I filmed the massive 250,000 people protest in London yesterday

a reply to: JeanPaul

I wasn't advocating Bolshevik path. By the way according to traditional Marxism the revolution should be started in the most advanced capitalist country. Lenin was criticized for his attempt to force it on Russia. Anyway, all this class divisions from orthodox Marxism were false or at least they are outdated and not so rigid as with the old theory. Lenin's plan wasn't about technocrat ruling, but "proletariat". If USSR could evolve into technocrat ruling it would be another story. You need to realize how backward was Russia in 1917, it was 90% agrarian low productive country with literacy about 20% (simple reading skills)

When the Bolshevik Party came to power in 1917, they faced a crumbling empire infamous for its perceived backwardness and poor education system. In 1917, within the remaining Tsarist territories, an estimated 37.9% of the male population above seven years old was literate and only 12.5% of the female population was literate
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: JeanPaul

Yeah, that's right. Here, pay attention Jean. Some immigrants are fine, but let's use a little common sense now shall we?

No one single nation can shoulder the World's less fortunate without it having an effect on its economy and standard of living.

The same thing is happening over here in the USA, there are only so many jobs that can be created.

Are you having a difficult time comprehending the reality of that fact my friend? Is it easier for you to pretend that the sky is purple?

Hey if it makes you feeeeeel good, then everything must be just peachy eh? LMAO! You guys will never learn that you cannot save the World. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: SheopleNation

That's alright, as long as I can have forty acres and a mule. A local market, and a milking goat.

a reply to: anonentity

Well over in The United Kingdom there is not enough land to give that to every single person even if they want to my friend, but I respect that you want to live that way.

Here in the United States though, one thing that we are not short of is land.

I do have a heart though, So putting the lazy immigration enforcement issue aside, a place to call home is the biggest problem and bloodsucker of humanity.

I am no socialist, but the cost of real estate is an absolute joke in the more advanced Nations, including many Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and China ect.

I know the Aussies here have made their reality in that department crystal clear too. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: JeanPaul

Yeah, that's right. Here, pay attention Jean. Some immigrants are fine, but let's use a little common sense now shall we?

No one single nation can shoulder the World's less fortunate without it having an effect on its economy and standard of living.

The same thing is happening over here in the USA, there are only so many jobs that can be created.

Are you having a difficult time comprehending the reality of that fact my friend? Is it easier for you to pretend that the sky is purple?

Hey if it makes you feeeeeel good, then everything must be just peachy eh? LMAO! You guys will never learn that you cannot save the World. ~$heopleNation

It's not the immigrants fault. Take NAFTA for example, a massive influx of South Americans began to come to the USA after NAFTA dispossessed millions in Mexico's countrysides. Before NAFTA they were self sufficient rural communities and farmers. People with free access to the land. NAFTA took away millions of peoples ability to survive so they had no choice but to migrate north. NAFTA didn't give the millions of dispossessed Mexicans enough jobs after they were dispossessed. They supposedly assumed farmers would find new work in Mexico after massive agricultural corporations bought up the land from the government and began growing corn, strawberries, wheat etc. It uprooted the countryside:

www.truth-out.org...

Then, the USG keeps immigration "illegal" so (illegal) construction, farm and others service sector workers in the US can't organize. It's just another scam to put downward pressure on wages. For everyone, US citizens included.

Another example, right now, on the tail end of the biggest crisis since the great depression, at a time of ongoing high unemployment, large construction firms in the US are saying they can't find any workers to fill positions in the building trades. This is a nonsensical lie. It's a signal for the USG to lax restrictions at the border, because wages will "get too high" for American construction workers if they don't:

www.epi.org...

They don't want to actually PAY American workers good wages. The flow of immigrants from Mexico is all about placing downward pressure on wages in the USA. The conditions created in Mexico by "free trade" deals such as NAFTA were/are appalling. This process has repeated in many "developing" countries.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: JeanPaul

I wasn't advocating Bolshevik path. By the way according to traditional Marxism the revolution should be started in the most advanced capitalist country. Lenin was criticized for his attempt to force it on Russia. Anyway, all this class divisions from orthodox Marxism were false or at least they are outdated and not so rigid as with the old theory. Lenin's plan wasn't about technocrat ruling, but "proletariat". If USSR could evolve into technocrat ruling it would be another story. You need to realize how backward was Russia in 1917, it was 90% agrarian low productive country with literacy about 20% (simple reading skills)

When the Bolshevik Party came to power in 1917, they faced a crumbling empire infamous for its perceived backwardness and poor education system. In 1917, within the remaining Tsarist territories, an estimated 37.9% of the male population above seven years old was literate and only 12.5% of the female population was literate
en.wikipedia.org...

