List of Intelligent and Famous Socialists

[Gustave Bitz]

I am often hearing that socialism is dead and has been proven
unworkable. One also hears that only a fool would champion socialism.
Einstein declared himself a socialist. Can others list intelligent and
famous people who were or are declared socialists?

[Dan Clore]

Bertrand Russell
H.G. Wells
George Orwell
Noam Chomsky
Oscar Wilde

Well this got boring so I did a search for "famous socialists" and found
this list:

* * * F A M O U S S O C I A L I S T S * * *

No claim is made as to absolute certitude on the association of
socialism with
any of these folks. last updated on 14 January 1997.

***
a list of a few famous socialists
***

Martin Luther King, Jr
Helen Keller
Albert Einstein
Pablo Picasso
Mumia Abu-Jamal (social critic)
Gloria Steinem (feminist)
Cesar Chavez
Kenneth J Arrow (economist, the "Arrow Theorem")
Clarence Darrow (attorney)
Noam Chomsky (Libertarian Socialist, linguist)
Dorothy Day
W E B Du Bois
Amiri Baraka (formerly LeRoi Jones; poet, playwright)
Eugene V. Debs (union organizer, socialist organizer)
Norman Thomas
Mother Jones
John Dos Passos
Audre Lorde
Robert Owen (utopian)
Michael Harrington (author of "The Other America", preeminent socialist)
H G Wells
Frank Zeidler (former mayor of Milwaukee)
Darlington Hoopes
Alexander Cockburn (writer for the Nation, and formerly for the Wall
Street Journal)
Adolph Reed (writer for the Progressive, various others)
Harry Houdini
Doug Henwood ("Left Business Observer", radio commentator)
Manning Marable (professor of Afro-American studies at Columbia)
Angela Davis (professor of Philosophy at U Cal-Berkeley, a Reagan
frame-up survivor)
A Phillip Randolph (union leader)
Martin Buber (philosopher, "Paths in Utopia")
L Frank Baum (author, "The Wizard of Oz")
Cornel West
Jean-Paul Sartre (French existentialist)
Adrienne Rich
Kwame Toure (formerly Stokely Carmichael, SNCC dir., Black Panthers
founder)
E P Thompson
Raymond Williams
Rosa Luxemburg
Bill Veeck (former Chicago White Sox owner)
Art Spiegelman (author/illustrator of "Maus")
Stephen Jay Gould (scientist)
Malcom X
George Bernard Shaw
Dmitri Shostakovich (Soviet composer)
Marie Curie (French scientist)
Robert Oppenheimer
Al Lewis (Grandpa on "The Munsters")
C L R James
Richard Feynman
Ed Asner (American actor)
Antonio Gramsci (Italian intellectual)
Edward Bellamy (author of "Looking Backward")
Sinclair Lewis (American author)
John Lennon
Charlie Chaplin
Frances Fox Piven (American sociologist)
Lincoln Steffens
Lillian Hellman (American playwright)
Oscar Ameringer (author, lecturer)
Upton Sinclair
Dashiell Hammet (American author)
Barbara Ehrenreich (American essayist)
Irving Howe
Isaac Asimov
Ron Dellums
Woody Guthrie (folk singer)
Major Owens (US Representative)
Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard on "Star Trek: TNG")
Bernie Sanders (US Representative)
Dorothy Parker (American author)
Bayard Rustin
Karl Marx
Paul Robeson (American actor)
Pete Seeger (folk singer)
Freidrich Engels
John Stuart Mill
Georg Lucacs (Hungarian intellectual)
Juergen Habermas (German philosopher)
Coleman A. Young (former mayor of Detroit)
Nina Hartley (adult film actor)
Sid Peck (organizer during Vietnam War period)
Arthur Kinoy (civil rights attorney)
Dr George Wald
Howard Zinn (historian)
Dr Michio Kaku
Muhammad Ahmad (formerly Max Stanford)
Assata Shakur
Annette Rubenstein
Bogdan Denitch
Charlene Mitchell (a leader of the Committees of Correspondence)
J Quinn Brisben
Sam Friedman
Niilo Koponen (Alaskan public figure)
Staughton Lynd
Alice Lynd
Barbara Garson
Clancy Sigal (writer)
Dorothy Healey
John Reed (journalist, "Ten Days that Shook the World")
Gurley Flynn
Bertell Ollman
Kari Kubby
Sid Lens (labor organizer, writer, leader in peace movement)
Deborah Meier (well known in NYC area as a great school principal)
George Orwell (born Eric Blair, author of "1984", "Animal Farm", etc...)
Bertrand Russell
Michael Moore (professional prankster)
Carl Sandburg
Charles Steinmetz (American engineer)
Gil Green (a hero of the Spanish Civil War)
Herbert Aptheker
Grace Paley
William Morris (British poet, designer, essayist, critic, and organizer)
Oscar Wilde (British playwright, poet, essayist, satirist)
Vachel Lindsay (American poet)
Henry George (economist)
Will Geer (Grandpa on "The Waltons")
John Sayles (filmmaker)
James Farmer (CORE)
Max Eastman
Crystal Eastman
Abraham Cahan

