I'm sorry Mere but your story in the latest Tribune is way out in lala land. Communism and anarchism may look fine and dandy on paper but there is one simple reason neither work. Simply put it is REALITY. Just like your story states, "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need." Hogwash, reality has shown that people do not equally contribute so you end up with countries like the Soviet Union, China and East Germany, suppressing any resistance. And to translate that into your tranny radicalism, we would be squashed in a heartbeat.

And one word for anarchism, Somalia. Nothing more needs to be said.

As much as some hate capitalism and like everything else there are abuses, capitalism along with war are the biggest reasons for the advancements we enjoy today. Capitalism rewards ingenuity and the development of a better "mousetrap". Communism expects complacency, be happy with what you got. Anarchism is a pipe dream that says oh the sun is out today, I think I will invent something for the hell of it and I will just give it away.

Democracy and socialism to a smaller extent allows for the control of government. Once in place, Communism makes it nearly impossible to change the government. And anarchism assumes all the power hungry people in life are going to lay down their weapons and hug each other.

Get real.

Hugs,
Marsha
p.s. Hugs, I still love you Mere. Our politics may be completely different, but you are still a good person.

Duh, East Germany doesn't exist anymore and that is because communism or what they tried to call socialism failed. I guess the part I should have included with the statement on war is the "technology" that was developed and advanced because of war. Things like computers, gps, lots of electronics, food preservatives and the list goes on and on. I didn't mean the actually fighting in war was a good thing.
Hugs,
Marsha

I think Meredith’s essay is best summed up by the phrase at the end “that with the revolution minds and hearts can change as well” – regrettably, history has shown us that hearts and minds don’t change just because we want them to.

Ahh, the dreams of a utopian society - where everyone lives in harmony, where the whole community takes care of everyone’s needs (if not desires), where everyone contributes to their fullest ability – these dreams have been with us for thousands of years, but they have yet to be fulfilled. The utopian experiments of the past have all failed, some petered out while others imploded dramatically.

But, people are still drawn to any movement that promises the end of oppression, the lifting up of all peoples, or the leveling of the playing field. Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, Democracy, Theocracy, Aristocracy, heck even bureaucracy, all look good on paper but what works in theory usually doesn’t turn out the same way in application. Since idealists not realists envisioned these 'ideals', they never truly foresaw the reality of the outcomes, because they thought everyone thought like they do. Most workable societies are a mixture of ideas, a hodge-podge if you will of this that and something else thrown together to meet the situation at hand. As long as people are involved, you can be sure we will screw something up, because we aren’t perfect therefore we can’t create the perfect society. But, this doesn’t keep people from trying, taking itsy bitsy steps if necessary to make progress, or giant steps when the opportunity arises.

$0.02

Jeri

Jeri that was excellent. You are absolutely correct that people want to believe everyone else thinks as they do. Even in our own social lives we tend to surround ourselves with friends of like minds. This same line of thinking carries over into religion where some believe all or most Christians are fundamentalists when in reality most are very open minded and accepting of others like us.

Simply put, my original post was to point out that Utopia is a nice idea but unrealistic. The basis of communism or anarchism working properly is a Utopian society where we all pitch in for the good of the community. But as Jeri pointed out it is human nature to be selfish and that won't change with or without government.

Hugs,
Marsha

Marsha, dear
I believe you have a perfect right to be as biased as you are but I'd suggest you go back and reread Mere's article. You missed a few points.
Socialism and communism in their pure forms are very idealistic. Practical, no but they don't exist.
IMHO you should learn more world history.
Question: When did the Russian revolution end.
Answer: When Stalin took over.
Lenin and his crowd allowed exploration to a people who had been oppressed for centuries.
The USSR could call themselves whatever but it wasn't a socialist or communist state.
Just like the USA is not a democracy.

There I've said it and I'll qualify it with IMHO.
hugs
Gracie

PS Capitolism is another "can of peas" which I won't get into.

Excuse me Mary but I think I already addressed that in my second post where I stated with East Germany how they were basically communists but called themselves socialist. There is no question every country tweaks its own style of government, so of course you can nit pick and say they actually weren't purists. Maybe in reality they were more totalitarian yet wanted their people to believe it was for the good of all to contribute equally, a more communistic line of thinking. As for learning more about world history, I actually have little interest in the minute details of the past. Sure we can learn from the past, especially failures such as the Soviet Union, but many of today's problems are because of people who can't move forward but instead choose to remain focused on the past. Slavery in the U.S. comes to mind.

Like you said, the U.S. is not a democracy, yet if you ask most people they would say it is when in fact the U.S. has a representative form of government. Our founding fathers created it that way on purpose because they knew democracy allows for higher populated regions to govern the small leaving those areas without a voice. A representative government allows for the voice of all to be heard.