I agree with you on the material conditions in Russia when Lenin forces that "socialist" revolution. They had all the Mensheviks killed. They ignored Marx's "historical materialism" and or theory of development. As did Mao. According to Marx socialism could only arise from advanced capitalist nations. For reasons you seem to already understand! A rarity these days.

I might not agree with you as far as class goes. You either own vast amounts of capital or you don't. Marx was also talking about "large capitalists" of his time, he made it pretty clear. He wasn't talking about small business owners, small landlords etc. Petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie are two distinct classes. Marx was primarily concerned with the bourgeoisie. Problem we see today is everyone thinks they're petite bourgeoisie, when in reality most people are working class.

Most Americans are about $15-20k in debt you know. And it's not because their being paid like large capitalists. That's just the thing, we still live in a class society, it has simply been obfuscated behind a facade of debt. People are still struggling paycheck to paycheck. Living in debt. Working their whole lives feeding other peoples bank accounts. Only difference is, now we have air conditioners and cars. We're still in cages, but cages with shinny new toys.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: JeanPaul

I wasn't advocating Bolshevik path. By the way according to traditional Marxism the revolution should be started in the most advanced capitalist country. Lenin was criticized for his attempt to force it on Russia. Anyway, all this class divisions from orthodox Marxism were false or at least they are outdated and not so rigid as with the old theory. Lenin's plan wasn't about technocrat ruling, but "proletariat". If USSR could evolve into technocrat ruling it would be another story. You need to realize how backward was Russia in 1917, it was 90% agrarian low productive country with literacy about 20% (simple reading skills)

When the Bolshevik Party came to power in 1917, they faced a crumbling empire infamous for its perceived backwardness and poor education system. In 1917, within the remaining Tsarist territories, an estimated 37.9% of the male population above seven years old was literate and only 12.5% of the female population was literate
en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks, good post by the way!

Hahahaha!!! You won't do #. Just like the rest of the world.



.... Know you're place, pleb.

I was speaking to a pension advisor here in the UK last week (I'm building a website for him) and I found out 2 really interesting things:

1) The government have brought in this "I'm in" scheme, where it is the law that every employee must be given the option for a workplace pension that the employer contributes to, it starts where you contribute 1% of your salary.

He said that he went to see a company with 50 employees and the total number of takers out of them all was 1. 1 person out of 50 wants to take up the pension.

The reason? There are so many people on zero hours contracts and/or on minimum wage that they can't afford to invest even 1% of their salary towards their future - there are so many people on the breadline in the UK.

2) The goverment have also decided to allow people to take up to 25% of their pension pot, tax free, when they hit 55 years old.

But it's a scam - if you do take the money early then they then charge you tax on the other 75%, which could be up to 40%!!!

So it's just a way to allow the government to get their hands on more of your money.

A very sorry state of affairs indeed.

I think the question does arise- what do these protests accomplish? Unfortunately I have to agree and say nothing (in the immediate). It will take a couple million people applying constant pressure in order to change anything in our economic system. Perhaps a lot more. This sort of social movement is next to impossible because of the right/left partisan divide.

If the right wing could simply see things for what the are it would be greeeeat. Simple question for right wingers- why do you think the top .01% represent your interests?

Repeat, why do you think the top .01% represent your interests? What do you gain via low corporate taxes? What do you gain via tax havens? What do you gain via corporate subsidies? What do you gain via low wages? What do you gain via living in consumer/household debt? What do you gain (in America) via the expanding offshoring of productive jobs? What do you gain when corporations lopsidedly control the government? What is "good" about an economy/political system controlled by financial institutions, corporations and billionaires?

2015, the year of the Cicada. It's time to shed our past and be born whole again. In Navajo legend, the Cicada helped us emerge from a flood in the third yellow world to the current fourth "Glittering" world.

The time has come for Cicada to help us surface into the 5th world, a world of peace free from deprivation and injustices. Follow me, my people, as we journey into parts unknown. Let me be that beacon of light in corners too dark too be seen.

a reply to: JeanPaul

It's not about who's fault it is, it's about using common sense when it comes to immigration. Again, a Nation can only create so many jobs.

But yeah I agree with you that it is all about cheap labor, as well as lowering wages for American workers, because only lunatics would allow this to happen.

Anyway I am already aware about your NAFTA points, but that was a well thought out response. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: JeanPaul
I think the question does arise- what do these protests accomplish? Unfortunately I have to agree and say nothing (in the immediate). It will take a couple million people applying constant pressure in order to change anything in our economic system. Perhaps a lot more. This sort of social movement is next to impossible because of the right/left partisan divide.

Yep I agree, division is the largest road block to accomplishing anything. Very difficult when you have the good, the bad, and the clueless all sharing different views within their groups. Then you have the those who do not even care, and there are a lot of those useful tools.

