NationStates Jolt Archive

Since there's been a number of threads relating to Socialism in America, whether or not America is ready for Socialism, and whether or not Socialism would be of benefit to America, I thought it would be relevant to roll out some educational films on the subject for your perusal!

Make Mine Freedom! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_DaMKUP3Og&feature=related)

An animated educational film produced in the 1950's by Harding College, starring Doctor Utopia, and his brand new formula, Ism! In Technicolor!

Quite entertaining, and funny for propagan- I mean an "educational film". ;)

What is Communism? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wccIqjrGGMk&feature=related)

What is Communism? Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg6yXwoEduM&feature=related)

Presented by Herbert A. Philbrick, former FBI agent. A very... energetically narrated film. A two part collection!

Please remain quiet in your seats while the projector is rolling, and then afterward we'll have a class discussion on the contents of the films and related subjects. :D

Since there's been a number of threads relating to Socialism in America, whether or not America is ready for Socialism, and whether or not Socialism would be of benefit to America, I thought it would be relevant to roll out some educational films on the subject for your perusal!

Make Mine Freedom! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_DaMKUP3Og&feature=related)

An animated educational film produced in the 1950's by Harding College, starring Doctor Utopia, and his brand new formula, Ism! In Technicolor!

Quite entertaining, and funny for propagan- I mean an "educational film". ;)

What is Communism? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wccIqjrGGMk&feature=related)

What is Communism? Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg6yXwoEduM&feature=related)

Presented by Herbert A. Philbrick, former FBI agent. A very... energetically narrated film. A two part collection!

Please remain quiet in your seats while the projector is rolling, and then afterward we'll have a class discussion on the contents of the films and related subjects. :D

Oh noes! Iz teh Commies! They has films!:eek:

Make Mine Freedom! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_DaMKUP3Og&feature=related)

God bless America! God bless Joe McCarthy!

Since there's been a number of threads relating to Socialism in America, whether or not America is ready for Socialism, and whether or not Socialism would be of benefit to America, I thought it would be relevant to roll out some educational films on the subject for your perusal!

Make Mine Freedom! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_DaMKUP3Og&feature=related)

An animated educational film produced in the 1950's by Harding College, starring Doctor Utopia, and his brand new formula, Ism! In Technicolor!

Quite entertaining, and funny for propagan- I mean an "educational film". ;)

What is Communism? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wccIqjrGGMk&feature=related)

What is Communism? Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg6yXwoEduM&feature=related)

Presented by Herbert A. Philbrick, former FBI agent. A very... energetically narrated film. A two part collection!

Please remain quiet in your seats while the projector is rolling, and then afterward we'll have a class discussion on the contents of the films and related subjects. :D

*cues Battleship Potemkin*

How effective were these?

I just watched these and I love them. I agree with them 100%.

Anti-Communism is the struggle to preserve freedom of the human mind, freedom of human progress and freedom of human soceity. Anti-communism is a fight against the enslavement of humanity. Anti-communism is Abolitionism!

http://www.velfaerdssamfund.dk/wp-content/hs_anti.jpg

And the freedom to let someone starve while you go to your 5th helping at the all you can eat buffet.

Anti-Communism is the struggle to preserve freedom of the human mind, freedom of human progress and freedom of human soceity. Anti-communism is a fight against the enslavement of humanity. Anti-communism is Abolitionism!

Sorry, that sounds pretty hollow. You can easily exchange communism with capitalism. It would be better to say why you think communism is incompatible with freedom of the human mind etc. Now you just sound brainwashed.

We should have an educational film thread where I educate people on how their various views on various films are wrong, wrong, wrong.

And the freedom to let someone starve while you go to your 5th helping at the all you can eat buffet.
It is the freedom to starve if you offer nothing in exchange for the labor of others. They want something for nothing. Thieves.

I'd say you're being a touch too simplistic as to your understanding of what the first film is about. While Communism is one of the ideologies it is criticizing, it is not the only one. The fact that no ideology in particular is mentioned is also important, in that this clip is a criticism of all of the "cure-all" utopian ideas that took root in the thirties, and they used the popular image of a snake-oil salesman to be indicative of the proponents of these ideas. The brutal and barbarous ideologies of Nazism, Fascism, Racism, Communism, Bushido and company are what are being targeted by this clip. It's an admonition to moderate policies and reasoned debate in a real world setting.

After all, while they had a workers and farmers fantasies, they also had a politicians and factory owners fantasy. If you're too single minded to actual discern what this clip was saying, then you're below the level of its target audience.

I'm guessing these films will portray communism in a bad light, seeing as one is US propaganda, the others might be more informative.
So on a pre-video post, i say communism doesn't really work, but it has the right idea.