Capitalism is a whole different ballgame and all forms of government rely to some extent on capitalism. The problem is the further left (liberal) you go in politics, the fewer people you allow to prosper from those gains. Sure in the purist form of communism all gains are shared. The reality of it and this is what I have been trying to say from the beginning, countries like the Soviet Union had their elite who harvested all the gains and the people shared the hardship. What a more capitalistic society allows is for the "opportunity" for all or at least more to achieve that wealth. Therefore there is incentive to improve on what we already have.

A true believer of socialism or communism is going to believe that government has everyone's best interest in mind and is going to treat us equal. Your history books, IMHO, have shown that never happens. But many choose to keep believing somehow, someday they can make everyone get along.

I won't even discuss anarchism because it is pure nonsense to believe everyone could just get along.

Hugs,
Marsha

This has somewhat, lol, understatement of the year, digressed into politics rather than the point I originally said about those forms of government would never have allowed transgender to continue.

Look at Stalin with his Great Purge. Anything, anybody that didn't tow the line was eliminated. So communist theory purists can theorize how everyone equally benefits, at issue is how do you ever reach that point? History has shown it is reached by eliminating those that don't conform.

And again anarchy, grr, I hate that word. If you think hate crimes are bad now, anarchy would be lawless chaos with your far right Christians out on a witch hunt for trannies, lol. Once again trying to get others to conform. Nothing new there is there?

Personally I do not see being transgender as radical, to do so would be saying we are not normal. I myself am trying to do what I can to live my life as a woman. How is that radical. Radical is wanting to be accepted as the third sex or something. So is "Red Trannies" really about pointing out to the world that we are different? Or is transgender really about pointing out to the world that we are good people too? Maybe that idea is what is really radical here.

Hugs,
Marsha

Well said Cristine, I couldn't agree more.

Democracy is truly dead in Europe, in the UK we have an un-elected prime minister ( but at least he was an elected member of Parliament) unlike our secretary of State "Lord Mandelson" a discredited former minister who isn't currently elected to anything.
The EU is currently implementing the Lisbon treaty, we in the UK were never even asked if we agreed with this, and guess what??? we're now going to get a European president which we also won't get a chance to vote for!!!!

vive la revolution, to arms I say, lets oust these brigands, freedom to us all!

Only kidding,

Huggles

Becca

Melody, I knew somebody would say that. Maybe you should reread what I said, I said "minute details", not all history. Things that pertain to my life I research more than the average person, but history for the sake of history is of little interest to me. It is sort of like Nina talking about how I don't write like Shakespeare. For God's sake, nobody in today's society talks or writes like that, It may as well be Latin. Maybe when I decide to start my own country and form a government then I will read about the whens and wheres of the past. And then if you take into account what Rebecca just said about not having much say anymore in elections, does it really matter what I know or don't know about the past, does our voice or vote matter anyways? I do know I don't like communism or anarchism. Both are wishful thinking of a Utopian society that can never exist.
Hugs,
Marsha

Mere, the original point I was making was your story was based on a Utopia setting which will never happen. You used detailed examples of radical forms of government to create a what if scenario about radical trannies. So using your detailed government examples, I first stated transgender could not exist in those conditions. I'm sorry the thread digressed into a political discussion. A couple comments ago I did try to bring it back on track to your radical tranny idea. I don't see being transgender as something that is radical. It is radical if you believe you are a clown or something and want people to accept you that way. But I see myself as a woman, please explain what is radical about that.
Hugs,
Marsha

Melody, I'm just curious what do you do with a history major? I don't mean that in a bad way or anything, any degree is clearly an accomplishment that I respect. I'm just curious if you use it in your current career. I have the traditional business, amazing I ended up having my own pest control company. I always loved business math, accounting, all that stuff but history never grabbed my attention. Therefore I am happy with summaries of history versus details. Bringing this back to topic, do you believe communism or anarchism as they have played out in history, not how they were meant to work, would have allowed transgender people to be out?
Hugs,
Marsha

Very good Melody. I went from college straight to managing Toys R Us until 10 years later two doctors told me I needed to get out of retail because it was literally killing me. That was after moving to Savannah, GA where you quickly realize pest control must be a good business. So I worked for a national company for a few years and got my state certified license and became their supervisor until 1993 when I went off and started my company.