--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore

The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm

"Tho-ag in Zhi-gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas
zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch-hog not; Thyan-Kam
not; Lha-Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not;
Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang
and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho-og Yinsin in
night of Sun-chan and Yong-grub (Parinishpanna),
&c., &c.,"
-- The Book of Dzyan.

[Luis Gallardo]

wow - that was a really cool list. I enjoyed reading it.. seriously.

I had no idea that Martin Luther King was a socialist.

Dan Clore wrote:

> The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:

[demo]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Gustave Bitz wrote:
> I am often hearing that socialism is dead and has been proven
> unworkable. One also hears that only a fool would champion socialism.
> Einstein declared himself a socialist. Can others list intelligent and
> famous people who were or are declared socialists?

Jesus was also a socialist.

[Jos Boersema]

Op 2013-10-14, demo schreef <joshu...@gmail.com>:

Unfortunately neither Einstein nor Jesus was particularly intelligent,
or to put it differently: put any effort in their creeds. Jesus only
repeated what his high court said (see Hillel the Elder), exxagerated
it perhaps, and championed himself as cult-boss, false god, false
prophet, and effectively threw the highly intelligent system of the
laws of Mozes under the boss. Speaking of Mozes, there is intelligence,
there is a social attitude; there is an intelligent socialist if you
want one ("socialism" doesn't mean "nationalize everything and have
tyranny, mind you; although that is a valid counter-argument against
some historically prominent ideas floated by socialists).

Einstein had his wife plagiarize the redicilous ideas of Lorentz,
to get out of the light-speed constancy experiments by Michelson and
Morley in a Berlin lab, which contradicted the previous dogma of the
physicists that light is a wave in a universe-wide fixed medium.
You should think of that fixed medium as a set of coordinates, it's
always immovable however objects including planets move. This was
proven wrong in Berlin around 1890, but the physicists couldn't find
the humility to admit they had been wrong. Lorentz invented absurd
mathematical nonsense that didn't even work, Einstein plagiarized
it and made it so absurd that nobody could even imagine what was
being babbled about - including Einstein. However the mass media
popularized the absurdities under the false pretence that this was
the age old concept of being able to put the zero of your ruler wherever
you want. The name 'relativity' stuck with the ignorant masses, who
worship the petty dishonest and dull Einstein to this day; not because
of physics which they have no clue about that it is even about light-
speed and conflicting experiments (Michelson/Morley and 'stellar
abberation', if anyone cares to look it up), but because they falsely
credit Einstein with grade school concepts of mathematics and
measurement, and with quotes about peace. It's noteworthy that Einstein
wasn't allowed to work on the a-bomb for example, even though he asked
it be developed. He probably wasn't asked, because it was something
serious and difficult, so you don't want cheater mass media dandy
Einstein getting in your way.

So, that leaves Mozes. Look up his laws, and realize in what kind of
a time we are talking about. Incidentally he gets the economic system
right, an is therefore still ahead of anything the west has ever
done, or is likely to do the way they are going. Mozes was also an
anti-investment banking socialist, who outlawed loans on profit, and
loans that run longer then 7 years for those who can't repay. The
system of land-distribution means everyone owns personally the means
of production. Yet there is free trade, however this is strongly
urged to be conducted in a fair manner; admittedly there is room for
abuse there, but there is always room for abuse - laws can in the end
only do so much and to centralize control over all prices leads to its
own forms of potential abuse.