It is the freedom to starve if you offer nothing in exchange for the labor of others. They want something for nothing. Thieves.

This is small consolation to the thousands who die of starvation. What you call "freedom" by any other name would be called slavery; the right of those who have to snatch bread from the hands of a hungry child. What you're really saying is that the poor have no right to live. They can go hang for all you care. The precious principle of property must come first, even if it means selling all hitherto humanity into the slavery of poverty and want.

That first film seemed closer to Rastafari rather than anti-communist propaganda.

Who leaked our Film Making technologies to the Commies!? TRAITORS!!!

:sniper:

Actually, those propagan-- err I mean education films remind me of one of the many humorous commercials in GTA: San Andreas

"Remember: it's only a short step from Mass Transit to COMMUNISM!!"

Actually, those propagan-- err I mean education films remind me of one of the many humorous commercials in GTA: San Andreas

"Remember: it's only a short step from Mass Transit to COMMUNISM!!"

You, I would have expected more understanding of the subtlety out of.

Concentration camps, banning of unions, factory requisitions, limitations on speech and restrictions on enterprise were all elements of the Nazi and Fascist regimes of Germany, Italy and Spain. There's a reason the cure-all is called "-ism". It's any of the cure-all utopian ideologies.

The first one (cartoon) was almost in some way meaningful until it started proclaming the benefits of another "ism" and ignored the fact that not all "isms" involve a psychotic government.

The other two were just plain laughable.

I have nothing against propaganda as a useful tool of government, but at least make it good propaganda.

You, I would have expected more understanding of the subtlety out of.

Concentration camps, banning of unions, factory requisitions, limitations on speech and restrictions on enterprise were all elements of the Nazi and Fascist regimes of Germany, Italy and Spain. There's a reason the cure-all is called "-ism". It's any of the cure-all utopian ideologies.

I understand that.

The OP posted three vids, so you know. I was referring to the bottom two.

i say communism doesn't really work, but it has the right idea.

it depends on the leadership running the show

There are 3 sub-types of communism:

Leninism - text-book communism
Stalinism - Fascist communism
Left-Wing Radical - communism with more social freedom

- - - - -

maybe i should kidnap Mad Hatters and Lunatic Goofballs and begin a left-wing radical communist party - we can fight for a people unified as brothers and free within morals and sensible laws:D

I understand that.

The OP posted three vids, so you know. I was referring to the bottom two.

Good.

This is small consolation to the thousands who die of starvation. What you call "freedom" by any other name would be called slavery; the right of those who have to snatch bread from the hands of a hungry child. What you're really saying is that the poor have no right to live. They can go hang for all you care. The precious principle of property must come first, even if it means selling all hitherto humanity into the slavery of poverty and want.

How the hell is freedom to keep what you produce slavery? Wouldn't slavery be more along the lines of being forced to give up what you produce to someone who doesn't produce? Y'know, working for someone else without compensation or a choice in the matter.

How the hell is freedom to keep what you produce slavery? Wouldn't slavery be more along the lines of being forced to give up what you produce to someone who doesn't produce? Y'know, working for someone else without compensation or a choice in the matter.

That's just the thing; you don't get to keep what you produce. Factory owner or the land owner does. You get the lowest wage that the capitalist can possibly pay you. He keeps the rest.

That's just the thing; you don't get to keep what you produce. Factory owner or the land owner does. You get the lowest wage that the capitalist can possibly pay you. He keeps the rest.

Stuck in the 1800's with you...

Stuck in the 1800's with you...

:rolleyes:
'Cause everyone works at a co-op now…

That's just the thing; you don't get to keep what you produce. Factory owner or the land owner does. You get the lowest wage that the capitalist can possibly pay you. He keeps the rest.

But I also don't take a risk when I go work for a wage. When the capitalist buys capital which the workers use for production the capitalist takes a risk that the capital will not be profitable. I've only ever worked for a wage and I have never come home from work with less wealth than when I started.

But I also don't take a risk when I go work for a wage. When the capitalist buys capital which the workers use for production the capitalist takes a risk that the capital will not be profitable. I've only ever worked for a wage and I have never come home from work with less wealth than when I started.

And if the capitalist's business goes under, the worker is at the very least just as jolly well fucked as the capitalist, quite often worse off.

And if the capitalist's business goes under, the worker is at the very least just as jolly well fucked as the capitalist, quite often worse off.

