Music Composers Unite!
This phrase has always hit me as somewhat foreign. It makes more sense to me when applied to an instrumentalist… But for a composer, this idea sounds somewhat constricting. What if one arrives 'at this voice'. Does one then just hang onto it? A lot of artist and composers seem to. To make a niche that is all their own, is the goal it would seem… Some composers/artists have found great variety within their 'voice' ..and it seems to have not limited them at all…
Yet this idea seems to have also limited some composers'/ artists' expressive scope..
Today we can fill ourselves with the vast historical record of what has been done, like no other time before… Pour all these musical shapes and attendant responses deep into the psyche for a few decades… Who can say how the unconscious mixes it all up, and how it expresses it's fullness in our compositional creativity...
To me, each piece has a voice that wants to be released - if we are lucky -….. The parameters ('style') in which that happens - to me is quite fluid… and can shift radically from piece to piece.. And even within one piece one can imply many styles - that are going thru and around…
Funny, it seems that Bowie - if he would've hung on to Ziggy Stardust -As his voice, we never would have gotten his great funk album "Young Americans', with the 'thin white duke' … Or his progressive side with "Station to Station"… to his breakdown album 'Aladdin Sane" - 'Breaking Glass'…to his minimalist heroic "Heroes" with Fripp and eno's colorful light display… to 'Scary Monsters' and 'Fashion' as social commentary thru acerbic wit and grit..
I guess Bowie comes to mind, in order to address this idea of 'identity' (voice) - and question if 'finding one's voice' is a good idea at all?
When Bernstein went Broadway, Koussevitzky - and many others thought ill of his decision.
Miles always wanted to do a rock album,,, but didn't...
Mozart's mass in C minor ( a Later work) sounds a lot like Bach.
Perhaps this is just semantics, and some identities have just greater scopes than others, and that is neither a good or a bad thing in and of itself. (?)
For me, (mostly) composition wasn't something about finding my voice - 'not sounding like another'… but more that each piece Is its own voice… (if it works) … and it may indeed sound like many others, however much derivative (pejoratively or not) - is in the ear of the beholder...
Some random thoughts at the end of the day…
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Peter, My first hunch is that the American people have not really
found 'their' voice and are still waiting for the government to police
itself on their behalf. I wonder... how wide spread the attitude of,
I pay my taxes, so I've done my part, really is. RS
Bob and Ondib, the aspect of The FED is merely one bead on the thread of
a long necklace . I had heard, tho' I'll have to find the post, that Congress didn't think
that the public would idly accept the 'banker's' FED, so it had to be packaged and
sponsored by an Act of Congress in such a way to pass it... but the end result was still the same.-
A private 'corporate entity' gained control of printing our dollars (but not coinage).
Coins are still minted thru the US Treasury, which I think is still part of the government.
Bob, one last question here: Do you have any sense, from your side of the states,and the
circumstances you witness in your environment (near and far) i.e. media, talking to friends
of intuitive cognizence, that the US is in decline? A simple yes or no will suffice. RS
Comments below are in response to remarks mostly by Roger, Peter, and Bob Porter. Let's start with this: I strongly object to what I feel are very misleading comments by you, Roger. You said, regarding Bob's post.
"'This' site that you have provided appears to be a well written and well conceived article, Tho' in an initial scan, I didn't notice any reference to an alternative explanation what the true causes of inflation, massive debt, etc. etc. were. Or in other words, The Non-Conspiracy Theory. ... lol ..."
What this indicates is a complete unwillingness to look at, examine and respond to tons of widely available evidence and analysis, or even to consider what I have given you, within the last 48 hours (and longer). I have said a great deal about "non-conspiracy theories," which do not pin things on one event (the creation of the Fed), or on one small group ("Jewish bankers," as opposed to bankers of all races, industrialists, pushers of real estate "bundles," landowners, factory owners, corporate CEO's, stockbrokers, etc.) I noted how the features of the capitalist system explain the circumstances that allow for the rise and necessity for fictitious capital. You've ignored that. This notion of "fictitious capital" includes a key part of the explanation for "inflation, massive debt," and unemployment, periodic recessions and severe economic downturns, as well as the accelerating income and wealth gaps, and the NET TRANSFER OF WEALTH from the subordinate classes to the ruling class. I am speaking of the richest one tenth of one percent. I also provided links (twice) on the issue of "fictitious capital," but you conveniently ignored those as well. Your assertion that you "didn't notice any reference to an alternative explanation" either means you are blind, you can't read, or simply that you choose to ignore what has been put right in front of you. Why? Is it because you choose to believe in a simplistic "single conspiracy." People often do that because it's easier to scapegoat, and ignore the real solutions, which may involve Democratic Socialism as one possible answer. No matter how many links or statistics I give you—ranging from the examples of Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland to Canada and Japan—you just ignore the obvious facts, data and the social realities. ON top of that, you provide no alternative, which is disturbing given the numerous fascist, neo-Nazi and right wing sources you rely upon; and then there is your failure to answer the question—
DO YOU BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY?
