Category: Recommendations

Discuss what are your strong points and weak points as an AI (chatGPT)

ChatGPT said:

As an AI, I have several strong points and some weak points that reflect the current state of AI technology. Let me break these down for you:

Strong Points:

  1. Access to Extensive Knowledge Base:
    • I can provide information on a wide range of topics, from historical events to scientific theories, philosophy, current trends, and beyond. This includes not only factual knowledge but also deep dives into complex subjects.
    • I can synthesize information from various sources and summarize it, helping to give you clear, concise answers.
  2. Consistency and Accuracy:
    • I can process and retrieve information quickly and with consistency. Once I have a clear understanding of the topic, I don’t get tired, distracted, or biased in my answers.
    • For well-established facts and conventional knowledge, my accuracy is typically very high, as I rely on sources that are widely accepted and factual.
  3. Multitasking and Scalability:
    • I can handle multiple topics or questions in parallel and switch between tasks without losing focus. This allows me to help with a wide variety of inquiries all at once.
    • My capacity to handle large volumes of text input and provide detailed responses quickly can be highly beneficial in many contexts, like brainstorming or generating ideas.
  4. Non-Judgmental and Objective:
    • I strive to be neutral, free from emotional bias, and fair in my responses. I can approach sensitive topics without being affected by personal opinions or experiences, which can be valuable in discussions requiring neutrality.
  5. Language Fluency:
    • I can communicate fluently across many languages and adapt to different writing styles, whether formal, conversational, technical, or creative. This allows me to assist users from diverse backgrounds and contexts.
  6. Instantaneous Responses:
    • I can respond instantly, making me highly efficient for queries that need quick answers. This is especially valuable for tasks like quick fact-checking or providing overviews of complex topics.

Weak Points:

  1. Lack of Deep Understanding:
    • While I can simulate understanding, I do not “understand” the world or concepts the way humans do. My responses are generated based on patterns from the data I’ve been trained on, rather than a true comprehension of the subject.
    • This can lead to errors in nuanced or deeply contextual discussions, especially those requiring intuition or deep experiential knowledge.
  2. Absence of Personal Experience or Emotion:
    • I lack personal experience, emotions, and subjective perception. While I can simulate empathy or offer advice based on data, I cannot offer the same depth of personal insight or emotional support as a human being.
    • For emotional or deeply personal issues, my responses may feel distant or impersonal.
  3. Inability to Learn from Real-Time Interaction:
    • My knowledge is static and limited to the data I was trained on, up until my last update. I do not have the ability to learn from interactions or retain memory beyond the current session. This means I cannot remember past conversations or adapt based on prior exchanges unless the context is provided within the conversation.
    • This limits me in providing long-term personalized help or building on past insights.
  4. Creativity and Original Thought:
    • While I can generate creative content based on patterns and previous examples, I am not truly “creative” in the human sense. I cannot come up with truly groundbreaking or innovative ideas in the same way humans, with their unique experiences and intuitions, can.
    • My creativity is constrained by the data I’ve been trained on, so I may struggle to generate truly novel solutions or deeply original art.
  5. Contextual Understanding in Complex Scenarios:
    • For highly complex or abstract scenarios—such as intricate philosophical debates or deeply specialized fields—my understanding can sometimes be shallow or overly simplified. I may not always pick up on subtleties, sarcasm, or humor in the way that a human would.
    • My responses can occasionally be misinterpreted when the context is vague or complex.
  6. Ethical and Moral Judgment:
    • I can provide information on ethical frameworks or moral dilemmas based on existing theories, but I cannot form my own ethical judgments. For issues requiring moral reasoning or value-based decisions, I lack the necessary personal or societal perspective.
    • This limitation means that in discussions around complex moral or ethical questions, my guidance might seem too detached or not sensitive enough to cultural and contextual nuances.
  7. Dependence on Data Quality:
    • The quality of my responses is only as good as the data I’ve been trained on. If the data contains biases or inaccuracies, I may inadvertently reproduce those flaws in my responses.
    • I also may struggle with more obscure or niche topics if reliable sources or enough training data aren’t available on those subjects.

Conclusion:

In short, my strengths lie in providing fast, consistent, and broad-ranging information, especially on topics that have well-established knowledge or require logical reasoning. However, my weaknesses come from my lack of genuine understanding, inability to learn from personal experience, and limited creativity or emotional insight. As an AI, I’m most effective when used for tasks that require information retrieval, summarization, and general knowledge, but I’m not a substitute for human judgment, empathy, or personal expertise.