The worker loses his job - when the company fails, his wealth is the money he earned. That property is his and cannot be taken away from him. When a business goes under, the owner loses all money he personally invested in the business (because if the business is bankrupt it must have no remaining value) and must pay back any loans and creditors he has incurred - loans and creditors that are necessary to buy the capital in the first place, such as the shop or factory where production took place and the equipment in that factory or shop and the raw material to produce products - out of the property he owned before the business went bankrupt. So he loses his home, his car and everything else he owns up to the value of the loan.

To recap, the worker has gained wages (but will not receive any more until he can find alternative employment). He has made a net gain. The capitalist has lost all property he owned before the business failed up to the value of the business' debts. That is a net loss. How is the capitalist better off than the worker?

Because the capitalist won't likely be throw out on the streets or be forced to beg for unemployment benefits.

They have funny things called "filing for bankruptcy" and "hiding your assets". Most likely, the worker has no assets, and so deprived of a job, is fucked. He gets to go deep into debt looking for a new job while his family goes without common neccessities.

You, I would have expected more understanding of the subtlety out of.

Concentration camps, banning of unions, factory requisitions, limitations on speech and restrictions on enterprise were all elements of the Nazi and Fascist regimes of Germany, Italy and Spain. There's a reason the cure-all is called "-ism". It's any of the cure-all utopian ideologies.

I did ponder the choice of the word "Ism" shortly after I watched the film. At first I thought it might have been some sort of self-censorship in order to not offend or antagonise proponents of socialism/communism at the time.

I actually do believe you're right in that the film is intended to be critical of all totalitarian utopia-culminating ideologies, in this case European Fascism and Stalinism, as well as Asian Maoism etc.

You get a gold star, Andy! *Pin* :D

However, I must say that I am somewhat irked by the arrogance of American Nationalism inherent in "Make Mine Freedom".

Also, the romantic story of the fictional automobile pioneer is, whilst endearing, very unrepresentative of the nature of "free enterprise" in America, and throughout the world, today. Naturally, not the fault of the film makers, but still.

Today, instead of a land of free-thinking, enterprising, hard-working men and women, America has become a bloated and stagnating shadow of it's former self. A new kind of "Ism" has risen within America in recent decades. Corporatism.

*Sigh*

Oh well. "Make Mine Freedom" is an enjoyable, yet biased, somewhat narrow and nationalistic critique of totalitarian utopian idealogies. I'm a real fan of 1940's era animation, and I must say I quite like the film. 7/10!

"What is Communism?" is just crazy talk from a foaming-at-the-mouth former FBI man. 0/10!

This is about as good as Conquest's book.

"Less than five minutes by rocket missile."

I want to travel by rocket missile dammit!

:rolleyes:
'Cause everyone works at a co-op now…

Today on Sesame Street, we learn the wonders of mutual funds and private investment.

Any monkey who can use a computer can pick stocks. Mine are doing rather well.

OOK-OOK?

This is about as good as Conquest's book.

Ah! I was hoping you could come in for class today, Andaras. I hope you weren't out stirring up proletarian revolution again with those nasty Bolshevik Boys again!

So, after having watched both films, what is your take on them, being a self-proclaimed militant Stalinist?

Today on Sesame Street, we learn the wonders of mutual funds...

Cause we all know that helping finance that uberwealthy captialist corporations will make us independently wealthy and equal partners in the system...

Because the capitalist won't likely be throw out on the streets or be forced to beg for unemployment benefits.

They have funny things called "filing for bankruptcy" and "hiding your assets". Most likely, the worker has no assets, and so deprived of a job, is fucked. He gets to go deep into debt looking for a new job while his family goes without common neccessities.

To file for bankruptcy you have to have no assets. Everything you own must be sold off. So if the size of the business' debts are higher than the value of the capitalists house and car then he will have nothing aside from these hidden assets which apparently is a regular enough occurrence for you to have mentioned it - although I can assure you, when you have a very large bank and several other businesses that you owe money pursuing you then its not hard for them to scrutinise your financial records and claim their money. So yes, when the capitalist loses his business he is thrown out on the street, unless the business' debts are so small that he can afford to pay them personally and still have assets left over.

The worker is in a better position than when he started working (unless his entire income was used for consumption, in which case he is in exactly the same position as he was before he started working) because he will have some savings or will have bought some assets with his wages. The capitalist is in a worse position than when he started because he now has less than when he started the business. The capitlist took a risk - the worker didn't.

Cause we all know that helping finance that uberwealthy captialist corporations will make us independently wealthy and equal partners in the system...

It seems to be doing a pretty good job for me. Of course, maybe I'm just Ubersmart.

Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you. If you don't play, you CAN'T win.

Ah! I was hoping you could come in for class today, Andaras. I hope you weren't out stirring up proletarian revolution again with those nasty Bolshevik Boys again!