I would have to say my business has shaped much of my political views. I am responsible for every penny that comes through the door and likewise I pay at least my fair share of taxes. Therefore I tend to be a little more critical of those who look to government for more freebies. Those freebies are not free, I happen to be one of the people stuck paying for them because I have gone to school and worked hard for what I have. Our government has never done anything efficiently, so why people continue to want government to do more baffles me. That is the standard definition of stupidity. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Like many, my personal experience with anarchist was negative. I'm from Seattle where the anarchist caused plenty of damage during a WTO gathering in 1999.

I'm sure there will be radicals for as long as time goes on who only know the definitions of communism and anarchism, and will continue to try to sway others in that direction. I may not be a history wiz, but I have learned enough to see those theories fail in the real world.

So once again we are back to radical trannies. Does that mean trannies need to all band together and fight for our cause? We don't always get along here, and obviously we have ongoing arguments between the different categories of transgender. So I ask again, where does any of this fit in reality? Unless we have another crusade and wipe out everyone who doesn't like us, full acceptance will never happen, IMHO.

Hugs,
Marsha

I totally understand and respect your opinions Marsha (my parents' are similar after starting their own business, etc.) but I have a problem with many facets of the pushed-if-not-forced global narrative of today's capitalism. Today's capitalism is missing the relatively benign Invisible Hand talked about in Adam Smith's conception. The American-Dream-Pull-Yourself-Up-By-Your-Bootstraps ideal is hardly a realistic portrait of our economic situation. Most people just go to college to get a degree to hope they get paid a little more in some cubicle or white collar job working for someone else (which in today's market they are no longer guaranteed to keep for longer than a few years). Today we are in the world of soulless-ish massive multinational corporate personhoods that basically trample lesser developed and lesser financed rivals in the name of their game (with a very benign appearance). The worst is when this economic situation is exported to third world countries and their livelihood is literally extracted out of their own local economy to people without a creed. The numerous other problems it engenders (a $50 trillion derivatives market w/ only $5 trillion in circulation, widening of the rich/poor gap, the urge for profit immediacy promotes cutting all corners - be it personal, ethical or environmental - for the sake of a bottom line) can fill a book and has many times over, but there are certainly ideas that could be INCORPORATED into our economic paradigm to make up for capitalism's quite glaring inadequacies. When we have modern capitalism near war and poverty (two parasitic 'necessities' that nobody really wants to deal with) we will inherently end up with desperation, crime, terrorism, overpopulation, and overall ignorance by the bucketload that makes living life so much more expensive and difficult to deal with by needing someone to do the job of dealing with the consequences we've already bought and paid for exponentially.

Another major problem is that the modern globo-capitalist umbrella is so all-encompassing that it actually intensely stifles new and innovative economic memes within itself that could prosper given the proper leeway to do so. I think alternative economies must be proved on a relatively small scale, but they could be done with enough initial capital. The problem with many socialist-ish paradigms is that they do not scale well whatsoever. Much more likely, each economy should be specifically designed for a specific geographic region and culture or way of life. Many claim that there was never a "successful socialist state in history" but if you read the journals of Christopher Columbus you will find stories of them ridiculing the natives of Cuba for their lack of knowledge about weapons or personal property. They shared food and resources with their community and other nearby tribes but this small scale allowed for more personalized interaction, cooperation and most importantly, stability.

I'm not trying to give THE PEOPLE that make up such a beautiful and beastly machine as capitalism a bad rap, but the machine is vicious even if the people are not. And hell, without it, we couldn't have gotten here; it has worked well for its time. But I know we can do better and we should hasten to figure out what's better quick before our situation gets worse.

Irielle, Thanks for actually understanding the position I was coming from. In no way am I blind to the abuses ravaging capitalism today, however I don't see where other forms of government offer a better solution. I think you were so right in identifying how various forms of government can work well on a small scale. The U.S. is obviously in need of something that will work on a large scale and like Rebecca Rawlings mentioned earlier, the UK along with many European nations are moving towards a single government, so what new problems might they face? The answer is not easy and that is why we advance by trial and error, hoping to also learn from others, both the good and bad.

I am pretty old fashion in my ways, maybe that is why I have remained married after all these years. I have the American dream small business that doesn't make me rich or famous, but provides well for my family. That is what American capitalism was designed to accomplish. Did we leave that or did we just out grow it?

And once again bringing this back to topic. I don't think the world wants anymore radicals, we have enough problems in society today that people don't want to be bothered with what they perceive as nonsense. As for a revolution, I don't see that happening either for pretty much the same reason, people just want to take care of themselves, to hell with everyone else. Don't get me wrong, I would love a world where we could all get along, I just think we have outgrown the realistic opportunity to make that happen.