That question, and your lack of an answer, must strongly suggest to some people that your solution is a non-democratic, fascist, or Eustace Mullins' neo-Nazi type solution. You defended him again, in a recent post, even though you know by now how voluminous his pro-fascist writings are.
You know very well that there are "alternative" theories, even sound and valid theories, that the Mullins' and Fed conspiracy theorists cannot explain. (whatever modicum of truth such "researchers" may happen upon from time to time.) You avoid the issue of how the Fed could be so crucial, if the same practices, the same kind of exploitation, the same transfers of wealth to the rich took place BEFORE the Fed was created, and which take place TODAY in many other countries where there is no Fed. You don't explain why it makes any difference who prints the money, when a great many other countries DO HAVE the government printing the money, with the same systems of exploitation and wealth transfer in place. This is because you IGNORE the question, "what difference does it make," when capital, finance, and distribution are essentially controlled by the Billionaire Class. If you are not ignoring any of these things, or you know about them, then I wonder why I haven't seen you mention them yet.
You know that, as Bernie Sanders says, "There is something wrong when every other major country on Earth has guarantees health care as a right, and the US does not." The solution to that one problem is so obvious, and so nearly ubiquitous in the economically developed world, that one would have focus with laser like intensity on EVERYTHING BUT the dozens of countries which have superior health care systems to that of the US.
"I scanned thru it and will look more into it later.
Now we are even more 'on the same page', and intelligence
has a chance lol (as opposed to the initial race baiting stuff
of others before, which merely derailed and distracted)"
Not so fast. The points about your previous posts and links which contained racist, homobophobic, ethnocentric, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, sexist, anti-Catholic and sexist remarks STILL STAND. You have not answered them, and you think you can dismiss them by calling them a "distraction." One wonders why you posted such remarks and links in the first place, and relied upon such a large number of far right wing sources. In my opinion, you brush the issue aside for a "good reason. It is because the right wing conspiratorial "critique," such as it is, is inextricably connected (in Mullins thought, at the very least) with anti-Semitism, racism and White Supremacism. One doesn't have to go very far into the links you provide, and associated links of the "fellow travelers," to see that ethnocentrism, Jew-hating, and the fear of the migrant, are part and parcel of the ideology you are seeking to promote.
"I also believe the adage, 'follow the money' is a key, that will lead us to insight's and a realistic assessment of the situation. I will read more and follow up with you later."
You can "follow the money" to the Koch brothers, or to any number of Anglo-Saxon, French Catholic, Russian, Chinese, Italian, Mexican and German Billionaires.) But you don't seem to want to see the even larger picture, of how the money becomes "concentrated" in the hands of an entire class of people, which mostly includes financiers, stock brokers, hedge fund managers, factory owners, real estate moguls, owners of the corporate media, and investors in the prison industrial complex. Had you heard about G4S Security, and role it plays in privately managing prisons in the US and around the world? We do well to look at as many of the particulars as possible, while bearing in mind the class structure, and how that affects the flow of income, and the accumulation of large quantities of wealth by so few.
Reply by Peter Brown 10 hours ago:
"The question here is, will Hillary be allowed to complete her campaign for pres. now that she's been convicted by popular consensus of espionage against the US? Will the American People have 'found their voice' in beginning trial deliberations for all of her (and her husband's) criminal offences against the American People?" ... "Sincerely, ... Looking for concrete answers. ... I would like to hear from Olm, Roger, Bob and Cuddly Bear on this please. ...."
I am not aware that Hillary Clinton, in spite of what could be qualified as morally repugnant, politically bankrupt, and anti-social policies (in Iraq, Syria, Honduras, and Libya) is guilty of any crime under US Law. Not yet anyway. Nor am I aware of her being "convicted by public opinion," in spite of my very poor opinion of her value to the body politic. There are right wing talk radio hosts, like Mark Levin, who thinks she's guilty of violating the Espionage Act.