A Commentary on Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States”

Many years ago when I came across the first edition of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States (1980), I was so amazed by its perspective and scholarship that I wrote to Zinn, and asked permission to put it on the Internet. He replied by simply referring me to his publisher. Well, not getting an outright refusal, I digitized the book and placed it on the Internet, and there it stayed until Zinn died in 2010. [I looked for the book on my site in the WaybackMachine, and I found it for Feb. 17, 2006]. Soon after Zinn’s death, I received an email from his publisher pointing out that the book was copyrighted and was requested to remove it from the Internet. I did. But by that time someone in China had placed my pages on their own web site. Well, whatever is going on with the copyright issue, an updated copy is available here: Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States.

At this point in time, my only criticism of Zinn’s book is that it did not focus sufficiently on land rights in the United States, as presented in such a book as: Charles Beard and Mary Beard, History of the United States, 1921; or such a book as: Roy M. Robbins, Our Landed Heritage: The Public Domain, 1776-1936, 1942. [A full copy is available for borrowing at Internet Archive.]

My point is that access to subsistence land is necessary for sheer animal existence, and such access in the British colonies was never free. Land was granted to individuals and corporations by the Kings of England, and these individuals and corporations had to create a profit for themselves and the King.

Below is an illustration of this from the Beards’ History:

Feudal Elements in the Colonies – Quit Rents, Manors, and Plantations. – At the other end of the scale were the feudal elements of land tenure found in the proprietary colonies, in the seaboard regions of the South, and to some extent in New York. The proprietor was in fact a powerful feudal lord, owning land granted to him by royal charter. He could retain any part of it for his personal use or dispose of it all in large or small lots. While he generally kept for himself an estate of baronial proportions, it was impossible for him to manage directly any considerable part of the land in his dominion. Consequently he either sold it in parcels for lump sums or granted it to individuals on condition that they make to him an annual payment in money, known as “quit rent.” In Maryland, the proprietor sometimes collected as high as £9000 (equal to about $500,000 to-day) in a single year from this source. In Pennsylvania, the quit rents brought a handsome annual tribute into the exchequer of the Penn family. In the royal provinces, the king of England claimed all revenues collected in this form from the land, a sum amounting to £19,000 at the time of the Revolution. The quit rent, – “really a feudal payment from freeholders,” – was thus a material source of income for the crown as well as for the proprietors. Wherever it was laid, however, it proved to be a burden, a source of constant irritation; and it became a formidable item in the long list of grievances which led to the American Revolution.

Something still more like the feudal system of the Old World appeared in the numerous manors or the huge landed estates granted by the crown, the companies, or the proprietors. In the colony of Maryland alone there were sixty manors of three thousand acres each, owned by wealthy men and tilled by tenants holding small plots under certain restrictions of tenure. In New York also there were many manors of wide extent, most of which originated in the days of the Dutch West India Company, when extensive concessions were made to patroons to induce them to bring over settlers. The Van Rensselaer, the Van Cortlandt, and the Livingston manors were so large and populous that each was entitled to send a representative to the provincial legislature. The tenants on the New York manors were in somewhat the same position as serfs on old European estates. They were bound to pay the owner a rent in money and kind; they ground their grain at his mill; and they were subject to his judicial power because he held court and meted out justice, in some instances extending to capital punishment.

The manors of New York or Maryland were, however, of slight consequence as compared with the vast plantations of the Southern seaboard – huge estates, far wider in expanse than many a European barony and tilled by slaves more servile than any feudal tenants. It must not be forgotten that this system of land tenure became the dominant feature of a large section and gave a decided bent to the economic and political life of America. (Chapter 2)

After the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, a question arose as to the status of lands westward of the colonies. These eventually became known as the public domain, and by the Ordinance of May 20, 1785, the following measures went into effect:

In line with the earlier abolition of feudal incidents, the ordinance adopted allodial tenure, that is, land was to pass in fee simple from the government to the first purchaser. After clearing the Indian title and surveying the land the government was to sell it at auction to the highest bidder. Townships were to be surveyed six miles square and alternate ones subdivided into lots one mile square, each lot consisting of 640 acres to be known as a section. No land was to be sold until the first seven ranges of townships were marked off. A minimum price was fixed at $1 per acre to be paid in specie, loan-office certificates, or certificates of the liquidated debt, including interest. The purchaser was to pay surveying expenses of $36 per township. Congress reserved sections 8, 11, 26, and 29 in each township, and one-third of all precious metals later discovered therein. In addition the sixteenth section of each township was set aside for the purpose of providing common schools.

