Jester,

I think you should put up some victory conditions before this discussion moves any further. ('Wouldn't want to make same mistake as our leaders have with the Iraq War).

It's one thing to attack the U.S. but quite another to take over the leadership of the country.

What are we talking about here? Because if all we are talking about is an effective attack, 9/11 would qualify in some ways. Aren't we really talking about a hypothetical invasion and takeover here?

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

I don't know if this is following the rules, but I'd try to instigate revolutionary violence within the country itself. While America is busy with trying to quell uprisings in major cities accross the nation, it would be completely vulnerable to attack by an alliance of anti-US countries such as most of the mid-east, and possibly cuba and north korea (nukes) and others.

__________________

I would not attack the U.S. I am afraid body bombs are coming, where people will travel to the third world, have their insides hollowed out so the can return or not quite, filled with explosives.
I can imagine no better way of attacking the U.S. than the one practiced presently, of setting one class to prey upon the rest until the whole is too weak to resist any invasion or threat. So far it seems to be working. We are being reduced to slaves, and see nothing to fight for even while the rich do. But then, it is not their children dying in droves, or coming home so maimed they are better off dead. Its alive; mostly because alive and mangled they are more easily dismissed. When they are dead they actually count.

Don't look now, Pardner; but the counter revolution has a plus two hundred year head start on the revolution. And here is a tip. The people who run this country would nuke every city in the country that thinks about making a threat. There is a big difference between using some one and loving them enough to take some sass.

Do we have to pick a country for the attacker or can it be an non-national organization? If you're going up against the US military, I think things like cities, infrastructure, armies (not to mention citizenry) and the like are all just liabilities you'd have to squander resources trying (and probably failing) to protect.
A floating organization with no publically acknowledged assets would be less vulenerable to overwhelming retaliation.

Given that, I'd say the most likely senario would involve a series of continuous terrorist attacks aimed at the civilian population of the US. Targets could be more or less random so long as there was a high casualty count and (most important) you're men don't get caught.
Your goal wouldn't be so much to destroy or kill any particular target, but just to cause wide-spread panic and unhappiness with the government on a massive scale.
The "surrender" would never be made public, but would be an under the table deal in which the government secretly agreed to meet your terms provided that you ceased all attacks and handed over a number of attackers who could publically face "justice" at the hands of the government.
The government would appear to have won the undeclared war, ending the terrorism and punishing the "perpetrators". Some months later they would fabricate some obscure reason for doing whatever it is they agreed to do as part of their "terms of surrender."

THAT'S how I would prosecute a war against a democratic super-power if I was going to (which I'm not...really...).

Dude, even as a socialist, I have to say the class distinctions here aren't that sharp.

__________________

But think, if they nuked all of their own cities that would just make it easier for the foreign alliance I mentioned to sweep in and take over.

__________________

As your pal Marx may have said, capitalists exploit both people and the environment. In fact, we have exploited the rest of the world pretty well and crapped all over anything we could not cart off. I have to believe that class consciousness must be learned and taught. It is a lesson most of us do not want to learn because the learning of it changes lives, and we want more than anything to avoid change, and if possible, to recapture a mythic past. So long as people find it possible to blame themselves for their failures that are so common under capitalism, they will. Look at it as a form of relationship. Relationships are not always the same from every perspective. The cow thinks it is well treated and loved. For the farmer it is purely a financial relationship.

I suppose. But I seriously doubt America is going to adopt a socialist economy any time soon. I think pigs will fly before a socialist or (especially) communist candidate wins the presidential race, and a revolution would have little support. Let's face it. The rich and some of the middle class are reluctant to part with their "hard-earned" money, even for the greater good. The hope lies in the lower and working classes who, if educated, may wish to pursue socialist reforms. I'd say some of the middle classes (ironically) also could be promising. They bear the tax burden that should be placed upon the upper classes, and would without a doubt like to see the rich bear that burden as they should. Poor people know that they are poor, and they know they don't want to be poor. Someone just needs to show them the way.

__________________

Americans are too future oriented to think in the past. Even if the they have to settle for an old, and really ancient idea like Socialism, it will not be called that; but something new. And to be practical, if that socialism does not find some way to reward individual initiative, then it will never be widely embraced. I would not ever expect to turn old forms to your adavantage. Our democracy is allowed to us because it is not democratic; and because it does not invoke the National Genius. It is cover for telling us what to do while offering us no input, or real choice. Our Government is an old form of relationship that is all form and no relationship. It will not work, and will fail us when we need it most. Build a new form of relationship within the old. Do not attack the U.S.. Rather, address the weakness of the old form of government. You must ask your self if you truly desire change. If you do, then do not waste time on organization. It is not organizations that make change; but organizations that resist change. The first step toward revolution is to change your self, and to show others how to change themselves. That is the first step in all problem solving. We have a thousand years of society trying to fracture commuities, and in that fashion to turn all people into defensless individuals. Resist that. Commit yourself to making new communities, new relationships, new economies, new philosophies; and eventually a new form of government. Revolution first, and organization after.

Indeed. The need to reward individual initiative is a reason why I choose socialism over communism. The public still owns means of production, but Socialism accepts redistribution of wealth based on the quality and quantity of an individual's work (based on deeds) rather than the equal redistribution advocated by communism (based on needs). Now that the worker has an incentive to work as hard as he can, the main flaw of communism is erased in socialism and public means of production and a powerful economy can coexist. Furthermore, consumer goods used for personal enjoyment can be kept as private property; only private property and resources used for production need to be nationalized. Because the people will be less reluctant to embrace a system that lets them keep their personal consumer goods and gives them fair wages, Socialism shouldn't be a difficult transition if they realize what it can do for them and the country. That covers economics, but government is an entirely different matter. Personally, I see no reason why this socialism can't exist under a republic. Keep the people hard-working under the socialist economy, and "free" and consequently happy under the republic. Now I'm just rambling about my political philosophies and am waaaay off topic, so Ill shut up.