Where did you hear, Peter, that Hillary Clinton is guilty of espionage? Or violation of the Espionage Act? Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, and many more (some who have done the US a service, by revealing illegal mass murders, perpetrated by the US armed forces) have also been charged under that act. I am not sure I even give the concept of "espionage" much credence, as a concept of law, given how it's been misused so often. It seems largely to be a right wing construct, and so it surprises me, Peter, that you would even consider the idea of charging Hillary Clinton of anything connected with "espionage." If convicted, it might be the least of her "crimes," assuming we took into account everything she did to the people of Libya and Honduras. Those who speak Spanish can turn on Radio Globo or Radio Progreso, from Tegucigalpa, and be astounded at the severity of the atrocities being committed week by week in Honduras, in large part due to policies fully sanctioned by Hillary Clinton. Perhaps you could explain what you think her "real crimes" might have been, from your perspective?
roger stancill 10 hours ago:
"Peter, My first hunch is that the American people have not really found 'their' voice and are still waiting for the government to police itself on their behalf. I wonder... how wide spread the attitude of, I pay my taxes, so I've done my part, really is."
Well, one can make a case for the refusal to pay taxes. Thoreau refused to pay taxes, because such monies were being used for an immoral and unjust war against Mexico, during the 1840's. Emerson visited him in jail, and asked "What are you doing in here?" Thoreau famously answered, "The real question is, 'What are you doing out there?"
Reply by Peter Brown 7 hours ago:
"Thank you for responding Roger. .... This 'wide spread' attitude is so 'wide spread' that, you need look no farther than this thread to find. But like any 'good messages' or positive solutions to this, a decaying system where fixes and remedies are blocked by the gauntlet of corporate protectionism, you're spot-on correct that WTP have not found our voices."
What does WTP stand for in this sentence? I looked up the acronym and found many possibilities. One is the White Trash Party, which I had never heard of. Are we talking about Winnie The Pooh? I wonder what "good messages" you are talking about, Peter. I think Bernie Sanders has a good message, for the most part, but Roger won't even talk seriously about Sanders, or the social systems that exist in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Isn't Roger's "message" this: blame a small group of conspirators for all the current social, political and economic ills? Isn't his prescription: "Don't vote?" Correct me if I am missing something. Isn't his solution for garnering awareness, "Read works by Eustace Mullins," and listen to right wing videos, authored by people who have no solutions, or who advocate Fascist and Neo-nazi solutions?
Reply by Bob Porter 7 : 'Hmmm. "now that she's been convicted by popular consensus of espionage against the US? " You mean "lynch mob?" The populace get their information from the media, which you guys decry. Roger, that web page only deals with one small area. It shouldn't be hard to find more information.'
Reply by roger stancill 5 hours ago:
"Bob and Ondib, the aspect of The FED is merely one bead on the thread of a long necklace ."
That's what I have said all along. But I haven't heard anything in your analysis that goes much beyond the Fed, and fiat currency ... No recognition even of the fact that it was Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, who spearheaded AND PASSED a bill that audited the Fed, and helped us find out which corporations and banks, both in the US and abroad, were "bailed out." Certainly no recognition of any feature of capitalist economics that explains fictitious capital, and why it is problem, much less how to fix that problem.
"I had heard, tho' I'll have to find the post, that Congress didn't think that the public would idly accept the 'banker's' FED, so it had to be packaged and sponsored by an Act of Congress in such a way to pass it... but the end result was still the same.-"
This happened so many years ago, and was so inconsequential, in relation to the larger picture world wide, that I am surprised you put so emphasis on it (though I should not be so surprised, because the people who are misleading you see this as an easy tactic: simplify the situation, and make it look like the Fed is the whole problem; build a case on that and that alone; don't criticize the deeper rooted and inherent problems in capitalism itself; ignore the real concerns of working people, and their desire for fair wages, benefits, guaranteed health care, guaranteed education—but PRETEND TO BE at least somewhat concerned; throw in some race hatred, anti-Semitism, fear of migrants and the Vatican as bugaboos; also, throw in a some appeals to "nationalism," or "patriotism, as many as you can really; and lastly, eschew and minimize the value of voting and democracy—and voila! You have the precise formula which fascists have used over and over since 1922. It's Eustace Mullins formula, one that he owes to reading Ezra Pound, Hitler, and Mussolini.)
Roger you said,
"A private 'corporate entity' gained control of printing our dollars (but not coinage). Coins are still minted thru the US Treasury, which I think is still part of the government."