[liberty.el...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Gustave Bitz wrote:
> I am often hearing that socialism is dead and has been proven
> unworkable. One also hears that only a fool would champion socialism.
> Einstein declared himself a socialist. Can others list intelligent and
> famous people who were or are declared socialists?

brecht,german playwright

bernard shaw

elizabeth cady stanton


joel kovel,professer,author

[erniega...@gmail.com]

I think you'll find that Oscar Wilde was in fact Irish, not British as stated.

[bowdi...@gmail.com]

?????????????? Intelligent ??????????????

[Topaz]

Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
the humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.

According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.

The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?

In a hypothetical case suppose in the future technology
progressed so far that all work was done by machines. Huge farms
gathering food and all automated. You would think that would be
heaven on earth. But not with capitalism. People would be worthless
according to capitalist supply and demand ideas. People wouldn't get
one loaf of bread because they would have no jobs.

Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.

We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.




http://www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://www.bpp.org.uk

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[bruno....@gmail.com]

You are a Bozo. A large fraction of the world's scientists are also socialists. Conservative scientists are super rare.

[Jos Boersema]

Op 2016-01-05, bruno....@gmail.com schreef <bruno....@gmail.com>:

> You are a Bozo. A large fraction of the world's scientists are also
> socialists. Conservative scientists are super rare.

What is "a Bozo" ? It appears to be an insult. Do you think it is a good
idea to start a conversation with a stranger with an insult ?

To what and who are you replying ? From the References header it
seems this is part of a thread into which I was posting ?
In-Reply-To: <slrnl5ppr2...@debian.mrahax>
The post you are referencing is no longer part of the pool.
Can you please follow Usenetiquette so that others know what you mean ?
Above is an example of how a regular Usenet reply looks, every decent
Usenet reader can do it for you.

[joel...@iupui.edu]

Jane Addams

[Werner Hetzner]

Now make a list of failed socialist countries.

[Werner Hetzner]

Sure. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez...the list is long and sad.

[philipst...@gmail.com]

Ahaha, hitler? Socialist? You’re a stupid shit..

[DR...@teikyopost.edu]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Gustave Bitz wrote:
> I am often hearing that socialism is dead and has been proven
> unworkable. One also hears that only a fool would champion socialism.
> Einstein declared himself a socialist. Can others list intelligent and
> famous people who were or are declared socialists?

August Bebel and Karl Liebknecht were the first two Socialists to
be elected to the then North-German Reichstag (in 1867).

In the 1912 German federal election, the Social Democratic Party
obtained the largest vote (34.8%) and elected 110 Deputies to the
Reichstag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1912

[Jos Boersema]

Op 2017-12-16, DR...@teikyopost.edu schreef <DR...@teikyopost.edu>:

I think (feel) that is why they waged World War 1. The Capitalists had
to either face electoral dismantling of their exploitation system, or
do something extreme while they still could. Immediately after World
War 1, there where socialist council democracy Revolutions all over
Germany. These where violently crushed by the German army, together with
the so-called social-democrats, a centrist left party, appointed by the
Kaisar to take over after he left.

When Capitalism failed again and caused the economic collapse of the
Weimar "Republic", they did it again. The Capitalists and their armies
brought the Fascists (Hitler gang) to power, to destroy democracy,
and then waged another war to control the population and secure their
priviliges. Then the Americans could invade Europe, divided Germany and
Europe, and reigned with fear until 1989.

That game then collapsed, and hence the top Capitalists set out
immediately to restore the fear system. In 2001 they where ready with
their planning, which seems to have been influenced by the American
culture of "bigger is always better." They brought down the WTC in New
York, and shot something into the Pentagon at the very office where 2+
Trillion in Army fraud was being investigated. The office was destroyed. A
few years later the US Army fraud was several times worse (8+ Trillion).

The newly organized "war on terror" brings us through various horrific
Nation destroying events to the present day, where the USA is cultivating
the war in Donbass (eastern Ukraine), probably as a trigger to be used
to create another war in the European Continent, or even a World War
that for the first time since a long time could see significant parts
of the USA mainland Empire destroyed.