__________________

It is not necessary for the public to own the means of production, or to redistribute wealth. All that is necessary is to control the means of production and make certain it is acting in the best interest of the people. If wealth went back to the people at death, (sold), and the only way to preserve wealth for people you wanted to reward for assistance or loyalty was to give it away before death, then internal relationships and even familial relationships would be strengthened. It would not be necessary for government to try to organize every facet of people's lives. Rather, remove inheritance as a path to wealth, and make the whole society a measure of merit. The problem is simply this: Where wealth and power is hereditary so is poverty and powerlessness. Heredity is no guarantee of prowess or ambition. Instead it is a guarantee that legions of lawyers will feed on the wealth of the nation. The ideal in society is not a winner take all king of the dung heap. Rather it is peace and longevity within the society. If the rich man's security comes at the price of a general insecurity in society then peace and security will be dollar thin. So if we say that each man should have the value of his labor, and every inventer or tycoon shall have the wealth his ability earns for him so long as he shall live, then the cause of the greatest exploitation will end in a minute since there is no need to provide for future decendents into perpetuity.

Socialism is essential to democracy. Wealth in few hands as in a republic is the destruction of democracy. But democracy is the defense of rights, and of people against enemies within society and without. This is only possible while equality of rights and of persons is maintained. Where economic equality is lost political equality will follow. The idea that communism or socialism can be imposed by people is ludicrous. Socialism has always been practiced by primitives because of necessity. What they lacked in technology they made up for in social organization. We would boil under a like degree of social organization, especially if we saw it was imposed without necessity. In reality we have a lot of socialism in this country. We share the roads and all pay for them, like the hospitals and the schools. Primarily, socialism is endured by the poor to make luxury more enjoyable for the wealthy. There is plenty of socialism for the poor.

I personally believe the only way to do this is under state ownership, operation, and control.

This would simply put a limit on how long the problem would last (in this case, a lifetime). If people cannot get to the top by inheriting the position, they can still do so by methods such as investment or "business deals" that fuel the private corporations we are seeking to eliminate.
A potential, if not current problem of our nation today.
And is there nothing more fair than payment based on the value of one's labor? State control of capital and therefore payment also ensures that noone can overpay themself or underpay someone who works under them, because they no longer control those payments. Ideally, Socialism could provide more of an incentve to work than capitalism. If people see that they will get paid more if they work more and harder, then most of them will doubtlessly work more and harder. Although the competition factor of capitalism is removed in socialism, few people are driven by competition in the first place. People are driven by need, and this drive can be converted into work if placed under an ideal economic system.


A republic protects rights. People of a democracy can hypothetically vote to have rights taken away from other people. A republic with a constitution is needed for a country to remain free, otherwise the purest democracy can easily become worse and harsher than a dictatorship.
Unfortunately, the "socialist" policies of this country are all wrong. Tax is not directly based on wealth as it should be. Public property only includes roads, public schools, and government institutions. Socialism cannot exist in parts or fractions of a nation. The whole system must be implemented, otherwise the main problem of unequal distribution is unaccounted for and usually worsened. Once everyone settled down and realized what such a system could do for them, our nation could prosper, even more so than now, under a like a degree of social organization. In truth, everyone has a need for socialism. This need is most easily realized by those at the bottom of a capitalist society, and almost never realized by those at the top. But ultimately, they would hopefully come to realize what's good for the people as a whole is, or at least can be, good for the people individually.

__________________

[QUOTE]Scuse me if I don't wish to swap state capitalism for capitalism per se.

The real problem is that corporations are immortal. Another problem is that corporations are organized, while individuals are taught and encouraged to act as individuals and to eschew unions. But the second problem can be more easily dealt with than legal immortality.

Really? Look again, and this time put on your glasses.

Justice is a form of every relationship. Once more, let government do as it should in acting to achieve justice, and do not invite conflicts of interest. True socialism has no state. Socialism was all about survival. If we have socialism before necesity drives us to it, it will be found in some measure with what we have today. And it is hard to imagine a system that could drag humanity so quickly into the future as capitalism. But one must morn the waste to have capitalism: the waste of lives, the waste of resources, and the waste of labor. You really must modify your opinion; and I will tell you how. Every economy since cannibalism has been some kind of relationship; and every economy since cannibalism has been in some measure democratic and cooperative. I don't want to go back to slavery because in slave societies no one is free. Yet, each agreed in part to the relationship, and each benefitted from it to a degree. There are no pure social and economic systems. You are seeking a phoenix.


As I said, we already have some. Families are socialistic. But, it is far too easy to sow the seeds of inequality, jeolousy, and fear. It is only dire need or intelligence that will ever cause anyone to embrace socialism. It is going to happen. Hell, it is happening now. When the government and the private sector deserted New Orleons; people did not say my boat, my drinking water, my, my, my. When a tree pins your wife in her bed you don't care who owns a chain saw, and usually the owner does not care either. Most of the time when the devil is not at the door we all want to know when we are going to get paid. Everyone should get paid according to their merit. It should not be hereditary. We see how well heredity has served kings. It is kings who become tyrants, and not democrats. Give the people the power to choose, and they will have the sense to serve themselves and their families.

Is it just me, or have things strayed a little off-topic here?