses, and the cycle continues. This is just one theoretical road to economic success that we as Americans need to look at. Our country is being overrun by Capitalist business, and not enough people seem to be standing up for their rights. We as workers need to start by overthrowing the idea that we can send American jobs overseas. It is this simple:
IF YOU WANT TO SELL YOUR PRODUCT IN AMERICA, YOU CANNOT OUTSOURCE YOUR JOBS, YOU CANNOT EVADE TAXES, AND YOU CANNOT EXPLOIT YOUR WORKERS.
8Welfares| Revolution

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]