"I view Mr. Trump's fear, lust and sloth and I do not envy him."
El Jamon
New York 7 hours ago
I am not a wealthy man. According to Donald Trump, I would be a loser. I changed diapers. I am an attentive, nurturing father. I built a modest business.
I am devoted to my spouse. We've been through thick and thin, better or worse and we still remain devoted and deeply in love.
Our home is modest. Our car is not luxurious. I served my country and paid for college myself, without ever taking a loan or dime from my parents.
And I am happy because I am grateful.
Every single day, I am grateful for this life, better or worse, rich or poor. I'm even grateful for the trials and struggles I've had. I'm grateful for the wisdom life's difficulties and set backs have provided.
The man in the gilded tower is not grateful. He is not wise. He is steeped in fears that, though we see the same television news stations, and read many of the same papers, I do not share.
Why is it that someone who had never wondered how he was going to pay for college, someone who (unlike myself) was backed by the generosity of the happenstance of wealthy parents, someone who cycles through luxury, why is he not grateful? Why is he so angry?
Look at this wealthy, powerful man's face. He is tormented, even twisted by his fears, and envy and pride, despite the evidence and, as he often brags, the rewards of his greed and gluttony.
Why do I, a poor man by comparison, live in a state of gratitude, while he is in service to his envy and wrath? I view Mr. Trump's fear, lust and sloth and I do not envy him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/the-politics-of-cowardice.html?mtrref=www.dailykos.com&gwh=B1C763B469599810A64D23C4C992C22C&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion#permid=21250872
= new reply since forum marked as read
That's one of our problems. We let the Right define terms and frame the debate. Any society that damages either social or individual rights are not Leftist societies. They are totalitarian.
The monstrosity that was the Soviet Union was not a Leftist society. It was absurdly reactionary, a tool of the Right. Many socialists/anarchists died to save their Revolution only to be curb-stomped by a highly oppressive and totalitarian Bolshevik regime.
Their basterdization of a socialist society did more harm to the cause than any American propaganda ever could.
That is tragic.
Edit: I do believe you are a good person. 
I've read many of your awesome posts, so your compliment is greatly appreciated!
That's so nice of you to say!
I think I'm kind of limited in what I feel knowledgeable enough to talk about, actually.
I loved the small history lesson you gave, because I'd like to increase my understanding of history, and I, too, raise my eyebrows when people think "Leftism" is rabid group-think, nationalism, or violent rebellion. No! That's classic Reich-wing thugism.
Violent leftism seems to be pretty much gone, if it ever existed, seems to me. Maybe I'm wrong...but the tiny groups calling themselves Anarchists and being violent lately are more like young kids who need to learn how to use their anger constructively, or people that repuke shitwads paid to disrupt.
Anyway, you captured the reason for the lasting confusion between Communism and Socialism so well.
Know any good books on the Bolshevik period? 
Available for free online.
The Bolshevik Myth - by Alexander Berkman
But first, a primer:
Freedom and Revolution - The Bolshevik Experience
Ah, anarchism, regarding violent and peaceful tactics. There is a continuum from total pacifists like Leo Tolstoy to Revolutionary firebrands like Mikhail Bakunin. I would say most anarchists are in the middle but with a good portion who are pro-peace. I think the violent ones are urging for revolution, they want it now. I think there's merit on both sides. I, personally, am pro-peace, but I am not a pacifist. What you saw during the protests were Black Bloc Anarchists. They have protesting down to a science. What to wear, how to speak, what to do in certain situations, how to escape being arrested, how to avoid being tear-gassed, etc. They are descendants of the Bakunin branch of anarchism. Revolution now! Ironically, Bakunin's teacher, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, was pro-peace, and emphasized establishing anarchist collectives (see Mutualism) within the shell of the old society, and gradually evolving into an anarchist society. There are many strains of thought, and all have good reasons and objectives. It's really just a decision that one has to make for his or herself.
Many people think of anarchists as bomb-throwing terrorists. But, many famous anarchists were pacifists. The previously named Proudhon, the anarchist-communist Prince Peter Kropotkin, who was so influential, that the Bolsheviks allowed a public demonstration at his funeral - the last public demonstration allowed in the Soviet Union until Glastnost. That's how revered he was. His study and book, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (free online at the link therein), emphasized that successful societies (in the animal world, including humans) that stressed cooperation over competition, tended to be more successful. Absolutely fascinating read. Of course, the Bolsheviks outlawed anarchism - please see how Nestor Mahkno allied his Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (Black Army) with the Red Army to defeat the reactionary White Armies. Then Lenin turned on the anarchists, and crushed them, as well.