Yes, of course. As if we didn't know that. The question is, so what? Again, you'll have to explain why that makes any difference whatsoever, in comparison to the fact that THE WORKING PEOPLE do not have democratic control over the means of economic production and distribution? Mullins, Ezra Pound, John Birch, Archie Bunker types and numerous American fascists have moaned ad nauseum about the "control over the printing of money." Yet the Robber Barons of the late 1800's were able to exploit working people, to create fictitious capital, and to transfer TREMENDOUS sums of wealth into their coffers, when the US government itself DID have control over the printing of money. Why isn't that issue a "tempest in a teapot," compared with the evisceration of workers trade unions, and the system of lobbying, that enables the Billionaire Class to stack the deck in their favor on all that concerns them?
Roger you asked, "Bob, one last question here: Do you have any sense, from your side of the states, and the circumstances you witness in your environment (near and far) i.e. media, talking to friends of intuitive cognizence, that the US is in decline? A simple yes or no will suffice."
A sense that the US is "in decline?" The question itself is one that 'panders to nationalist sentiment.' It's a question that quasi-facists, like Donald Trump, love to dwell upon, because it's so vague and emotionally provocative. "In decline" in what respect? The question is not whether the US is "in decline?" The question is, WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MAKE LIFE IN THE US MORE JUST? WHAT CAN BE DONE TO CREATE THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE, not just in the US, but in the world as well.
Roger, you have never, as far as I can tell, made even the slightest attempt to address that question in any serious way. Why don't you try now, if you are really concerned (and not simply held ideologically captive by the simplistic propagandists you have promoted here)?
Here is a collection of recent speeches by Bernie Sanders. I wonder, out of simple curiosity, what there is here in the way of analysis or concrete proposals that you agree with or disagree with? Can you write out a few arguments you might have for or against what Sanders says in one of these speeches.
[While you are at it, can you reassure people, and say that you do not believe the primary problem is a conspiracy of "Jewish bankers," and the solution is not Mullin's exhortation to "throw out the Jews." Even on the simple question of whether you think Jews should be thrown out of their teaching positions in schools and universities, you have not given an answer. )
Ondib, you state, Yes,of course, as if we didn't know that....
and yet you can't seem to figure out from the context, which
possible application of WTP to apply to the statement it was
used in ? really?
I have already stated a few times now, that I believe Socialism is
the dream of losers. It logically follows that I have no interest
in Mr. Sanders and what he is advocating. None, nada, zero.
Are you at all familiar with the writings and videos of
Imran Hosein? He is a teacher and scholar of Eastern origin
who seems to have some very brilliant views on the nature of
present times, philosohies, and religions. Much more comprehensive
than Sanders or Mullins
LET'S GET THIS CLEAR--- I am not, and have not advocated the personality
of anyone. What I have presented are ideas for consideration and discussion,
as FFT. (food for thought). Some of the ideas could be right, and some of them
wrong; some of them fact, and some of them fiction.
ps- I would not ever advocate dismissing a teacher because of their race.
... but I would dismiss them for personally promoting a singular agenda
like socialism, for instance. That is not their task or function. Theirs is to
educate... objectively, and not to sell political propaganda. RS
Hello again Bob, I read thru the site you had listed here. I hope I can be honest with you and
give my genuine opinion. I found it rather shallow and naive.
I offer in response, an extremely indepth study and well researched video by James Corbett.
It is 1 1/2 hours long- and every minute of it is informative and no less the brilliant.(and very well produced)
I suggest that you, and everyone else here, watch this.( Bob, I will even pay you for your time,
if you find it a waste of time) Peter and Ondib, if you can find the time, I would also like to get
feedback from you... and anyone else who is curious about why the world has the problems it does.
( sorry, my budget is limited, so I can't make the same offer I do to Bob, but the wealth of knowlwdge
and understanding should be compensation enough) RS
Bob Porter said:
At least consider, http://web.archive.org/web/20001209090100/http://members.home.com/f...;.
It was very easy tofind
Dang, sorry folks, I forgot the link to the last post....
Please watch, you were not taught this in school.... but you
should have been. RS
Bob, I have already asked myself if there is an altenative that might be 'more correct'.
Of course I have questioned the validity of the information I have researched, and have
tried to look at different angles of 'this'.
The essense of the 'alternative view' seems to me to be, that the government is good
and looks out for the best interests of the people and there is no such thing as the
element of deceit and corruption when it comes to money. That is plainly and simply
'naive' and wishfully blind.
