It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why do socialists want to take away the right to own private property?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:31 AM

Originally posted by mental modulator
THIS is buzzword

at the heart of it are the WEALTHIEST Elites who fear they will lose money and influence...

A great way to transfer this fear is to place it in the realm of pride and AMERICANISM -
boobs who jump at the chance of conflict will FIGHT THE UNAMERICAN SOCIALISTS

I think that's the key to it and I've mentioned this elsewhere on ATS in the past. America, like it or not, has a patriot culture unlike any other in the Western world - which is an observation rather than an outright criticism. Americans are generally raised to be very proud of their country, proud of what that country is meant to represent and an 'American dream'. Being American means so much to so many Americans.

But when an alternative or 'alien' ideology confronts Americans, and this ideology is described by authorities as unAmerican (despite any particular merit it might or might not have), it's then, by very definition wrong or maybe even evil. To consider or follow such an ideology then equates with being unAmerican, which is incredibly jarring if to be American is something that's nurtured from the very beginning.

It's actually a master-stroke in psychological programming.

EDIT TO ADD: I've often wondered whether, because of the way most Americans are raised to see their own country, it's why there's often some strange thinking regarding how the English see our country. I've seen some strange things over the years that make me wonder whether some Americans think we have an almost mediaeval relationship to the Royal family.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Merriman Weir]

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Well to tell you the truth, In the US, nobody owns land. Even if you buy it, technically it isn't yours.

If you look at the constitution closely, there is a part that states that you are a tenant, not an owner. The government can take your land at any time for any reasons.

Furthermore, It's actually owned by the Vatican and the UK.

Not to burst anybodie's bubble.

I'll try and find the paper I read about it and post it up here.


PS: Owning land is stupid anyway, it belongs to all of us.

Not exactly true. Ever hear of Allodial Title, or Land Patents?

Two states, Nevada and Texas, have created limited allodial title provisions in order to protect property owners from the burden of highly increased property taxes which often occur when unincorporated land becomes part of a town or city. However, the Nevada Legislature in 2005 prohibited applications by property owners for allodial title after June 13, 2005.

Nevada allows persons who own and live in single family residences to obtain allodial title on land they own if the land is free of mortgage and tax arrears. Allodial title cannot, in theory, be legally taken away against the will of the owner. However, an allodial owner can contractually give up allodial ownership and that allodial ownership can be restored or sold or passed on to a single heir. Allodial title cannot be taken away by fraud, only by legitimate contract.

Some research links:


Land Patents - Understanding how they work

Steps to secure a Land Patent:

Follow up on Allodial Title in Nevada And Mortgages

TPTB do not want land owners to know this. This is why land values have been artificially pushed up so high in recent years, so that you, the home owner, owes lots of fiat money on your property, and it is ripe for seizure at any time the mortgage company sees fit to call in the loan.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:44 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
What socialists mean by 'private ownership' is the private ownership of the 'means of production', land, machinery, factories etc. It does not mean your personal property.

If you cannot own land then you cannot own a house.

If you cannot own a house then you are perpetually at the whim of others.

That is incorrect, a HUGE misconception. Socialism does not require government. Socialism has been historically anti-government and anti-state.

Socialism is an economic system, not a political one, all it requires is the 'means of production' be in the hands of us all and not private entities. No government is required to do this.

Excellent. So you chaps can go and run your cooperatives, and leave us capitalist pigs to run ours alongside yours right? That way there's no need for a red revolution to create a dictatorial socialist state.

I would just love to enter into competition against a socialist company... I would rip it to shreds in the marketplace. Look at the co-op vs tesco... one's socialist, the other is capitalist. The co-op has been around for almost a hundred years and yet its infinitessimally smaller than tesco.

Socialism will never work as well as capitalism. We'll all be equal, but equally poor.

Socialism will never work on a de-centralised stage. Without a dictatorial government to control and command the market, individual socialist cooperatives would be torn asunder by capitalist entities.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:24 AM
The most recent instances of government seizure of property that became nationally known and caused quite an uproar when land was seized through the use of eminent domain in 2005 in New London, CT.

Somewhat rundown inner city properties were seized from poorer owners and given to PRIVATE companies for land development projects. The owners did not want to sell.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1], was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.[1]

High Court Expands Reach of Eminent Domain

WASHINGTON — Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court (search) ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Site monitoring use of Eminent Domain:

[edit on 10-3-2009 by elfie]

[edit on 10-3-2009 by elfie]

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:13 AM
I swear some of you post threads without a single clue as to what you are talking about.