Hugs,
Marsha

Mere,
On one had I believe rules are made to be challenged and on the other hand I believe they need to be followed. That is somewhat radical. But the point I was making is the world is no longer interested in the college students or anyone for that matter out protesting and voicing their radical ideas. In my opinion most nations that allow protests also allow elections and that is where I believe society wants to see changes dealt with and handled in a civilized manner.

I think you are wrong seeing transgender as radical. We have been around long enough that we are not a considerable departure from the norm, let alone we are trying to be normal. Are we not? Just because something is different doesn't make it radical. The keyword typically used to define radical is "extreme". I don't see us as that and I think anyone who thinks we need to be is way off base.

And one last thing, using a quote of Frank Zappa's is preaching to the choir and is equivalent to a church preaching that we are bad to it's congregation. Just words that for those who follow that person anyways, agree with.

Hugs,
Marsha

Thanks Wendy, I do want you to know one of the first things I look for is new news on your TW news feed. I do happen to be blunt and opinionated, but I think that has added to the discussions here. I'm not always right and don't profess to be.
Hugs,
Marsha

Ok, I'll enter the fray :/

I will have to re-read Mere's piece as - I think we may agree on this point - the general gist may have been a little obscured.

Whilst I would be the first to point out we have never had a true communist country - all the examples we have tend to be dictatorships in one form or another - I would take serious issue with your bizarre notion that 'capitalism along with war are the biggest reasons for the advancements we enjoy today'. Whilst that is true to some extent - we have a lot to thank nazi Germany for - there are a good number of advances made in peacetime without a great conjugation of capitalists. Flight springs to mind.

War may focus the mind. But it is wrong. Thou shalt not kill rings a bell. I'd rather have my advances a little slower tbh!

Capitalism, by its very existence and definition breeds greed and selfishness. There has to be a better way. Communism - on paper - supplies a better way. Unfortunately the (un)natural human way is to look after number one. That expels communism into the realms of wishfull thinking. Communism does not promote complacency it - in theory- promotes activity. But, as i said, human nature gets in the way...

Anarchy - the state of lawlessness mainly due to governmental failure - doesn't give a monkeys if the sun shines. Think Mogadishu.

I read your post, hunni, with a resounding 'yeeha!' at the end and two colt 45's a'blazing. Actually envisaged a Blazing Saddles moment of 'a'whooping and a'hollering' as you rode into town!

Whilst I need to have a wee think on what on earth Mere was on about, I'm not sure your riposte fulfills the bill. That said neither does mine...

Yours Sincerely

Confused of Dorset.

east germany does not exist!.....but Marsha I don't think I have read such ******** ever!

I think the current mess in the credit system shows that 90% of people do not future-think. They think about what they want now, unless it is a cultural thing...like "own your own house".

It is good to hope for idealism in people, but realistically it is not going to happen in the majority of them. In any power vacuum, there will be those ready and eager to seize it for themselves. Once power is taken, it is seldom returned.

Is there a great difference between Communism and Capitalism, The way I see it, Those at the top still have all the money and power, but with communism the minions are brainwashed into sharing more of the poverty and be made to be content with being equal with their comrades living on the breadline, firmly deluded into believing its for the greater good. Communism as far I understand the term, is a comunity where everyone is equal and has an equal say. Bit like Capatalism which we all know is rubbish, the fattest wallets and the people nearest the trough get the biggest share and say. Just think of Highgate Cemetry, The uk communist plot, where Karl Marks is buried. Utopia does not exist, Anachy leads to eventual corruption and lawlessness where the weak and needy perish. Its humnan nature in most cases, those in the top echelons of society automatically asume an importance that they think deserves higher rewards. Will we see anachy in the UK and revolution, seing the greed at the top being exposed in the current financial crisis the rich being subsidised by the workers and the workers paying through the nose to keep those that can't work or won't work. Bailing out bamks and industries with tax payers money, Will we get a return on our investments via the chancelolor, of course not, but public services will be cut back to balance the books so the fat cats don't lose out. Protect the shareholders? thats a bit like geting money back from the tax man when somone bets on a losing horse. Or being able to claim the money back from the jockey. Which if the jockey makes an arse of things, like some of the investment and financial wizards they should pay.

Grrrrrrrr Cristine.

Marsha,

You said, "As for learning more about world history, I actually have little interest in the minute details of the past."

I would counter:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," (George Santayana, Philosopher)

Best,
Melody (B.A., History: California State University Northridge, 1980)

Several of you saw the points I was trying to make.

Read my piece a little more carefully - I make it VERY clear that there is a difference between pure theory and human nature.

Did I also not make a little sarcastic quip at the end "Good Luck?"