Such are the ways of the Capitalist parliamentary democracy. The reason
for all this is (IMHO) quite simple: the economy is imbalanced. It is
possible to enmass great amounts of wealth, or to end up with nothing. The
power is not not distributed, it is not a free market meritocracy. It is
only partially a free market. Positions of power begin to overtake the
normal operation of the market, by the centralization of financial wealth
and investment credit games, by the increasingly centralized ownership
of industries, and by the centralization of land ownership. Eventually
the situation becomes desperate for those being pushed into a hopeless
underclass. The Oligarchy becomes afraid of any sort of popular will
expression, and resorts to ... militarizing the police, waging wars,
passing repressive laws, and eventually installing Fascism complete with
slavery, torture and death camps.

Until that is completed, the population is kept busy with bread and
circusses, or in todays terms: comparatively easy living conditions in
the sensitive Imperial heartlands (compare the life in the Netherlands
with the virtual slave factories in China for example) payed for by
the suffering by the people in the regions further away, coupled with
the TV, sports spectacles, and other diversions.

Rome, where this system of control was perhaps pioneered, and which was
a system of society that is copied in many ways into todays world, was
eventually sacked. Many people died when the Roman Empire collapsed.
Are we headed into a similar direction ?

All this should be be lesson: we cannot use the Capitalist parliament
to reform society. When we get close to victory, the Capitalists will
finance their terrorists, and if need be blow up the entire world.
We have to have a strong extra-parliamentary system. We have to have
a system of society that we can already start doing, regardless of what
the Capitalists are trying to force on us. It needs to be highly
democratic, but at the same time realistic enough to deal with the
failing behavior of people. It also needs to have defensive methods,
because the enemy is in all likelyhood going to go to war on us. We
need a system that can absorb as many of the population into a sensible
way to live as possible, ideally everyone except the criminal element.
Such a system of society needs to be close enough to how people are
already living, in order to have a realistic chance to stabilize itself.

Thusfar only the Communists understand this and have advocated it.
Unfortunately their model of future society is not democratic because
it centralizes the economy. Regardless of what is envisioned for the
State, if the economy is centralized then there is no freedom and there
is no realistic democracy. The main enemy comes from the inside out,
and will control the centralized economy. Capitalism is also the
centralized economy, thus both these systems are frighteningly similar.

The Communists seem to have made the catastrophic mistake of taking
one snippet of text written by Marx about labor becoming their own
exploiters if they would take over the factories within the context of
a market economy. Based on that - and perhaps to counter the permanent
lies by the Capitalists that what the Capitalists where doing was a free
meritocracy market - the Communists have thrown the market principle
overboard. With that the right to make your own economic decisions,
to own what you make, was lost to Communism. Communism has unfortunately
developed itself into a sorely simplistic model of society, which will
not work. Communism as it has historically developed itself, or at least
all variants that edge to or are Stalinist / Leninist, can be said to
be the wildest dream of the Capitalist Oligarchy, because it ratifies
their monopolies as absolute. All the Capitalists need to do is control
the Communist State, after having conquered the State with their
industries, banks and monopolies. Then their monopolies become the State,
which they can attempt to make stick by using Communist anti-market
and pro-centralization rethoric. In the proces of such a conversion,
the cliques that win the internal struggle for power over the Communist
highly centralized State can destroy their Capitalist competitors.

Such games are not something I would like to see repeated, although the
Capitalists have again begun pumping out Communist propaganda. They do
it under a new guise: Universal Basic Income. They are at it again, the
top Capitalists are again trying to foment a form of Communism, in order
to solidify and centralize their control. I guess they want to return to
the time where people where serfs, the dark ages.

Instead I proposed this: https://market.socialism.nl Free land for all
in personal inalienable ownership. Right to work and trade freely, right
to form businesses, even businesses under a single owner (in the first
generation). Laws against monopolies, against large businesses, against
permanently dictatorial businesses, against for profit credit at high
amounts, law against for profit credit for dictatorial businesses, law
against State debt, law against tiranny, against Imperial war, etc. In
the end such a society will be a lot like we already have today, however
there will be critical structural differences that prevent an Oligarchy
to form out of economic power centralization. I have also developed a
theoretical system (of law) for a Council Government, which is strict
and seems to have a chance of functioning. If it is not socially achievable,
we will have to use Parliament with such an updated economy.

I hope humanity will want to consider that their hunter-gatherer mentality
with respect to economics is not working, it is not stable. We need to
improve our understanding and get our heads out of the simpilicity of the
stone age. Markets in land are stone age ways of thinking about land, as
if land is a commodity. In the stone age it wasn't possible for one person
to control everything because you couldn't carry it around anyway, but now
they can and therefore we need artificial law against such maniacs. We
are a farming and mass manufacturing culture, but we are still using stone
age levels of undeveloped economic theory. In the stone age that worked,
but in the modern age we need to compensate for the problems that are
generated by farming and mass manufacturing.