Modern socialism does not advocate the taking away of personal property though it does offer a critism of it:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation....

...According to Adam Smith, the expectation of profit from "improving one's stock of capital" rests on private property rights. It is a belief central to capitalism that property rights encourage the property holders to develop the property, generate wealth, and efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of the market. From this evolved the modern conception of property as a right which is enforced by positive law, in the expectation that this would produce more wealth and better standards of living.

Classical liberals, Objectivists, and related traditions
"Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property." (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)

Most thinkers from these traditions subscribe to the labor theory of property. They hold that you own your own life, and it follows that you must own the products of that life, and that those products can be traded in free exchange with others.

"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself." (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government)
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (Frédéric Bastiat, The Law)

"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government)
Socialism's fundamental principles are centered on a critique of this concept, stating, among other things, that the cost of defending property is higher than the returns from private property ownership, and that even when property rights encourage the property-holder to develop his property, generate wealth, etc., he will only do so for his own benefit, which may not coincide with the benefit of other people or society at large.
Libertarian socialism generally accepts property rights, but with a short abandonment time period. In other words, a person must make (more or less) continuous use of the item or else he loses ownership rights. This is usually referred to as "possession property" or "usufruct." Thus, in this usufruct system, absentee ownership is illegitimate, and workers own the machines they work with.

Communism argues that only collective ownership of the means of production through a polity (though not necessarily a state) will assure the minimization of unequal or unjust outcomes and the maximization of benefits, and that therefore private property (which in communist theory is limited to capital) should be abolished.

Look at most of the 1st tier nations... the vast majority combine some sort of socialism with a classic democratic capitalism.

Of course none of you will pay the least attention to this... you are too contented to deny your own ignorance.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by grover

I was pointing out how the most nationally renown instances here in the US resulted in the seizure from one private party going to another private party which in no way reflects socialism. It is more akin to capitalism gone haywire.

I agree that our system already employs a mix of socialism and capitalism.

We already have a nationalized educational system that is still quite good. Other programs include social security, medicare and medicaid.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:03 AM
SAocialists do not want to take away private property.

Essential industries should either be socialized or regulated in such a manner to eliminate explotation for profit or other gains. Water, basic food staples, roads, education, health care, energy, basic telecom, etc. If you need to have it, steps need to be taken to ensure that you are not being gouged only for the sake of increased profits. That doesn't mean that you aren't free to go out into the market and pay for your own services. However, once a system like this is instituted, nobody ever chooses to go to the profit gouging market.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:12 AM
So many replies, so much ignorance to deny...

First off, the OP is correct; there is a war against personal property rights being waged in the US. It's not new; it has been waged for several decades now. On the front lines are permissible uses of adjacent property to 'maintain property values', Eminent Domain laws which have recently been broadened to the point of being tyrannical, and building codes, especially in the more urban subdivisions. These codes go so far as to state whether or not you can have certain services (such as satellite TV) on your property and how long your garage door can remain open.

Property was established in order to maintain the capitalistic economy. This is not a bad thing. Capitalism may have its faults, but without capitalism there would be none of the modern conveniences we enjoy. Without a profit motive, Bill Gates would not have developed a universal operating system for the Intel microchip. Without a profit motive, Intel would not have developed the microchip. Without a profit motive, Henry Ford would not have created the assembly line for autos and only the very wealthy would have a car today. Without a profit motive, there would be no TV, no telephone (much less cellular phones), no radio, no refrigerators and electric stoves, no pre-packaged food, no restaurants, no cameras, no soft drinks, none of the things we all take for granted.

Humans are inherently lazy. On my days off, I have this terrible urge to lay on my couch watching TV, typing on this keyboard, drinking Mountain Dews, and smoking my cigarettes. I wouldn't hit a lick at a snake if I allowed my natural impulses to control me. A need to make money to buy those things I want (and need) is the motivating factor that makes me get off my lazy gluteous maximux and do something. That means I won't be doing things that do not profit me in some way.

Now before someone mentions charity work, it does profit me to perform it. I profit from the interaction with other people and a good feeling inside that I helped someone. Not everything can have a bar-coded price tag.

I am slowly building my house. Now, would someone please explain to me why I would do that if I had no legal right to keep the land it is built on? Why would I spend years of free time and tons of hard-earned cash to build something that someone else could just walk up and start using in my place? That would be really, really stupid! But I can build my house because I own the land, and I have an assurance that my children will own it after I am gone. Therefore, it is not so stupid to put work and cash into something I have assurance will benefit me.