So, after having watched both films, what is your take on them, being a self-proclaimed militant Stalinist?

Well, you've seen one bourgeois 'argument' you've seen them all.

But when all is said and done, the capitalist will still have food to put on his table. The worker will be lucky to escape with massive leins or wage garnishments, and quite likely will be in want of common necessities.

I don't care how much property someone loses. You can lose a billion dollars and just be fine so long as your needs are met. But if you are a worker, and you lose your job, you're fucked until someone will do you the mercy of buying you.

But when all is said and done, the capitalist will still have food to put on his table. The worker will be lucky to escape with massive leins or wage garnishments, and quite likely will be in want of common necessities.

I don't care how much property someone loses. You can lose a billion dollars and just be fine so long as your needs are met. But if you are a worker, and you lose your job, you're fucked until someone will do you the mercy of buying you.

Hmm, I wouldn't bother comrade. If I have learnt anything from forums it's that those who come on them have their minds made up and you won't change them.

It seems to be doing a pretty good job for me. Of course, maybe I'm just Ubersmart.

Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you. If you don't play, you CAN'T win.

You're talking to some one who graduated at the top of his high school class, and is pulling a 4.0 in college. The chance (and I must stress this part) of improving one's station in a hierarchy does not legitimate it.

I refuse to become the oppressor, because I choose to live a moral life. Success is not what matters here, human rights are what matters.

But when all is said and done, the capitalist will still have food to put on his table. The worker will be lucky to escape with massive leins or wage garnishments, and quite likely will be in want of common necessities.

I don't care how much property someone loses. You can lose a billion dollars and just be fine so long as your needs are met. But if you are a worker, and you lose your job, you're fucked until someone will do you the mercy of buying you.

Why will the capitalist still have food to put on his table? To be bankrupt, one must have no assets. So until the capitalist finds waged employment he has no income and no savings to live off of or assets to sell in order to put food on his table. The worker can use money he saved while working (or sell things he bought while working) to put food on his table until he finds waged employment. Both must seek another source of income - the difference is that the worker must have something to show for working (unless he was living exactly at his means) whereas the capitlist has nothing. The capitalist took a risk - the worker took no risk.

Well, you've seen one bourgeois 'argument' you've seen them all.

I am not confident that your opinions on totalitarian governance by political elites will change by watching the films, but I'd just like to know what you thought of the films, the characters, the idea's espoused by them, and so on.

You're talking to some one who graduated at the top of his high school class, and is pulling a 4.0 in college.

Yawn. Kids these days, no work ethic. Maybe we should discuss this when you're paying your own way.

The chance (and I must stress this part) of improving one's station in a hierarchy does not legitimate it. I've seen the alternative. It's never been pretty.

I refuse to become the oppressor, because I choose to live a moral life. Success is not what matters here, human rights are what matters.

Then go hungry, but don't complain to me about the negative consequences of actions freely taken against better advice.

Actually, on the topic of really anti-communist B-movies, it is important to rememeber that the so-called `famine-genocide' campaign that the Nazis started in 1933 reached its apogee half a century later, in 1983, with the film Harvest of Despair, for the masses, and in 1986, with the book Harvest of Sorrow, by Robert Conquest, for the intelligentsia.

The films Harvest of Despair, about the Ukrainian `genocide', and The Killing Fields, about the Kampuchean `genocide', were the two most important works created by Reagan's entourage to instill in people's minds that Communism is synonymous with genocide.

Harvest of Despair won a Gold Medal and the Grand Trophy Award Bowl at the 28th International Film and TV Festival in New York in 1985.

The most important eyewitness accounts about the `genocide' appearing in the film are made by German Nazis and their former collaborators.

Stepan Skrypnyk was the editor-in-chief of the Nazi journal Volyn during the German occupation. In three weeks, with the blessing of the Hitlerite authorities, he was promoted from simple layman to bishop in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and in the name of `Christian morality', put forward vicious propaganda for Die Neue Ordnung, the Hitlerite New Order. Fleeing the Red Army, he sought refuge in the U.S.

The German Hans von Herwath, another eyewitness, worked in the Soviet Union in the service that recruited, among the Soviet prisoners, mercenaries for General Vlasov's Russian Nazi army.

His compatriot Andor Henke, also appearing in the film, was a Nazi diplomat.

To illustrate the `famine-genocide' of 1932--1933, the authors used sequences from pre-1917 news films, bits of the films Czar Hunger (1921--1922) and Arsenal (1929), then sequences from Siege of Leningrad, filmed during the Second World War.