... and, like you said,also, the first video I offered , was not meant to be a one stop- all
inclusive overview either., merely a general inquiry and sounding board to open up a
conversation to potentially discuss and eliminate some of those gray areas of secrecy
we have been subject to.
I found it very interesting that the Corbett video never once mentioned the Rothchild's.
Is it possible that they don't have anything to do with the banking industry after all?
Maybe they are only interested in making good wine. lol RS
roger stancill said, on Tuesday:
"I have already stated a few times now, that I believe Socialism is the dream of losers."
I don't think it matters, Roger, that you have repeated that statement a few times, or a hundred times. What matters more is that you have not explained why. I use the term "Democratic Socialism," and you ignore my use of the term, and instead you use the term "socialism," which is so broad that might include everything from North Korea to Denmark (as well as the USSR, Today's China, The "Socialist Republic" of Sri Lanka, Cuba, Zambia under Kenneth Kaunda, Jamaica under Manley, Bolivia under Evo Morales, and all the governments of Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland).
Let's get this very clear. Democratic Socialism is not anyone's "dream" today (and therefore not a "loser's dream"). Democratic Socialism as practiced in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, as a living, practical political philosophy, has functioned for many decades successfully, with positive measureable results. It has existed in scores of nations, though you wouldn't know that listenting the mainstream media. Social Democratic Political parties have maneuvered and vied for power since the 1920's in the Nordic countries, with great success in creating higher levels of life expectancy, low infant mortality, high median wealth, high GDP growth rates and in creating a safer society (with lower levels of violence and intentional homicide). Just look at these statistics. (I have provided links before, which I don't think you ever read, but I'll give you some exact data this time).
A low infant mortality rate of 4 per 1000 or less exists in all Social Democratic Countries. The Nordic countries all have less than 4 deaths per 1000 births. Iceland has rate as low as 2. [The countries that rank above the US have almost all had democratic social parties in power for long periods of time]. The US, by contrast has 5.87 (nearly 6) and ranks 38th in the world in infant mortality.
The US ranks 37th in life expectancy. All the Nordic Social Democratic countries rank above that, usually in the top five or ten.
The US ranks 140 in intentional homicide rates per capita. All the Nordic Social Democratic countries rank far above that, usually in the top five or ten.
The US does rank 8 in the Human Development Index (but Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany and Ireland all rank ahead of the US).
The US ranks 115 in GDP growth rates.
The US ranks 28th in the median wealth per adult. All the Nordic Social Democratic countries rank above that—again—usually in the top five or ten.
The US ranks 32nd in income equality. Social Democratic countries all have far more equal income distribution.
Roger, you can't get away with your meaningless statement "Socialism is a loser's dream"—when the facts so clearly indicate that it is not only REALITY, but that the reality is superior to that in the "savage capitalist," or "neo-liberal" countries, like the US.)
If Democratic Socialism is not a way of addressing the problems you cite, then what do you say is?
"I found it very interesting that the Corbett video never once mentioned the Rothschild's. Is it possible that they don't have anything to do with the banking industry after all? Maybe they are only interested in making good wine. lol "
MORE ANTI-SEMITIC STATEMENTS, Roger. Why is it (without evidence) you only pick on the Jewish bankers, and never on Anglo-Saxon, German, Japanese, Russian, Chinese or Indian bankers?
Your pretended disavowals of racism seem to ring pretty hollow, when again, again, and again, you go back to blaming "Rothschild, and the Fed." These are hallmarks of the neo-Fascist movement, which your posts seem to be saturated in. You go back to the fascist critique, and the obsession with "currency" (when you know by know that currency is not the only item that drives the problem--it's ownership by the Billionaires of all significant levers of production, including finance, the control over labor, land ownership, factory ownership and the general control over all the means of producing and distributing good and services).
I've looked up your new source, and I find it interesting that he's another anti-Semite, and in spite of that, he's criticized for NOT BEING ANTI-SEMITIC ENOUGH, BY SEVERAL DETRACTORS (presumably because he doesn't mention Rothschild, as you pointed out).
So that puts you not only in the anti-Semitic camp, once again Roger, but in the EXTREME RIGHT WING CAMP along with other so-called "researchers," who hate Jews and blame them for all the world's problems. I will give you the benefit of some of the searching I have done about James Corbett and his conspiracy theories, if you like.
It's another case of mixing up some truth with distortions and half-baked theories that are just useful for distracting people from the real problems, according to his critics. You need only go to his own web site to see what he is up to.