Even more so, if I wanted to make cars, why would I spend millions and millions of dollars on building a factory and staffing it if someone else could show up at any time and just decide they wanted to use it? The answer is, I wouldn't. Neither would you, neither would anybody else. Humans simply don't work that way. As proof, look at our leaders. They sit and make decisions as to what others will be forced to do (laws) without a care in the world, because these decisions do not affect them.

As I stated earlier, capitalism is not perfect; far from it. But it forms the most perfect basis for an economy we are capable of implementing on a large scale. A touch of socialism is definitely needed IMHO. Socialism is nothing more than forced care for those who are unfortunate enough to not have the advantages capitalism offers. Anyone can be laid off through no fault of their own. Anyone can be stricken with an illness above and beyond their ability to pay. Anyone can be struck by a disaster. It behooves us as a nation to aid those who have experienced less than success to get back on their feet.

The question is not which is best, capitalism or socialism. Rather it is a question of whether we are dissatisfied with the advances made since 1776. If so, we would wish to change to a different economic system. If not, if we believe we have advanced since 1776, it is ludicrous to state that we need a completely different economic system. That would be akin to saying "I didn't get run over today while I stayed on the sidewalk. I like that, so now I'll go and dance in the middle of traffic."

The question then becomes, if we agree that capitalism has advanced our society, on how much socialism is needed. That is a question open to full debate. But to ask whether or not property ownership is a good thing for our country? Nah, sounds like someone who wants more than they have and isn't willing to do what it takes to have what they want. They'd rather just get what they want without having to do anything for it, and the heck with the economy, the country, the society, and anyone else.

Greed. Capitalism works off it, socialism works for it.


posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:41 AM
Anok is right on the point, speaking of an ideal socialism, that would be governmentless, id est ANARCHISM. That's not however the problem questionned by the OP.

Still, many countries are running on a partially socialist model, France beeing one of it, and maybe the most efficient, economically as well as socially.

While France and USA partake in many common political parameters, it seems that the idea of the State deeply differs - in theory as well as in facts.

In France, the State is equally perceived by right or leftwing politicians as the first garantee of the people - ie the citizen's - liberty. Also an american could see France as a leftish state, all well considered.

It's now viewed as a basis of french citizenship to :

1 - Get thousand of euros when you have babies
2 - Get half or third of your salary for MONTHES when fired or lose your job for any reason - just need to have worked... 6 monthes !
3 - Can not work at all and get the RMI : Revenu Minimum d'Insertion or Minimal Income for Insertion, which is about 500 euros, so half of the SMIC, this one be the Minimal Wage per Hour, the same for any professional activity, about 1000 euros - per 35h/week - for one month.
4 - Free HealthCare for All (since several yrs) : CMU, Couverture MAladie Universelle, or Universal Disease Cover : anybody has free access to high-tech healthcare (yeah, you read well).
5 - Right of Strike
6 - Powerfull Unions defending the workers rights and interests (but NOT in a lobbyst way, except for the MEDEF, he Unions of... Capitalists Owners)
7. Prudhommes : A Juridical court that deals with workers/boss cases, most of time in benefice of the worker.
8 - Pension : You give money to the State through a tax through your life and get money (like the third of you salary) from your 60's anniversary to the end of your life.

Sounds bad ? Not to me...

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Rigel]

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:48 AM
Let's add that France is the 5th economy of the world, the fourth or fivth Army, and one of the very few Space Power of this planet.


On the US end, maybe the bigger problem is indeedly the form of the Federal Gov and the hidden forces (Mil-Indus, Pharmas, Chemicals etc) pressuring it. Not anymore a Citizen's Republic in this extent...

The recent secessionist moves on the behalf of many States in the US could maybe lead to some more independant societal experimentations, and the possibilities of developing has many local system that the american people wishes, consciously or not, to experiment... I don't know..

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:53 AM
This said about the Fed Gov, on the other end of the political-thinking prism, I still think ( in a maybe Obamanian way... which gives ground to the OP, perhaps...?
) that if a strong move must be done toward a more EQUAL AMERICAN SOCIETY, then a WELL-LEADED GOV REFORM AND A SERIE OF FEDERAL MOVES could quickly lead to some... French-Inspired Policies, that would benefit you all, american citizens.

I mean specially around the Health system, and maybe, who know, many more revolutionary measures... Like developping a green, sustainable, moneymaking hemp+solar+bio industry presented as a whole New Deal...

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:34 PM

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I would just love to enter into competition against a socialist company... I would rip it to shreds in the marketplace.