When the film's producers were publicly attacked by Tottle in 1986, Marco Carinnik, who was behind the film and had done most of the research, made a public declaration, quoted in the Toronto Star:

`Carynnik said that none of the archival footage is of the Ukrainian famine and that very few photos from `32-33' appear that can be traced as authentic. A dramatic shot at the film's end of an emaciated girl, which has also been used in the film's promotional material, is not from the 1932--1933 famine, Carynnik said.

` ``I made the point that this sort of inaccuracy cannot be allowed,'' he said in an interview. ``I was ignored.'' '

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holodomor2.jpg
This is only evidence of the so called 'genocide' and it's not even from 1932-33, it's from the Tsarist famine (1921-22).

Why will the capitalist still have food to put on his table? To be bankrupt, one must have no assets. So until the capitalist finds waged employment he has no income and no savings to live off of or assets to sell in order to put food on his table. The worker can use money he saved while working (or sell things he bought while working) to put food on his table until he finds waged employment. Both must seek another source of income - the difference is that the worker must have something to show for working (unless he was living exactly at his means) whereas the capitlist has nothing. The capitalist took a risk - the worker took no risk.

No net assets. You successfully file for bankruptcy, and you get your credit ruined, but your debts are forgiven. You don't see former capitalists out on the streets with nothing, especially with things like limited liability corporations. You know, those wonderful things that protect shareholders from risk and kick workers to the curb.

Bankruptcy always has and always will favor the wealthy.

Yawn. Kids these days, no work ethic. Maybe we should discuss this when you're paying your own way.

I am. Ever heard of loans and scholarships? My parent's didn't have any money to contribute to my education beyond the cost to ship me off. I know poverty, mister, and don't you think otherwise.

Then go hungry, but don't complain to me about the negative consequences of actions freely taken against better advice.

I'm not complaining about my life. And it's frankly insulting that you seem to think that socialists are all just whiners.

Bankruptcy always has and always will be a tool to protect the person filing it.

fixed

Lots of stuff.


Dang. Holocaust denial is diversifying.

The Killing Fields, about the Kampuchean `genocide' ... instill in people's minds that Communism is synonymous with genocide.

Except Kampuchea was never about Communism. It was a twisted totalitarian regime, about as close to Communism as the White Cliffs of Dover are to three tons of Gruyere.

It was genocide for the ruling faction's sake; not even Hitler would have stooped as low as Pol Pot's regime did.

fixed

If you don't think that the law of a capitalist society is designed to serve the interests of capitalists, than you need to pull your head out of the sand.

If you don't think that the law of a capitalist society is designed to serve the interests of capitalists, than you need to pull your head out of the sand.

I think you need to widen your horizons a bit, namely in this instance actually learn something about filing for bankruptcy.

I am. Ever heard of loans and scholarships? My parent's didn't have any money to contribute to my education beyond the cost to ship me off. I know poverty, mister, and don't you think otherwise.

Anyone can say anything on the internet. There's no point in belaboring grades or scores or social status. It's New Godwinism.


I'm not complaining about my life. And it's frankly insulting that you seem to think that socialists are all just whiners.

Admittedly, my statistical sample is limited to every socialist/communist I've ever met in life and online. Which is quite a few, but breaks down into large majorities of fanatics, malcontents and crackpots, and a few well-intentioned people. I tend to find that the louder people are about things, (their religion and their politics being #1 and #2) the shakier and more self-centered their reasons usually are.

Except Kampuchea was never about Communism. It was a twisted totalitarian regime, about as close to Communism as the White Cliffs of Dover are to three tons of Gruyere.

It was genocide for the ruling faction's sake; not even Hitler would have stooped as low as Pol Pot's regime did.

Exactly. Pol Pot *never* claimed to be communist, and only made quasi-communist overtures when seeking help from the Chinese government.

"We are not communists ... we are revolutionaries" who do not "belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina." --Ieng Sary, second-in-command of the Khmer Rouge.

Anyone can say anything on the internet. There's no point in belaboring grades or scores or social status. It's New Godwinism.



Admittedly, my statistical sample is limited to every socialist/communist I've ever met in life and online. Which is quite a few, but breaks down into large majorities of fanatics, malcontents and crackpots, and a few well-intentioned people. I tend to find that the louder people are about things, (their religion and their politics being #1 and #2) the shakier and more self-centered their reasons usually are.

That, and political minorities tend to be more....vociferous. I mean, look at the BNP.

No net assets. You successfully file for bankruptcy, and you get your credit ruined, but your debts are forgiven. You don't see former capitalists out on the streets with nothing, especially with things like limited liability corporations. You know, those wonderful things that protect shareholders from risk and kick workers to the curb.

