The Anti TPTB Leftists of LA.

Now I know many of you guys are anti TPTB conservatives with some liberals, I would like to write about the anti TPTB leftists in LA.

First off, many of them have very diverse views. Many of them are moderate left, Socialists, Anarchists and Communists.

I’m more of a Conservative Democrat in case you’re wondering.

Many of them like you are not fans of the Globalists.

During the 1980s and 1990s, many of them were victims of neoliberalism when factories in LA were shipped overseas and lost their jobs as a result. This causes them to hate the Globalists as a result.

They are not fans of war criminals such as Henry Kissinger. Many of them are anti Imperialist and would naturally hate men like him.

They opposed wars like the Vietnam war and Iraqi War and see them as unjust wars.

They tend not like both establishment Democrats and Republicans.

They don't like Hillary Clinton and saw her as a collaborator of the TPTB.

They are also no fan of Hollyweird and the so called establishment media.

Many of them don’t support Antifa.

They tend to be working class and many of them are minorities with a few whites

They are not fans of the Liberal Coastal Elites. They saw them as oppressors.

However, despite some common viewpoints they have very radical views of how the way things go.

They are not fans of the Founding Fathers and the US institutions. Many of them see the system as inherently racist and seek to replace it with a socialist, communist, social democratic, or anarchic system.

They mistrust Trump and see him as a collaborator for the TPTB.

They are no fans of the Soviet Union (and by extension North Korea) though. Instead they look up to Communists like Salvador Allende and Thomas Sankara. Allende was admired because he saw both the Soviet Union and the US as oppressive empires. Sankara is admired because he helped improved his nation Burkina Faso by giving equal rights to women and becoming self-efficient in agriculture. For that, he was assassinated by the French.

Here I'll give you a video of Thomas Sankara:



They tend to admire anticolonial left wing struggles in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Many of them do not trust white conservatives especially those of the Mid West and the South. Many of them see those places as the land of the KKK and white supremacy. In fact, they get very uncomfortable with the Confederate Flag.

I had one anti TPTB leftist professor tell me as an Asian, the only conservative areas I am safe in is Utah, Idaho, and other Western States.

The reason they think they want a collectivist society is because they see others whom they hate with more and they think a collectivized system will take that away (giving them revenge) and give them some of it.

Of course, for people who don't trust government, they miss the astonishing whole in their desire. A collectivized society depends on an all-powerful centralized governance system to oversee the administration of all that stuff ... you know, to make sure it's all "fair."

I have a very strong allergy to that.

But essentially, you confirm that many are really not much better than the people in SA who are expropriating land without any compensating and would love to do the same here if they thought they could get away with it.

a reply to: ketsuko

What's your proposal for changing the system? I have to admit while I know some people here want a revolution with the people against the TPTB, the problem is what happens after.

Far too many people see things differently and that might lead to conflict.

While sure there may be some anti TPTB leftists like the Conservative Democrats that don't mind the restoration of the Republic albeit with drastic changes, the problem is the more radical elements.

That's why I fear a revolution because it might devolve in a multi sided civil war between various factions.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

That was why we were intended to have a Federalist system where your state government mattered more than the Federal one.

The Feds were mostly supposed to make sure no state went to war on another or took undue advantage while also making sure no one went to war on all of us.

If a state wanted to create a more or less socialized "utopia," they mostly could absent violating the COTUS's protections of private property. Cali is actually about as close as we get right now. That they don't like it speaks volumes about how effective the full measure would actually be.

But I digress, a state could socialize within the bounds of COTUS while its neighbor did not. I could be completely free not to live in your social mess but anyone who felt they wanted such a thing could certainly move there.

The Republic was supposed to protect the differences of the nation so that none of those people had to come experience my "hateful" place (rolleyes), and I could live out here and keep the money I earn rather than having most of it taxed out from under me to pay for everyone else before I can maybe do something nice for my own family ... like help out my own relatives for a change.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

I hate to reply as I am anti-group I prefer to consider each person as one entity not a function of their various "groups".

Yes, I know I am alone in the wilderness on this one.

However, maybe you need to introduce a history book to some of your friends. Highlight the many points in history where a society has been at this point or worse. They can view the various approaches and their outcomes. While we have problems, the blueprint has provided a pretty sturdy framework. It is robust and can adapt to change well.