If the right wing could simply see things for what the are it would be greeeeat. Simple question for right wingers- why do you think the top .01% represent your interests?

It's as if you're two people posting Jean. One minute you're making sense by addressing the cancer of the fake two party system, then you go off the deep end by babbling about how the right wingers caused everything that is wrong.

Do you think that your left wing heroes have played no part in it? What has any of your leaders done to stop the things you mentioned?

Why don't you ask them those same questions and you will find that the answer is that they have done absolutely nothing. In fact, they have contributed to it. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation

originally posted by: JeanPaul
I think the question does arise- what do these protests accomplish? Unfortunately I have to agree and say nothing (in the immediate). It will take a couple million people applying constant pressure in order to change anything in our economic system. Perhaps a lot more. This sort of social movement is next to impossible because of the right/left partisan divide.

Yep I agree, division is the largest road block to accomplishing anything. Very difficult when you have the good, the bad, and the clueless all sharing different views within their groups. Then you have the those who do not even care, and there are a lot of those useful tools.

If the right wing could simply see things for what the are it would be greeeeat. Simple question for right wingers- why do you think the top .01% represent your interests?

It's as if you're two people posting Jean. One minute you're making sense by addressing the cancer of the fake two party system, then you go off the deep end by babbling about how the right wingers caused everything that is wrong.

Do you think that your left wing heroes have played no part in it? What has any of your leaders done to stop the things you mentioned?

Why don't you ask them those same questions and you will find that the answer is that they have done absolutely nothing. In fact, they have contributed to it. ~$heopleNation

It's simple, why do so many on the right advocate policies in line with the corporate agenda?

originally posted by: JeanPaul
It's simple, why do so many on the right advocate policies in line with the corporate agenda?

Why do so many on the left advocate immigration policies in line with Corporate cheap labor?

Why do so many on the left advocate policies that lower American workers wages?

Take your left wing horse blinders off Pal. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: TechUnique

“The government is not allowing us to sell this Confederate flag,” responds the staffer.

“So the government is not allowing you….to sell it?” asks the caller, to which the sales rep responds, “yes.”

“So Amazon is not making a political statement, this is something the government told you to do?” questions the caller.

The corporate welfare is the result of our government using money to reward businesses for doing things the government wants them to do. It came about piece by piece to further this goal or that goal. All of it was purported to benefit us; not the corporations. For example, when we were desperate for more oil production during the energy crisis of the 70s, the oil companies got a big chunk of $$ to help them expand. Now we have an oil surplus, but they still get those payments. That's an example I know about, because it was a big deal at the time. Whatever tax breaks, subsidies there are, the corporations will try to make use of them, because that's just good business. We can dismantle the whole system or at least overhaul it.
I have no worries about some people being on welfare. Frankly, a segment of our population is going to be basically wards of the state no matter what we do. But I can't imagine why someone would want to be that. There are those, though, who will sit around and blame the 1% or the Illuminati, instead of doing something, for their whole life, and when it's all over, the county will chuck them in an unmarked grave because no one they know has the money to bury them.

a reply to: JeanPaul

originally posted by: SheopleNation

originally posted by: JeanPaul
It's simple, why do so many on the right advocate policies in line with the corporate agenda?

Why do so many on the left advocate immigration policies in line with Corporate cheap labor?

Why do so many on the left advocate policies that lower American workers wages?

Take your left wing horse blinders off Pal. ~$heopleNation

I think keeping workers "Illegal" keeps the "illegal" workers from organizing.

Generally, South Americans will be turned away at the border in times of economic slow downs or crisis, Obama did this starting in 2008. As the economy improves the USG will lax border restrictions and allow a flow of people through in order to place downward pressure on wages in the US. Large construction companies began to give "the signal" a couple years ago. They began to say there are no American workers who will do construction. A total sham.

www.forbes.com...

Soon the USG will begin to allow more people through the border as wages in the overall service and construction sectors rise. They will also expand the H11B visa program to allow more "skilled" workers into America, in so driving wages down in the STEM fields.

a reply to: JeanPaul

I agree with everything you said, because it's the truth. I witnessed it really pick up traction while working in the Construction field during the 90's as a younger man. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: woodwardjnr

This gets me very angry.
There has been an attack by the media on people who claim benefits and now it seems everyone assumes that anyone on benefits is a cheat.
I'm especially sick of all these reality tv shows about benefits.
I would rather watch a tv show about tax evasion and the expenses scandal,but we won't see or hear much about those subjects from our media.

According to HMRC figures for 2012/13, £1.2bn of benefit spending is lost due to fraud, while £4.1bn is lost through tax evasion.