Bankruptcy always has and always will favor the wealthy.

Yes, no net assets. Net assets means assets minus liablities. When you go bankrupt, you do indeed have all your debts written off - but you also have all your assets seized up to the value of that debt. So unless the money owed by the capitalist is very small - and business debts are very rarely small - then the capitalist will be 'out on the streets with nothing' - or rather more realistically will have to find employment like a worker or live on unemployment benefits like everyone else who hasn't got a job. The worker does not entail that same risk as anything he owned before he got a job is not at risk when he loses his job.

Exactly. Pol Pot *never* claimed to be communist, and only made quasi-communist overtures when seeking help from the Chinese government.

"We are not communists ... we are revolutionaries" who do not "belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina." --Ieng Sary, second-in-command of the Khmer Rouge.

Ladies and gentlemen, Andaras has just agreed with a capitalist.

If you would like to tilt your heads upwards, you will notice that the sky is, indeed, falling.

:)

Because the capitalist won't likely be throw out on the streets or be forced to beg for unemployment benefits.

They have funny things called "filing for bankruptcy" and "hiding your assets". Most likely, the worker has no assets, and so deprived of a job, is fucked. He gets to go deep into debt looking for a new job while his family goes without common neccessities.


Well not only do the Home Construction Companies in America wish to have a word with you, but so do many small business owners through out the years.

Lets face reality though. If a worker is living paycheck to paycheck, you still have a lot of wiggle room these days. If you lose your job, you still have a paycheck coming (workers have to be legally paid before creditors) regardless. Even let us say you don't have the final paycheck though; you do have the ability to normally go at least one month without income and with zero in the bank.

Creditors usually allow 1-2 months of non-payment before they truly become pissy. Most will work with you when you let them know you lost your job. When I was younger, I had a loan out for my car and another for an auto repair I couldn't afford at the time. I lost my job at the time and the first thing I did was grab a paper (this was before newspapers posted classified ads on the internet), stop by the local Job Service, then stop by my bank. I told them I was out of a job but showed them I was looking that day. They rewrote my loans and via that, it allowed me to not need to resume payments for 2 months. Student loans are just as willing to work with you.

I remember my parents telling me that when my father lost his job (actually blew the whistle on a boss that was embezzling...before protections existed against firing whistle blowers) the bank was willing to forebear his mortgage for two months.

The fact is, everyone has a skillset of some sort or other. The problem is that today people live way outside their means and everything is on credit. They set themselves up for a fall, which is their own doing. I don't need a 57" Plasma HDTV, with 10 disk changing DVD player, and 300 disk CD changing stereo blasting out of $1000 speakers, however my neighbors wish to have that setup. I don't need a Porsche SUV, H-1 Hummer, or a Mercedes S-Class in the driveway. My neighbors do. I personally do not feel the need to purchase every new 'toy' that the media dazzles people with (like the Iphone).

While it would be nice to own these things I know that while I can afford them now, If I was to be hurt or disabled I wouldn't be able to keep paying for them. If my neighbor lost his job, he wouldn't be able to survive a month (which he has confessed over a beer many a times). If I lost my job, I could live for two years on my savings. Don't get me wrong, I have a nice used (and paid for) 6 year old car which works and looks fine but it's nothing fancy. I have a 32-inch Tube TV which works just fine with a budget DVD player and my single disk CD player. My home is about the same as their's in cost but I haven't totally remodeled nor do I have a whirlpool and swimming pool in my back yard.

Certainly it doesn't sound very interesting or 'fun' at my home but the fact is I am living within my means. If I lose my job, I don't have more than the Mortgage, utilities, home phone, and cable/internet bill to pay. Less than $1300 a month total. (I live way in the northern states where a home that is assessed at $100,000 would cost $2-$4 million in a major city. Average home cost here is $70,000 for a two level 4 bedroom split)

What it all boils down to I guess is:

1) You can get a job if you have the skill-sets needed (auto repair, IT, accounting), or can develop them quickly (sales, customer service).

2) If you lose a job, you look for any job that can put money in your pocket. Certainly look for jobs that you are a fit for (if you know IT, then look for that network admin job), but if you need to put food on the table while you are looking, there are car washes, restaurants, gas stations and a slew of other part time jobs that would keep some cash flow going. Even if you need to take a job in a different field that may not be in your normal searching, at least they will train you, you will expand your skill-set, you will get a paycheck, and you will survive to keep looking for that job you want.