Forgive me, are your friends/acquaintances/etc. believers in the "History of Now?" If so the above won't work. What happened in the past has no bearing on events today. I can see where all these great ideas would appeal to those of this mindset.

Sorry if I not much help.

a reply to: ABNARTY

Oh, believe me, I believe in the smallest minority - the minority of one - myself.

Grow up a talented kid, and you learn it. Get into a enough group projects, and you learn it. The group either doesn't listen to your ideas because they don't understand them or they're too hard/too much work or they ride on your coattails. You pretty quickly learn to dislike group work.

Become an athlete and you learn that the most success goes to those who work hardest, but even then, there are some who bust their @sses who will never be much better than mediocre. We're all different people and some people are not as good at some things than others.

Attempting to create a society based on the myth of equal outcomes like socialism does basically hamstrings the best of us in order to make the worst of us feel better about themselves.

a reply to: ketsuko

Who decides what the equal outcomes are?

When a fan of socialism or communism or whatever can tell me that with a straight face, maybe a discussion can follow.

a reply to: ABNARTY

Sadly, they always forget to account for greed.

It may start out nice and even, fair to the point of tears. Eventually tho, someone who is greedy or gets pressured to make things not quite so fair tips things. At that point, even barely noticeable, the house of cards is on its road to collapse.

"Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money." is a very true statement. Look at Venezuela, the people ran out of money to be taxed, and the whole house of cards is now crumbling because the government wasn't wise and got greedy.

As much as people wish it could be true, the idea of fairness exists only in our actions, and decisions. Nowhere else will you find things being fair.

About as fair as you can get is a flat tax, across the board of everything.
Use part of that tax collected to fund education.

That would put everyone on as fair a playing field as you can get, educated and equally taxed.

a reply to: Cygnis

Great points.

I wish I could remember where I read something similar. Just paraphrasing: no matter what system you want to use (socialism, communism, democracy, etc.), in the end the same type of characters end up on top. Once they are in power, the details of the system are meaningless. They were simply a vehicle to reach a desired state. That state has no connection to the vehicle.

Obviously, it sounded better from whomever wrote it.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: Cygnis

Great points.

I wish I could remember where I read something similar. Just paraphrasing: no matter what system you want to use (socialism, communism, democracy, etc.), in the end the same type of characters end up on top. Once they are in power, the details of the system are meaningless. They were simply a vehicle to reach a desired state. That state has no connection to the vehicle.

Obviously, it sounded better from whomever wrote it.

How about this one?
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin.

Your statement is also true, and I also forget who said it. It holds true as well. Greedy, Narcissistic, power-hungry controlling types end up in the positions.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, no, collectivists (communists/socialists) etc call for the abolishment of the state and government, the abolishment of money, class and hierarchies, a direct horizontally consensus style of "voting" or deciding things for the communities/communes, the means of productions controlled by the workers etc

there are also different ideologies involved around the basic idea of communism

it is not so much about "revenge" for them, but creating a new egalitarian style of living

communists and anarchists don't get along for many reasons

a reply to: starwarsisreal

Follow the Money.
Follow the Money.

S&F

a reply to: XAnarchistX

It satisfies that need for revenge and it satisfies that greed.

Abolition of property rights in order to create your egalitarian society would take what others have that they don't -- If I can't have it, neither will you! That is always the ugly little secret hiding underneath that motivates a lot of this.

If you can't keep up with the Joneses, you'll make sure the Joneses can never get ahead by making it illegal.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: ketsuko

Well, no, collectivists (communists/socialists) etc call for the abolishment of the state and government, the abolishment of money, class and hierarchies, a direct horizontally consensus style of "voting" or deciding things for the communities/communes, the means of productions controlled by the workers etc

there are also different ideologies involved around the basic idea of communism

it is not so much about "revenge" for them, but creating a new egalitarian style of living

communists and anarchists don't get along for many reasons

Canadian cities had what was known as "cooperative housing". There wasn't any publicly traded corporation or for profit management agency running the complex. Instead residents joined committees that were responsible for a particular aspect of management; cable/satellite TV franchises, new resident approvals, maintenance, complaints etc... The upside is lower rents; the downside is that everything would take weeks if not months to get done, and many residents would try and take maintenance contracts from certified professionals/agencies and hand them over to their relatives.