Leo Tolstoy, a Christian anarchist and pacifist had a major influence on both Gandhi and MLK Jr. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Ernest Hemingway, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky - you have different personalities and demeanor.
We're not all assholes. We like to learn and live and let live. Some of us, though, and as with the case with anybody, when pushed enough, and feel there are no other avenues, will resort to the use of force to defend ourselves, as is only natural.
I would be remiss if I didn't provide this outstanding link that will really let you understand anarchism as a whole:
Anarchism: From Theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin
It's absolutely fantastic and will really clear up any questions you may have. Also, if you have any questions or thoughts, please share them with me.
I really do appreciate your interest. I get excited when people want to know about, what I believe, is the most beautiful philosophy on Earth.
Oh, and for a very long and in depth read about the nature of the Soviet Union, please see:
What Was the USSR? Towards a Theory of the Deformation of Value Under State Capitalism
This takes several angles from Trotsky's view that Russia was a degenerated workers' state to the ultimate conclusion that it was a form of State Capitalism. It's heavy on economic talk, but really interesting, to me at least.
I hope I've helped. Let me know if you need anything else!
I love that it's free, too! Gotta feel happy about that!
I've only read some of Tolstoy's folk tales...love! I'm a slow reader, but what the hell. I'll just pick one and start.
Woa, ok it's already over my head. But I'm not gonna give up on that one yet.
The philosophy is underestimated as being simple - but it's not. It was daunting at first, but it will make sense as you keep reading.
15 years later, I'm still learning new things, and still comparing and contrasting the different currents. But keep in mind, it's the overall philosophy that is important - some people tend to get very stuck in the details and forget the overall goal.
And the fact is, none of us know how it will work - we just have to try, and learn by our mistakes.
Anarchist societies have existed before - one of the most famous was the Paris and Lyon Communes. Workers took over the workplaces and collectively organized their production and distributed the products of their labor.
This impressed both Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Karl Marx. The two had been feuding about how a workers' revolution would play out - Marx was intent on having a Vanguard Party lead the masses, and using the state to foment revolution (something anathema to anarchists). Marx even purged Proudhon's disciple, Mikhail Bakunin and his followers, from the International Workingmen's Association (known as the First International) for the latter's insistence on an organic, workers led revolution from below. After seeing the success of the Paris and Lyon Communes, Marx started to rethink his ideas on revolution (took a more anarchist stance). Bakunin turned out to prescient, because around 50 years later, the Bolsheviks proved that utilizing the state, and forcing already organized workers to follow a Party Vanguard, was disastrous - and ruined the revolution almost as soon as it started.
Just a bit of contextual history between the different traditions of socialism (state socialism vs. anarchism). When Marx had his epiphany, that was way later in life, after his theory had been accepted by a vast majority of socialists. However, there are "autonomist Marxist" that recognize this and incorporate this into their philosophy - Autonomist Marxists, such as Rosa Luxembourg, were more concerned with direct action, organic labor organization, actions on the ground, and were not focused on political or party organization, and were averse to the tendencies for traditional Marxists to centralize authority. In this way, Autonomist Marxists were much more aligned with anarchists than they were with their traditional Marxists comrades. The social organization and direct action were the focus, as is with anarchists. Basically the same thing, but they call themselves different names.
Anyway, I have a tendency to write too much. I love this stuff and am interested in learning and teaching. So, hopefully, you will enjoy it, too. Don't let it become daunting.
Happy reading!
Sometimes I say something right. 
I spoke to my therapist yesterday (because I'm back in therapy since the election @#$%&*!) about whether Dump was a narcissist and or a psychopath and in her professional opinion and that of her practice colleagues is that he suffers from severe Narcissistic Personality Disorder. NPD shares some of the same personality traits as those of a psychopath, however the big difference is that psychopaths often can't function well in social groups and are sometimes very antisocial. All that said, in order for someone to be diagnosed with NPD they have to meet at least 5 of the standard diagnosis criteria:
- A grandiose sense of self importance (exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
- is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
-believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
-requires excessive admiration
-has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
-interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
-lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
-is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
-shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Dump meets each and every one of these criteria, does he not?
That said, thank you kpete for your words regarding gratitude. It is a good and healthy reminder that I, for one, needed to hear.
Except we'd probably hear that Dump "has the most gratitude" "my gratitude is yuuuuge" "I have fantastic gratitude".