3) The people that get in trouble are those that sit and cry over a lost job, or those that think it's beneath them to stand behind a register. The people that survive are those that do what ever it legally takes to stay afloat. They are the ones that will work 2-3 part time jobs while looking for a main job. Those are the people that have a full time, 40 hour a week career but have a 10-20 hour a week part time job on the side when they get that career going.

Don't live above your means and get right out there and find another job. Workers can survive just fine.

Ask a small business owner though how he survives after his business goes under. They are worse off than the employees. Those employees can go right out that day and pick up a new job. That small business owner can't, and all of his personal money will be sucked away to cover expenses of closing. I know many that have lost their business, home (to cover the business or because they couldn't pay the mortgage), possessions (Same deal), and even up to their families. The worker who is hard-working, not lazy or late for work can find work. The small business owner who just let them go is about to lose everything he has (or close to it).

How the hell is freedom to keep what you produce slavery? Wouldn't slavery be more along the lines of being forced to give up what you produce to someone who doesn't produce? Y'know, working for someone else without compensation or a choice in the matter.

That doesn't work for a number of known instances. Let's say for example, that you're a farmer. You don't make much, but it's enough to live on. The government comes along, and seizes it for economic development under eminent domain. Your compensation is minor. You later find out that the land you were on has now been developed by private interests who make tons more than you ever will, and that you're out of a home and a job.

Or if we cut out the government entirely, there have been any number of cases where land has been undervalued and bought out, with the locals being pressured into selling by economic strangling (buy out local jobs, close them down) so that the land can be developed into something else.

Rampant capitalism is not without its ugly sides.

Why will the capitalist still have food to put on his table? To be bankrupt, one must have no assets. So until the capitalist finds waged employment he has no income and no savings to live off of or assets to sell in order to put food on his table.


Not necessarily the case. I know of at least one firm who started software business here, got a lot of investments and human capital, distributed a lot of shares, and once everything was proven to be a success, they shut down, taking everything of value with them.

A little while later, they reopened in another country, using everything they built with their former company. Guess who got screwed? Investors and former staff alike.

Yes, no net assets. Net assets means assets minus liablities. When you go bankrupt, you do indeed have all your debts written off - but you also have all your assets seized up to the value of that debt. So unless the money owed by the capitalist is very small - and business debts are very rarely small - then the capitalist will be 'out on the streets with nothing' - or rather more realistically will have to find employment like a worker or live on unemployment benefits like everyone else who hasn't got a job. The worker does not entail that same risk as anything he owned before he got a job is not at risk when he loses his job.

Not quite just net assets; liabilities that have accounts receivable or other receivables pledged as collateral are not usually included in calculating the ability of a business to finance its debt in bankruptcy.

Personal liability is also only a problem if the business is classified as a sole proprietorship or as general partner in a partnership. In all other cases, liability stops at the company; if the company is an LLC, or if the owner is a limited partner of a limited partnership, or if they are an investor in a corporation the owners are protected from personal liability. However, each of these carries with it various benefits and penalties; owners of corporations are subject to double taxation (on net income and on any payment they receive in the form of dividends). On the other hand, proprietorships and partnerships are taxed as income but carry the risk of personal loss of assets in the event of a bankruptcy.

Does it favor the wealthy? To a degree, but it's also true that they have more to lose in the event of a bankruptcy; without removing the risk present in this kind of investment, it would be difficult for companies to secure the capital to grow their operations and expand. And without that, there are far fewer jobs and far slower economic growth, with knock-on effects on the rest of society.

Actually, on the topic of really anti-communist B-movies, it is important to rememeber that the so-called `famine-genocide' campaign that the Nazis started in 1933 reached its apogee half a century later, in 1983, with the film Harvest of Despair, for the masses, and in 1986, with the book Harvest of Sorrow, by Robert Conquest, for the intelligentsia.

The films Harvest of Despair, about the Ukrainian `genocide', and The Killing Fields, about the Kampuchean `genocide', were the two most important works created by Reagan's entourage to instill in people's minds that Communism is synonymous with genocide.

Harvest of Despair won a Gold Medal and the Grand Trophy Award Bowl at the 28th International Film and TV Festival in New York in 1985.

The most important eyewitness accounts about the `genocide' appearing in the film are made by German Nazis and their former collaborators.

Stepan Skrypnyk was the editor-in-chief of the Nazi journal Volyn during the German occupation. In three weeks, with the blessing of the Hitlerite authorities, he was promoted from simple layman to bishop in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and in the name of `Christian morality', put forward vicious propaganda for Die Neue Ordnung, the Hitlerite New Order. Fleeing the Red Army, he sought refuge in the U.S.