Your continued posting of anti-Semitic statements makes you look worse and worse every time you post them, Roger. I don't what's wrong that you cannot refrain from making them. How does referring us to new "researchers" who are fascists, and/or their racist and anti-Semitic fellow travelers, help make your case more believable? Surely you must have access to more and better sources, which are NOT anti-Semitic. Racism is a most unattractive quality to associate yourself with, and would ask you again to do yourself a favor and dispense with it.
P.S. I thought you'd get the joke when I mentioned the WTP as possibly meaning the White Trash Party.
From the "White Trash Party" Web site"
O, why do you insist on making Demo. Soc. the issue of discussion?
It is but a variation on a theme called 'collectivism'.
The USA was originally established as a Republic, not a Democracy.
But, this is all a different discussion.
You write as if you think that the Political arena is what drives things,
and on a lower level, it somewhat does. BUT, it is not the primary driving force.
'Socialism is a loser's dream', is not a meaningless statement. It is concise and precise.
You refer back to the much corrupted US government as if it has become what it was
intended to become. That is a false basis for the argument.
I have repeatedly attempted to show that the US government has been hi-jacked.
The people of the US do not endorse their present government. (at least those with a smattering of a clue)
This is evidenced by the popularity of a character like Trump.
The sovereignty of the individual to be free and make his or her own choices is the better way.
Even Democracy fails at this. So, then Democratic Socialism is just another fail, in a different package.
If you have the time to watch this video, I think it may explain this better.
The ideology of socialism/collectivism is covered, along with many other common misconceptions. RS
Ondib, just because someone has a Jewish name does not mean that they
'follow the faith'. Have you ever heard of the word renegade? You insist on
stating that this idea is anti-semitic. How stupid and superficial.
You don't really seem to care about an objective and critical assessment
of facts, you are more interested in race baiting. WHY?
This is yet another loser's tactic.
So, drop the drama.... and look at the objective facts. RS
" ... why do you insist on making Demo. Soc. the issue of discussion?"
I told you. Because you complain about an elite wealthy few controlling the economy; you complain about the unequal distribution of power, wealth and income—which results in poverty, poor health outcomes, a lack of access to doctors, a lack of access even to healthy food, unconscionably high levels of infant mortality and low life expectancy in a country as wealthy as the US. YOU BRING UP THE ISSUE of the lack of social justice in the United States. I have shown you in the last several posts how DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM functions and what the result is. Democratic Socialism solves the problem better than any other system. The data shows you that it's not "a dream," but an evolving reality. I gave you the indicators, and mentioned Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Holland; and you saw that MANY other countries—like Canada, Australia, Austria, France, as well as Ireland and Italy—have better health care indicators, lower levels of violence and homicide, due in large measure to the practical political measures taken in those countries—AND ALL THESE NATIONS practice representative government; none are anti-democratic or totalitarian. [But I think we are learning now that you are not in favor of democracy, in spite of your denunciation of "collectivism," which is beside the point].
"It is but a variation on a theme called 'collectivism'."
I don't think, Roger, you have shown that you understand the difference between "collectivism" and "Democratic Socialism." In the USSR, Josef Stalin practiced "collectivism." None of the countries I mentioned practice "collectivism." George Orwell, a famous Democratic Socialist, said collectivism should be opposed, because it "gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of" ("The Road to Serfdom"). You are not correct on that point, Roger, because you fail to distinguish between the faux socialism of Stalinism, and the Democratic Socialism of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland and Holland. In fact, Roger, what you appear not to understand is that it is "capitalism" that collectivizes. It brings workers together, like inert commodities, and makes use of them in the factory, in the workplace, in agribusinesses on farm land. At the same time, it treats them like material resources, and discards them when it suits the capitalists; and it deprives them of any control, or democratic management of the wealth which they have labored so hard to produce. So your objection to "collectivism" is really an objection to the socialization of the work force into work units under capitalism in an undemocratic and exploitative fashion. It's a feature of savage capitalism, which is hardly attenuated. Under democratic socialism, the working people are given more power. For instance, in Germany now, larger economic enterprises must have an equal number of workers and investor-capitalists on the controlling boards of companies. It's required by law. It's definitely a move in the right direction. Or do you disagree? Ayn Rand, Glenn Beck, Eustace Mullins, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Fascists, and neo-Nazis (most of your sources, I think, if not all) would disagree. Please state your view.
"The USA was originally established as a Republic, not a Democracy. But, this is all a different discussion."