The point of the piece was to start a dialog on where TG people would fit into radical theory. As for Anarchy, a true Anarchist society is one of peace and not violence. It is based upon mutual cooperation and respect.

Mere

Couldn't agree more Melody & the UK is making the same mistakes with afghanistan as the US did with Vietnam which was an unwinnable war, just like the situation in Afghanistan for the UK. If you ask me we should Pull our troops out & let them knock 7 shades of cr*p out of each other.



lol xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anna-Marie

"As for Anarchy, a true Anarchist society is one of peace and not violence. It is based upon mutual cooperation and respect. "

Which is probably a reasonable enough definition of Anarchism. And something, if ever it came to fruition, would fall foul of the same problems suffered by Communism and capitalism.

It also has a far bigger problem. Semantics. Whilst there may be variations in transatlantic interpretations, I would suggest most people in the UK today if asked about anarchy would assume it to be an unwanted chaotic state. And, likewise, an anarchist would be a seen as someone wanting to cause mayhem. Quite the opposite of Anarchism.

x

Hi Marsha,

First, I need to tell you I got my four year B.A. after 12 years of schooling (I'm no mental whiz...)
My original intent was to teach, eventually working my way up to the college level after obtaining a M.A. degree and hopefully a PHD. While I was at Northridge, I did some student teaching and found it really wasn't for me. It was 1980 and the economy was almost as bad as it is today. I took a job at a phone company call center. Crappy job but I was good at it and was placed in the ready for promotion binder based on the fact I was very good at my job and I had a degree.
I was offered a promotion to management after a couple of years if I was willing to relocate from Southern California to San Francisco. It was an accounting job (which I had absolutely no training for, but I had a degree). They also promised a technical career after a few years at accounting. My fiancee and I had broken up a few years earlier and I had few ties to LA so I took it. Eventually I migrated to a technical position (DNS/DHCP) at corporate headquarters. Nine years ago I took an early retirement since I owned my house and had no dependents other than my dogs.
Did I use my degree directly in my career, not really. But the critical thinking skills I gained came in handy in dealing with everything from working with those who reported to me to solving technical problems. Also, if I didn't have a degree I'd never have been promoted (company policy.)

As for Communism, I see it as a failed experiment that took place in the wrong places. Marx never envisioned a backward agrarian society like Russia as a suitable place for Communism. He was talking about the newly industrialized societies like Germany, England and the United States. I can't imagine he ever considered Viet Nam, China, Cuba, El Salvador or the Balkans as suitable sites for Communism.

I read (had to) Mikhail Bakunin on Anarchism and never "got it." I see no relation between the idealistic vision he had and the reality of the modern "anarchists" who I see as violent, destruction for it's own sake nut cases. Where's the connection?

Despite Meredith's article I really don't see any connection with the TG community.

Aren't you sorry you asked...
Melody

Sorry to say this, but the world DOES need more radicals! As the late, great Frank Zappa once said: "Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."

I never said TG people were radical, or had to be. But we are not exactly what mainstream society accepts, either.

Hi Meredith,

I don't disagree that we need to radicalize as TG persons. I just think that the old "isms" like communism, socialism, anarchism, capitalism, national socialism, fascism or vegetarianism are not the way to go.

Just as we are not really part of the Gay Liberation Movement, we are very different from other movements (though we may well share some attitudes and grievances with them) we need to stand up for ourselves on our high heels, lol..

I've fought for civil rights, against the Viet Nam war, for farm workers and women's rights. I have been harassed and occasionally beaten up for my beliefs. But as I approach 60 years of age, I still retain my basic beliefs (if I'm maybe a little less willing to put my body on the line...)

Best,
Melody

I did address that somewhat - these radical theories were developed a long time ago when society was not as openly pluralistic. Like I said, I am sure Marx et al., did not think of TG persons at all.

Again, without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

Hi Meredith,

Not criticism, just commentary. I agree with your basic point, though it did take some digging and rereading to ferret it out.

Best,
Melody

Radical transexuals? Mmm. I'm sorry, but the most intellectual thing I can bring to the debate is this: I've spent many many years earning my right to wear a bra. I'm b******* if I'm going to burn the thing now!

:)

x

It's nice to know that people are reading the Tribune in order to make this thread so successful! Thanks!

It is true, Mere. If it were not for Marsha, I would not have known if anyone was actually reading the TW TG NEWS feed.

She is my unofficial, unpaid proof-reader. If the official, unpaid proof-reader position ever opens up, she's my first choice to ask.

Thanks for paying attention, Marsha.

TY, Marsha

Marsha, that's what always adds to the debate here, you speak your mind (without malice) and make your point. It's not about being right or wrong, it's about putting your own opinion forward.

Nikki