The German Hans von Herwath, another eyewitness, worked in the Soviet Union in the service that recruited, among the Soviet prisoners, mercenaries for General Vlasov's Russian Nazi army.

His compatriot Andor Henke, also appearing in the film, was a Nazi diplomat.

To illustrate the `famine-genocide' of 1932--1933, the authors used sequences from pre-1917 news films, bits of the films Czar Hunger (1921--1922) and Arsenal (1929), then sequences from Siege of Leningrad, filmed during the Second World War.

When the film's producers were publicly attacked by Tottle in 1986, Marco Carinnik, who was behind the film and had done most of the research, made a public declaration, quoted in the Toronto Star:

`Carynnik said that none of the archival footage is of the Ukrainian famine and that very few photos from `32-33' appear that can be traced as authentic. A dramatic shot at the film's end of an emaciated girl, which has also been used in the film's promotional material, is not from the 1932--1933 famine, Carynnik said.

` ``I made the point that this sort of inaccuracy cannot be allowed,'' he said in an interview. ``I was ignored.'' '

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holodomor2.jpg
This is only evidence of the so called 'genocide' and it's not even from 1932-33, it's from the Tsarist famine (1921-22).

1. Tsarist famine in 1922? Surely an educated prolaterian would know that his worker brethren (oh wait, Mommy and Daddy put you through Private Catholic school) disposed of the Czar in 1917. The BOLSHEVIKS caused the famine you refer to.

2. No Holodomor? Ask my great uncle who died in it.

2. No Holodomor? Ask my great uncle who died in it.

Your Grandfather was an Evil Bourgois Kulak Swine(TM). He got what he deserved.

Joking, of course, but it's what "some" (no, I ain't pointing anyone... ;) ) would say.

This is only evidence of the so called 'genocide' and it's not even from 1932-33, it's from the Tsarist famine (1921-22).

Your Bolshevik comrades were responcible for that famine, my friend. The Tsar had already lost the throne years before.The communist forces requisitioned grain beyond that which the peasants were able to supply, in the middle of a drought, and then used it to supply their own war.

Fail.

Not necessarily the case. I know of at least one firm who started software business here, got a lot of investments and human capital, distributed a lot of shares, and once everything was proven to be a success, they shut down, taking everything of value with them.

A little while later, they reopened in another country, using everything they built with their former company. Guess who got screwed? Investors and former staff alike.

Thats not bankruptcy, thats voluntary liquidation. If the comapny was solvent, and as you say it was a great success, I'm going to assume it was - it should have had the funds to pay its creditors (including its employees) with the value of the remaining assets divided among the shareholders. Furthermore, such an action could not be taken without the support of the majority of shareholders, so someone (or some people) representing a majority of the business' ownership must have been fine with it.

Not quite just net assets; liabilities that have accounts receivable or other receivables pledged as collateral are not usually included in calculating the ability of a business to finance its debt in bankruptcy.

Personal liability is also only a problem if the business is classified as a sole proprietorship or as general partner in a partnership. In all other cases, liability stops at the company; if the company is an LLC, or if the owner is a limited partner of a limited partnership, or if they are an investor in a corporation the owners are protected from personal liability. However, each of these carries with it various benefits and penalties; owners of corporations are subject to double taxation (on net income and on any payment they receive in the form of dividends). On the other hand, proprietorships and partnerships are taxed as income but carry the risk of personal loss of assets in the event of a bankruptcy.

Does it favor the wealthy? To a degree, but it's also true that they have more to lose in the event of a bankruptcy; without removing the risk present in this kind of investment, it would be difficult for companies to secure the capital to grow their operations and expand. And without that, there are far fewer jobs and far slower economic growth, with knock-on effects on the rest of society.

Don't worry, I am aware of the ins and outs of limited liability corporations (*at least within the framework of British company law). The problem with limited liability in the case that has been discussed here is that in order to obtain limited liability the sole trader/partners must either find investors to buy the shares he has issued or buy them himself - and with the minimum capitalisation of a limited company in the UK set at £50,000 this is no simple task for an individual unless he uses a loan to buy his own shares, in which case he again becomes personally liable. If he issues the shares to ther people he loses some ownership and may lose overall control as well - in which case the capitalists become a more diffuse group of parties controlling the business by proxy rather than the 'greedy factory owner' caricature frequently conjured by certain people.

Your Grandfather was an Evil Bourgois Kulak Swine(TM). He got what he deserved.

Joking, of course, but it's what "some" (no, I ain't pointing anyone... ;) ) would say.

Great Uncle actually. Grandpa was arrested as an Antisocial Element in the Soviet agressive, unprovoked invasion of Poland. His crime was working in a private shop. He escaped though.