NO. That IS the discussion. The US was established as a pseudo-Republic—you can call it a Republic if you like—in which only white property owners were allowed to vote. Poor whites, Blacks, Women and Native Americans were NOT allowed to vote. These deficits, due to classism, racism, ethnocentrism and sexism are being rectified over time, even though many poor people, blacks, Native Americans (poor black women, poor white women and poor Native women are still being disenfranchised). You, and some of the sources you rely on speak as if we should all live the same way people lived in the 1940's and 1950's, or even as we did in the early 1800's. Perhaps you have a "golden age" view of history, and wish you lived during the time of the Founders (when slavery was rife, when women and the poorer classes were well subdued and exploited).
"You write as if you think that the Political arena is what drives things, and on a lower level, it somewhat does." "BUT, it is not the primary driving force. Socialism is a loser's dream', is not a meaningless statement. It is concise and precise."
It is not precise because you can't even distinguish socialism from collectivism. If you think it is "precise," then perhaps you could explain the statement. Can you confront the fact that the social indicators, and the liberties in terms press freedom, freedom of speech and the right to assemble, are better preserved and furthered in Social Democratic Countries? You appear to be pessimistic, despairing and unwilling to give the people any hope that they can make a change. But history falsifies your pessimism, and your grasp of the psychology of human nature: Workers formed trade unions, improving wages and hours; women organized to gain the right to vote. Black activists and their allies brought about the Voting Right Act, the Civil Rights Revolution and ended the worst forms of segregation. Gay rights activism has made homophobia unacceptable. Let's be more specific: One hundred years ago women did not have the right to vote, get and education or the right to apply for numerous jobs. They stood up and organized a mass movement that changed that. Ten years ago, the right to marry for same sex couples was unimaginable. Now, it's legal in all 50 states. This is all largely due to activism, changes in consciousness. People in the fast food industries and on farms, people went on strike during these past several years, and now the minimum wage is going up to 15 dollars an hour in numerous localities.
"You refer back to the much corrupted US government as if it has become what it was intended to become. That is a false basis for the argument."
You will have to explain that. If you mean, I am saying the original Republic was a Rich White Man's Republic, that is a simple fact. Poor whites, Blacks, Indians and Women had no political input. There is no "false basis," here, or perhaps you mean something else. You don't explain your remark.
"I have repeatedly attempted to show that the US government has been hi-jacked."
I don't think it has been "hi-jacked," in the sense that you mean. It's true that Banks, the financial elite, the big landowners (and owners of the largest corporations, insurance companies and oil firms) have tried to take as much power and as much wealth as possible. This has always been the case with the super-rich. (In fact the Founders, a large number of them, like Washington, Hamilton, John Adams and John Jay, represented the interests of the richest of the richest during the American Revolution, and preserved those interests). See Beard's History, Howard Zinn, and "American Aurora." Various people have worked to increase the democratic control of the people over the system (people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Fredrick Douglas, Susan B. Anthony, Teddy Roosevelt, Alice Paul, FDR, Martin Luther King, and many more). You appear, Roger, to believe all the Founders, and their interpreters, thought in the same way.
"The people of the US do not endorse their present government. (at least those with a smattering of a clue) This is evidenced by the popularity of a character like Trump."
Dislike of the current configuration of government is certainly more evidenced by the popularity of Bernie Sanders, who according to all major polls, would beat Donald Trump or Ted Cruz by double digits. Donald Trump has never even received more than 45 percent in any primary or caucus. Even a majority of Republicans don't like him. Consult pollingreport.com . A new CNN poll shows Bernie would beat Trump by 20 points, nationwide. Those who seem to have MORE than a clue (they might actually have "several clues) know better than to vote for Trump. They know about the Banks', Wall Street's and Corporate control over much of the media, our political system and our health care systems, and are learning about this from Bernie Sanders, and other Democratic Socialists. People know that Trump decries "Wall Street," and shipping jobs abroad, even as his own clothing stores manufacture in Mexico and in China. They know that Trump is a member of the Billionaire class, and he's not a defector who opposes their interests with any concrete plan. NOW, HERE I find it interesting that FINALLY, you are beginning to address the issue of democracy:
"The sovereignty of the individual to be free and make his or her own choices is the better way. Even Democracy fails at this."
SO YOU INTRIGUE ME WITH THIS STATEMENT. What system of political, social, or economic organization is superior, in your view? You have not yet suggested anything better. (I would agree that our current forms of "democracy," are very imperfect—but we don't have many "democracies" in the world today. Probably Switzerland comes the closest, because they rely heavily on referenda so that the demos, (Greek for the people), can actually vote on many key issues). WHAT DO YOU ADVOCATE?