a reply to: ketsuko

Again, this is not true, blatant Americanised propaganda.

it is not about taking away from one to give to another, it is to abolish the hierarchies and the monetary systems to create an egalitarian "community". it is not worshipping state and government authority or worshipping the monetary system, assigning value by class and social-capital etc it is not about "being ahead" or "above" or the ownership over anyone

this "take from me" is just spooky propaganda

They sound like some really angry, misguided folks. Thanks for the warning I will be watching more closely.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: ketsuko

Again, this is not true, blatant Americanised propaganda.

it is not about taking away from one to give to another, it is to abolish the hierarchies and the monetary systems to create an egalitarian "community". it is not worshipping state and government authority or worshipping the monetary system, assigning value by class and social-capital etc it is not about "being ahead" or "above" or the ownership over anyone

this "take from me" is just spooky propaganda

Yes, you take from those who currently have them so that no one has them. It makes everyone feel better to think no one is better than them. Please continue to tell yourself whatever lie you want, but the motivation is plain as day. You don't have and you want and you think that if no one else has then everyone will have.

It never works out that way though because humans are who and what they are.

If communism worked as advertised, the Soviet Union would be flourishing right now, but human nature spoils it. If communism worked, the Israeli kibbutz system would be flourishing. If communism worked, groups of US citizens would be establishing their own communes inside the structure of the US (yes, nothing really prevents it) and flourishing.

That none of these things is happening should be a good clue. Instead, people fight to destroy the system to force everyone into it. Why? They're greedy and hate what others have that they don't, not because they want to build a sharing, pastoral, lovey-dovey commune for themselves.

a reply to: ketsuko

You seem to think everyone is as materialistic as yourself. That people look at others who have things they don’t and are automatically jealous somehow. Not everyone thinks that way, some people enjoy the simple things in life and view keeping up with the Jones as a huge waste of time an effort. Material things are just clutter once your basic needs are met.

On the other hand you express this idea that others hold you back somehow, that your better than others in some way and thus more deserving. Well we are all different with different strengths and weaknesses but no man is an island. You depend on the efforts of others for almost everything. If you consider this “group” you mentioned as humanity as whole, where do you think you’d be exactly without it?

a reply to: ketsuko

(First I am not a communist)

Second

No, it doesn't "take anything" it abolishes the authoritarian idea that paper has "value" or "inherent value" it abolishes the monetary system, it doesn't take away your house or your "stuff" it just abolishes the State/Government control, and abolishes the Monetary value system, it takes away the "theft" from bosses and companies/corporations by having slaves work for them to make profit while they under pay the workers and gives the "workers the control of the means of production" which means they would essentially work for themselves.

Representative "Democracy" would be a consensus horizontal "direct democracy" where the community/communes would as a consensus agreement on things etc


no-one would be coming to take all your "possessions" no-one would limit the food or supplies you could get or require, again that is Americanised propaganda coming from the Red Scare, understand that if "Communism" would be accepted the Democrats/Republicans... all political parties would be abolished, there would be no "dictator" or monarch, or "leader"


Yes, I have said many times that the "communism" Russia, Cuba, China Etc was state-communism, or really state-socialism, Stalin, Lenin, Mao etc were all communist dictators, they used the transitional period of " vanguard party socialism" and created a dictatorship, "communism" calls for the ABOLISHMENT OF STATE/GOVERNMENT ie: 'Dictators"

they utilised a concept to create and install a dictatorship of state-socialism

a reply to: ketsuko

Part of the reason why many anti TPTB leftists are attracted to Communism and Socialism is because they are burned out by Capitalism. From their point of view they see capitalism as a problem because it spawns neo-liberalism and other destructive ideas.

Also many Anti-TPTB leftist working class minorities saw Capitalism as inherently racist and are connected historically with Colonialism.

It's very hard to understand them unless you live with them.

A lot of their views were shaped by the legacy of racist policies in our society. I'm not saying all white people are racist like some of them are saying but the ghettoes and war on drugs were fallouts of the previous generations racist policies.

Problem is many people and organizations do benefit from the impoverishment of minorities like the prison industries which is why to do this day, the TPTB still retain many of those policies. Hillary Clinton is one of those beneficiaries.