Many companies in the USA should consider themselves lucky if they were as half effective as US postal service is

Why is our version of capitalism in crises lately, you know, the one we are trying to promote, apply and impose on others throughout the world? What do you think ?

No, we are not the best country in the world, it cannot be, not because we say so. Our society will evolve no matter do some like it or not, if it does not happen sooner, we will FALL and then it will happen later, through the means nobody really likes, like civil war, for example

(warning about video: BAD language used, if the word poop makes you CRY, do not click on it please)

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:53 PM
ANARCHISM is the ultimate goal of every economic and political system, even as a veiled one, if not wildly Not-Conscious...

However, the State CAN lead to such a system, progressively, and PRECISELY through a bigger role played on the most practical segment of the market, ie Health (and/or social rights, garantees and insurances) AND Food.

Food : Throughout all modern nations, the States should launch a GENERIC STATE FOOD BRAND, which would be available at its COST OF PRODUCTION and DISTRIBUTION and free of all taxes excepted a small pluvalue made on the price for the State+Producer can make a minimum money from the deal - but far less than what a private corp would have taken on the same product.

Such a Brand, maybe like those "Blank Brands" you find in big supermarkets (at least in Europe) offering almost the same quality than big "trade-marks", that could finally cover all kind of product from bread to processed food to cars and houses, would boost the economy (and NOT mash it) as such a COMPETITIVE FACTOR would act in a sense of a greater fairness and greater economic (and social for political reasons) efficiency by the privates corporations running against, if not along, such a NATIONAL PRODUCT COMPANY.

And it's rather useless to dig further into the benefits the average US citizen would gain from such a national-runned sub-structural-economy.

Edit :

Keeping in mind that producing all kind of goods under a nation-owned industry would lead to :

1 - the development of a brand-new RIGHTS STANDARD for the working citizen (right of strike, work-insurance etc)
2 - the creation of HUNDERD OF THOUSAND JOBS trhoughout the countries
3 - offer all citizen a cheap access to basic goods, also boosting the economy from within in a synergetic fashion that would benefit the common citizen as well as the national (Statish) as well as federal (us-wide) economy
4 - Give space for Social concertation, permitted by the HUGE INCOMES the STATE WOULD COLLECT from its new cheap production releasing, and the establishment within US, on a federal level, of a real HEALTHCARE & PENSION system that currently cruelly, totally lack in the XXIth century United States...

Revolution, anyone ? ...

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Rigel]

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Rigel]

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:45 PM

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
If you cannot own land then you cannot own a house.

If you are using a piece of land and live on it then that land is yours under common land ownership. The only land that you cannot claim a right to is land that is not being used.

Excellent. So you chaps can go and run your cooperatives, and leave us capitalist pigs to run ours alongside yours right? That way there's no need for a red revolution to create a dictatorial socialist state.

There is no such thing as a dictatorial socialism. A dictatorship is not socialist it's totalitarianism. Socialism requires no state.

Yes you can continue to be capitalist if you want, but who would allow themselves to be exploited by you if they don't have to? It's the state set up by the PTB, using their wealth created by exploiting the less fortunate, that allows you to exploit people for personal gain. Without the state we have now no one will be coerced into working for you.

I would just love to enter into competition against a socialist company... I would rip it to shreds in the marketplace. Look at the co-op vs tesco... one's socialist, the other is capitalist. The co-op has been around for almost a hundred years and yet its infinitessimally smaller than tesco.

You only see things as competitive, in a socialist system the emphasis will be on cooperation. You can't compare a coop with a capitalist company. The coop is bound to fail against a capitalist company while operating in a capitalist system. Take away capitalism, and competition, then the coops will function just fine to supply what we need. Socialism is not about making private individuals wealthy, it's about fairly sharing the resources we have with us all.

Socialism will never work as well as capitalism. We'll all be equal, but equally poor.

This is a myth. There are enough resources to feed and house everyone, it's capitalism that keeps these resources artificially scars to keep prices high.

Socialism will never work on a de-centralised stage. Without a dictatorial government to control and command the market, individual socialist cooperatives would be torn asunder by capitalist entities.

And capitalism is working? Take a look at what it has done to Africa, India etc., through the capitalist exploitation of the British Empire. Look at what is going on in the Middle East now, do you really think it's about religion? You admit we are in a dictatorship, I thought socialism was the dictatorship?

Capitalists can only function with our consent. If workers refused to work for you, or use your banks, or fight your wars for economic monopolies, then your capitalism will get you nowhere. You will no longer be able to coerce and exploit people who refuse to be exploited. Instead of making your living off of others labour, you yourself will have to contribute to the society you live in, instead of just taking from it.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I don't understand this.