"So, then Democratic Socialism is just another fail, in a different package."
You just say, it's just a fail, with no explanation. You don't prove your assumption, upon which you base this conclusion, or show how your conclusion stems from any data or any evidence you have provided. Your basic assumption that "Democracy itself fails" remains unproven (especially in comparison with other systems). Do you want to try to prove that non-Democratic systems better guarantee human rights, basic freedoms and the sovereignty of the individual? You have come nowhere near proving that, or even tried to do so. But you may believe that totalitarian fascism, some kind of corporatism, or other neo-Nazi state with an undemocratically elected Fuhrer, Duce, or "Leader" is the "best bet." You have provided no solution to the problems, which you say have to do with the inordinate power of banks and bankers; I have pointed out how social democratic countries, like Sweden and Iceland have addressed the banking scandals, in some cases by even jailing financiers for their crimes. (See Michael Moore's latest film "Where to invade next," for a good depiction of this, or read some articles about it).
"If you have the time to watch this video, I think it may explain this better."
"The ideology of socialism/collectivism is covered, along with many other common misconceptions."
Perhaps, but most of it, if not all, is completely irrelevant. It's a very poor video (no video images to speak of, really). It has a text spoken by a very dull, boring and computer generated voice (of the lowest quality). I don't know how you can listen to that thing, when there is so much good material you can actually READ.
Of course, I do love the quote:
WESTERN REPORTER to M. Gandhi: What do you think of Western Civilization?
GANDHI: I think it would be a very good idea.
If you really are interested in Gandhi, we can talk about him at length. He was a Democratic Socialist, by the way. Again, I am not talking about socialism/collectivism. I am talking about DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM, about which you appear to be oblivious. Why no answer to my statistics about Social Democratic countries? Now to your reply on the issue of racism and anti-Semitism.
roger stancill, said, 8 hours ago,
"Ondib, just because someone has a Jewish name does not mean that they 'follow the faith'."
That point seems to me to be irrelevant. I am talking about your periodic post castigation of one Jewish family, and of Jews in general. "Jewishness" is variously defined as ethnicity, culture, and/or religion. You have brought up Rothschild before because you believe he is an "evil Jewish banker," (while you rarely or never mention other evil bankers, industrialists or owners of mega-corporations who are Anglo-Saxons, French Catholics, Italians, Russians, Indians, Mexicans or Chinese). NOW you are saying R. is not really a Jew, or might not be a Jew. That's tergiversation, switching the terms of the discussion, and evasion of the worst sort. You criticize a Jew, laugh about it (lol), LAUGH ABOUT your anti-Semitic comment, and your racism, and then pretend in this last post, that the remark was not anti-Semitic, in spite of its being part of a long standing pattern.
Then you say a person who calls you out on this is doing something "stupid" and "superficial." What appears obviously superficial to people is your frequent recourse to anti-Semitism, and moving back and forth from making Jew-hating statements, and then saying one post later, "Who me? I don't care in the least about race, or race issues." The remarks you make, if you had only made them once or twice, might be excused. But repeated over and over, they constitute a pattern, which has all the appearance of sustained bigotry. (On top of your reliance on anti-Semitic sources, and in spite of your protestation that their anti-Semitic character is of no interest to you).
"You don't really seem to care about an objective and critical assessment of facts, you are more interested in race baiting. WHY?"
"Race-baiting" is term often used by conservatives to deflect a criticism of a racist statement, a pattern of racist statements, or outright anti-Semitism and racism. I believe you are using the term "race-baiting" in this manner. It is you who bring up the issue of race, by your frequent racist innuendo, and even overt racist statements, as well as a reliance upon people like Eustace Mullins, who was a virulent anti-Semite, in the eyes of any objective student of his work. You say, "it's not about personalities, like Mullins." I agree. It's about the racist and anti-Semitic ideology, the SET OF IDEAS, that Mullins and so many of your sources adhere to.
On the issue of James Corbett, whom you cite as your latest source: One doesn't have to go very far into the research about the man, his fellow travellers, web sites associated with him, and even his own commentary, to see that he adopts the Jewish conspiracy theory, though he tries to soft peddle it, and make a slightly more nuanced presentation, which ultimately, (judging by the commentary on his and associated "news sites," is wildly applauded and supported by very rabid Jew-haters and self proclaimed anti-Semites. It oozes out all over the place. One can hardly avoid it.)