Either that, or humanity might find itself back in the stone age eventually.
--
https://market.socialism.nl How economics works, and how to get it fixed.
Reasoning, implementation plans, example Constitutions, forum, software.

[DR...@teikyopost.edu]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-5, Jos Boersema wrote:
> Op 2017-12-16, DR...@teikyopost.edu schreef <DR...@teikyopost.edu>:
> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Gustave Bitz wrote:
> >> I am often hearing that socialism is dead and has been proven
> >> unworkable. One also hears that only a fool would champion socialism.
> >> Einstein declared himself a socialist. Can others list intelligent and
> >> famous people who were or are declared socialists?
> >
> > August Bebel and Karl Liebknecht were the first two Socialists to
> > be elected to the then North-German Reichstag (in 1867).
> >
> > In the 1912 German federal election, the Social Democratic Party
> > obtained the largest vote (34.8%) and elected 110 Deputies to the
> > Reichstag.
> >

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1912.

>
> I think (feel) that is why they waged World War 1. The Capitalists had
> to either face electoral dismantling of their exploitation system, or
> do something extreme while they still could.

I am of the same opinion. It is becoming more and more apparent to me
that the spreading worldwide influence of German Social Democracy
was viewed as a severe threat in certain circles.

Note the long list of Social Reforms that were implemented under
Kaiser William II.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/%22The$20translation$20is$20by$20Max$20Mulder%22/alt.politics.libertarian/mdPS6o6KIvY/z1eicOBZyooJ

[Jos Boersema]

Op 2017-12-20, DR...@teikyopost.edu schreef <DR...@teikyopost.edu>:

> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-5, Jos Boersema wrote:
>>Op 2017-12-16, DR...@teikyopost.edu schreef <DR...@teikyopost.edu>:
>>> On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Gustave Bitz wrote:
>>>> I am often hearing that socialism is dead and has been proven
>>>> unworkable. One also hears that only a fool would champion socialism.
>>>> Einstein declared himself a socialist. Can others list intelligent and
>>>> famous people who were or are declared socialists?
>>>
>>> August Bebel and Karl Liebknecht were the first two Socialists to
>>> be elected to the then North-German Reichstag (in 1867).
>>>
>>> In the 1912 German federal election, the Social Democratic Party
>>> obtained the largest vote (34.8%) and elected 110 Deputies to the
>>> Reichstag.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1912.
>>
>> I think (feel) that is why they waged World War 1. The Capitalists had
>> to either face electoral dismantling of their exploitation system, or
>> do something extreme while they still could.
>
> I am of the same opinion. It is becoming more and more apparent to me
> that the spreading worldwide influence of German Social Democracy
> was viewed as a severe threat in certain circles.

It seems to me to be wise to stop expecting everything from Sovereign
politics. Sovereign politics is in a way a circus which absorbs the
attention of the Nation. It is but a small steering wheel, on an
inmensely large ship. Many forces try to act on the steering wheel.
It usually boils down to: all forces want more money for themselves.
That is sometimes a good thing, and often it isn't. The steering wheel
is always loose to rotate back and forth. It is difficult to create
permanent improvements with it. When the ultra-rich get upset with
the wheel, they are well positioned to cut it off entirely. But even
if one wants to inflence the steering wheel, that requires large amounts
of political interest and activity in the back of the few agents which
are sent in to do the job.

I think the Communists, who at least see the limit of Parliament, also
do not create the type of extra-parliamentary activity necessary, because
their extra-parliamentary activity is exclusively aimed at the Sovereign
power again. They more or less agitate for Revolution. That is extra-
parliamentary in a tight sense, but it is still focussing all energy
on the Sovereign power. It is merely another method of conquesting that
power, one that is also rather dubious in a system where one could take
the Sovereign power by a paper ballot vote. It has some legitimacy once
Fascism is installed, but not much or any when Parliamentary balloting
is operational. Once Fascism is installed, the matter will be settled
by war. I do not see the Communists very well prepared for that either.
The Socialists neither, nor the labor unions.