Socialists argue for the abolition of property rights.

Yet I hardly see any socialists being a nonmaterialist themselves.

I think it's an inherent contradiction with their idealism and the reality. They want to take all that private property for themselves.

Didn't you know? Some pigs are more equal than others.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:52 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
If you cannot own land then you cannot own a house.

This is a myth. There are enough resources to feed and house everyone, it's capitalism that keeps these resources artificially scars to keep prices high.

So true.

Dear American Earthling grown up into the Cult of Salvage Capitalism, please have a look to :

Charles Fourier
Joseph Proudhon
Michel Bakounine
Prince Kropotkine
Rosa Luxemburg (assassinated 1919)
Karl Liebknecht (assassinated 1919)
Jacques Ellul
Gilles Deleuze

Yall be amazed !

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:57 PM

Originally posted by elfie
We already have a nationalized educational system that is still quite good. Other programs include social security, medicare and medicaid.

This is another classic misconception.

Nationalism is NOT socialism.

Socialism...The workers ownership/control of the means of production and distribution. (yet to happen in ANY country).

Nationalism...The government ownership/control of the...(almost ALL countries have nationalised systems).

Social security, medicare etc., is not socialism. 'Social programs' are a product of capitalism because capitalism requires a poverty class, and what are we to do with that class of people, let them starve? The armchair capitalists probably says yes, because they don't fully understand the system they blindly support.

Edit; BTW this thread is not about the merits of socialism, it was about what socialists mean by 'property', and I answered that question.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by ANOK]

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:00 PM
Lets add for good measure :

Thomas More
W.F. Leibniz
Immanuel Kant
Hegel (spiritual side)
Marx of course in his ultimate goals
Victor Hugo (born royalist dead socialist)
Max Stirner
Hannah Arendt
Simone Weil
Jean-Paul Sartre
Michel Foucault


... Feel free to complete this faery list of Revolutionary Socio-Anarchists who established all the bases needed for a real, fraternal, equalitarian, but also joyous and festive society, founded upon the idea of the glory of humankind, which means EVERY ONE, and not those of "the-better-the-force-and-skills, the-best-the-gain-&-fortune-to-increase-such-a- (ethically doubtful ?)- dynamic...

Time to read again what Anarchism, Communalism (slightly diff. from theorical communism, and totally from the Bolcheviky one...), and other LEFT-WING LIBERTARIANISM (ie Far-Left Anarchism) truly means and supposes...

Never too late, right ?

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Rigel]

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by Rigel

Emma Goldman
Joe Hill (my avi, he wrote 'Casey Jones' a pro union song)
Alexander Berkman
Paul Goodman
Big Bill Haywood
Henry David Thoreau
George Woodcock
Sam Dolgoff
Mother Jones

All had some effect on American labour and politics...

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by ANOK

Without subscribing to hard-core Marxism, it's not bad, in the current societies, to develop such a system, - whatever the logic you put behind this kind of socio-politic trend.

When, like in France, you develop such a "Socialy Secured" citizenship where the public representation of the people gives you all you need to have a basic, decent life, well the words "Nation", "Citizenship" or "Society" perhaps get some more crucial meaning as everyone's rather happy to benefit from the community...

In such a system, the State as such tends to become more and more the practical property of any and all Citizens, as long as all the 'socio-political structure' is fully aimed at SERVING the citizen as such (ie the Clé-de-Voûte of the entire "system").

If you push the process to its ends, you could see - amusingly, i guess - a society where the POLITICAL REPRESENTATIONS tends to... simply DISAPPEAR by itself...

I mean on the long run, you'll find out that any public intervention would dissapear as such by itself if, and when, the people will have reconquered what the power really stands for, - finally the Citizen's own voice* and rights to do what is right for him a much as one does not threats any other citizen's well-being (Anarchist motto that resume the entire ethic answer by anarcho-libertarians thinkers).

* Power and Pollitic Representations could be conceived much more as a "Common-Denominator" [english?] to Every Citizen than the SUM OF every citizen's voice. What the Anarchists, here again, clearly promote.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Rigel

Emma Goldman
Joe Hill (my avi, he wrote 'Casey Jones' a pro union song)
Alexander Berkman
Paul Goodman
Big Bill Haywood
Henry David Thoreau
George Woodcock
Sam Dolgoff
Mother Jones

All had some effect on American labour and politics...

Thanks for this ! - mostly never heard of...

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Rigel]

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Rigel]

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in