The labor unions are a force that is in significant ways focussed
on issues besides the Sovereignty, which are the Capitalist exploitations
by particular companies and circumstances. That is a good thing, because
it creates a wider field of activity upon which positive effects can be
build, both generally in society and as decisions by the Sovereign
Government (typically the Parliament). The labor unions have historically
at the fringes of their activity, supported or executed things like the
taking over of businesses by the workforce.

What I think we should do, is as it where a combination of being even
more seemingly extreme then the labor union merely taking over businesses,
more seemingly extreme then running a Revolution against the existing
State in order to replace it all by a new State, but do it in a small,
humble and tiny way, which I think is not only possible but easier
then the 'high and mighty moment of conflagration' method, and will
produce results - if any - that will stick for longer. This sounds a bit
strange or obscurantist at first perhaps, but on closer inspection it
should be crystal clear and practical once it is explained in detail.

This is the way that I don't think will work:
One can take over a big business with a strike team, fire the managers,
and call it a Revolution. Assembling a million people in the street,
and declare a Socialist Revolution, arresting the Parliament.

This is the way that seems to be the "nice and calm" way that is not
the above radical way, which is what we see happening now, but I don't
think it works well enough either:
Accept that there are abusive dictatorial companies, beg for money,
strike for money, elect better parties to parliament for better law.
With this method the labor force accepts their ultimate serfdom as an
underclass, however they demand to be well treated. The problem is that
it leaves the gangster classes in power, and they will use that power
to wage war sooner or later, or try to install tiranny. If they just
didn't do that, perhaps this way of things could even be suffered for
quite a while (centuries). However the ultra-rich class doesn't play
so nice. They will wage another war, another world war, and it is such
death and misery that turns this method of playing nice into a method
of acquiescence to the worst evil and hell on Earth in the end. It
really isn't that nice, to play nice with hardened criminals that wage
wars. It seems to be a nice and humble method, but in the end it isn't
because it leaves extremely evil people in power.

I think what we need to do is get more creative. We don't have to
overtake every existing large business and make it democratic, especially
not while the majorities to do so in good order are lacking. We can
attempt to set up democratic businesses. We can then try to hang on to
them as best we can, and what we achieve will be what that Nation its
moral behavior deserves. Such a method of creative initiative going
*around* the enemy, rather then keep fighting the enemy head on - which
also validates the power positino of the enemy - can be applied to the
other important vectors of economics and the State, to wit:
- We can start buying soil and make soil free, as best as we can. It
will be a bumbling road of mistakes and learning, disappointments
and ineresting experiences, but it is something we can already
physically do, regardless of how small.
- We can set up groups of 50 citizens, or even merely 10, each can
elect a representative to form councils in between at more general
levels, we can give such a system funds and some good cause job to
do. It's not an assault on the Sovereign government on the one hand,
but on the other: while those who talk of "smashing the State" are
in actual fact doing nothing more then talking and getting agrevated,
we would be doing something creative and positive, an activity that
eventually has the potential to become the State. It would be a
practiced State, it would be a long standing tradition already, at
the point it might become a contender for Sovereign power. What
is going to be the succesful new State: the hooligans who dressed up
in their squatter outfits, having practiced fire bombing and screaming,
or the soft spoken civil councils who sought to do a little good here
or there with their democratic councils in the margins of society ?
The question does only need to be asked rethorically.
- We can at least think of setting up common defense Militias, which
defend all people from murder and tiranny, so that we reach over the
differences of all civil parties on both left and right on this crucial
issue. We can do that already, we can help people excercize their
freedom of speech and assembly, even if we don't agree with them,
without needing to go to war on the whole State at once, and direct
warfare at the State directly. If some weird church is being threatened
by hooligans, we can say: we don't accept this violence, this is the
front line of our political freedoms now, and therefore we deploy here.
Such a deployement could be as simple as writing a letter to the police,
asking them to protect that property. It doesn't have to be 15 rambos
in a dug out. There are so many small ways to do things, that can later
be build upon.

Overall this is a method of building the better society within the shell
of the old one. Some people think this is not possible. I think it is the
only thing that is possible, because anything else is trying to resolve
a thousand long standing deeply engrained social, economic, political
and other grave issues, by some kind of theoretical overlay that will
likely not stick for long. To better society, the medicine - as it where -
should be something that works deep into every little fibre of the social
body, over a long period, even eternally. The key with that is that the
plan has to be good, such a discussion is meaningless unless there is an
actual plan that is practical. This is therefore not an abstract discussion
of some high end principles, but rather just the opposite. It is a question
of if you personally have the will to do a few things based on such a plan.

A plan like this can also only work, if it feeds on itself, if it becomes
a functioning society, both when it is enmeshed in the existing culture,
and when it becomes overwhelming or even absolute. Can this plan do that,
can it provide full bellies for all people ? Of course it can, therefore
I think it is the best way to go forward. Since it also encompasses the
above mentioned methods, because full sudden Revolution is still possible
under it, and it is also still possible to use the normal pressures against
the capitalist businesses and the Fascist shocks of this society, it seems
to me that there is no loss. It is not a replacement to what is being done,
it is not a standing down on the other options. It is an additional and
I think ultimately more powerful method, which also improves the power of
the other methods.

It does not improve the power of Stalinist Communism though, because that
will be depowered as a centralist danger. I think that is also something
that one should want. In summary it is a method of creative initiative,
which will likely have imperceptably small results in the shorter term,
but can have overwhelming effects over the course of centuries, and is
something that can be done and started by merely a few individuals. It
has achievable steps that require no magical powers (compare: coup d'etat,
compare: changing the law, etc).

I don't say this is anything new, but who cares about that. I think it
is a good way of deepening the ideological sphere to start thinking about.
We have all these loose things: land distribution hangs somewhere,
co-operative businesses hang somewhere, minimum wage over there, this
and that over there, all kinds of loose good things, but no overall
coherent structure that binds it all together into a potent system of
society, that we could drive home for a victory against world gangsterism
and Imperialism.

> Note the long list of Social Reforms that were implemented under
> Kaiser William II.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/%22The$20translation$20is$20by$20Max$20Mulder%22/alt.politics.libertarian/mdPS6o6KIvY/z1eicOBZyooJ

Libertarian ? What does that mean ?

[DR...@teikyopost.edu]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 at 8:36:37 PM UTC-4, Dan Clore wrote:

> Well this got boring so I did a search for "famous socialists" and found
> this list:
>
> * * * F A M O U S S O C I A L I S T S * * *
>
> No claim is made as to absolute certitude on the association of
> socialism with
> any of these folks. last updated on 14 January 1997.
>
> ***
> a list of a few famous socialists

[snip]

I would like to add the great, legendary Socialist Tommy Douglas
to the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dmovies-tv&field-keywords=prairie+giant

[rbowman]

On 12/22/2017 03:27 AM, DR...@teikyopost.edu wrote:
> I would like to add the great, legendary Socialist Tommy Douglas
> to the list.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas

"Douglas graduated from Brandon College in 1930, and completed his
Master of Arts degree in sociology at McMaster University in 1933. His
thesis, entitled The Problems of the Subnormal Family, endorsed
eugenics. The thesis proposed a system that would have required couples
seeking to marry to be certified as mentally and morally fit. Those
deemed to be "subnormal," because of low intelligence, moral laxity, or
venereal disease would be sent to state farms or camps; while those
judged to be mentally defective or incurably diseased would be
sterilized. Eugenics ideas were adopted and recommended by many British,
American and Canadian socialists, social democrats, Social Gospelists,
and other 'progressives' as measures of state control of the 'unfit' and
'undesirable' segments of society."

We could use more politicians like that.

[DR...@teikyopost.edu]

Did Tommy Douglas promote/implement eugenics while he was Premier of
Saskatchewan between 1945-1962? Why don't you focus on his political
record, instead of his 1933 thesis?

[rbowman]

Because his thesis was better than his governance? To be fair I have no
idea how he governed. Despite living in a state that shared a border
with SK I never heard of Douglas. He must be a well kept Canadian secret.

[DR...@teikyopost.edu]

Successful Social Democrats get very little coverage in the U.S.
Here is another example: Have you ever heard of the Nonpartisan League?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_League

[rbowman]

On 12/23/2017 01:34 PM, DR...@teikyopost.edu wrote:
> Successful Social Democrats get very little coverage in the U.S.
> Here is another example: Have you ever heard of the Nonpartisan League?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_League

Nope. The closest I can come is a button from the Reform Party of
Alberta that says 'It's your country not theirs!' Alberta seems to feel
about Ottawa the same way Montana feels about Washington.