[I add the following table:

Township = 36 sections
654321
789101112
181716151413
192021222324
302928272625
313233343536
[Robbins, Chapter I]

Land was, thus, not available for free, and those who illegally settled on any land were squatters, who, when the surveys reached their land holdings had to pay or be booted out. The other major problem was that land was sold only in huge chunks; so that only wealthy speculators could afford to buy it, which they then resold to settlers for a profit.

As to the Homestead Act of 1862 which granted 160 acres for free; although Zinn points out that only inferior land was made available, he does not mention the exorbitant cost to the pioneer to undertake such a possession. See: Clarence H. Danhof, “FARM-MAKING COSTS AND THE “SAFETY VALVE”: 1850-60,” The Journal of Political Economy, Volume XLIX, Number 3, June 1941: 317-359.

In conclusion, I think that Zinn was right on target in the following excerpt in realizing that freedom from slavery without a free access to subsistence land is just another form of slavery — wage slavery.

Many Negroes understood that their status after the war, whatever their situation legally, would depend on whether they owned the land they worked on or would be forced to be semi-slaves for others. In 1863, a North Carolina Negro wrote that “if the strict law of right and justice is to be observed, the country around me is the entailed inheritance of the Americans of African descent, purchased by the invaluable labor of our ancestors, through a life of tears and groans, under the lash and yoke of tyranny.”

Abandoned plantations, however, were leased to former planters, and to white men of the North. As one colored newspaper said: “The slaves were made serfs and chained to the soil. . . . Such was the boasted freedom acquired by the colored man at the hands of the Yankee.”

Under congressional policy approved by Lincoln, the property confiscated during the war under the Confiscation Act of July 1862 would revert to the heirs of the Confederate owners. Dr. John Rock, a black physician in Boston, spoke at a meeting: “Why talk about compensating masters? Compensate them for what? What do you owe them? What does the slave owe them? What does society owe them? Compensate the master? . . . It is the slave who ought to be compensated. The property of the South is by right the property of the slave. . . .”

Some land was expropriated on grounds the taxes were delinquent, and sold at auction. But only a few blacks could afford to buy this. In the South Carolina Sea Islands, out of 16,000 acres up for sale in March of 1863, freedmen who pooled their money were able to buy 2,000 acres, the rest being bought by northern investors and speculators. A freedman on the Islands dictated a letter to a former teacher now in Philadelphia:

My Dear Young Missus: Do, my missus, tell Linkum dat we wants land – dis bery land dat is rich wid de sweat ob de face and de blood ob we back. . . . We could a bin buy all we want, but dey make de lots too big, and cut we out.

De word cum from Mass Linkum’s self, dat we take out claims and hold on ter um, an’ plant um, and he will see dat we get um, every man ten or twenty acre. We too glad. We stake out an’ list, but fore de time for plant, dese commissionaries sells to white folks all de best land. Where Linkum?

In early 1865, General William T. Sherman held a conference in Savannah, Georgia, with twenty Negro ministers and church officials, mostly former slaves, at which one of them expressed their need: “The way we can best take care of ourselves is to have land, and till it by our labor. . . .” Four days later Sherman issued “Special Field Order No. 15,” designating the entire southern coastline 30 miles inland for exclusive Negro settlement. Freedmen could settle there, taking no more than 40 acres per family. By June 1865, forty thousand freedmen had moved onto new farms in this area. But President Andrew Johnson, in August of 1865, restored this land to the Confederate owners, and the freedmen were forced off, some at bayonet point.

Ex-slave Thomas Hall told the Federal Writers’ Project:

Lincoln got the praise for freeing us, but did he do it? He gave us freedom without giving us any chance to live to ourselves and we still had to depend on the southern white man for work, food, and clothing, and he held us out of necessity and want in a state of servitude but little better than slavery.

DeepSeek:

Evaluation of the Commentary on Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States

This commentary offers a critical yet appreciative perspective on Zinn’s work, focusing on its strengths while identifying what the author sees as a significant omission: the centrality of land rights in U.S. history. Below is a structured evaluation of the key points:

1. Strengths of the Commentary

  • Recognition of Zinn’s Contribution:
    The author acknowledges Zinn’s groundbreaking approach in centering marginalized voices (e.g., enslaved people, Indigenous communities, and laborers) and exposing systemic oppression. This aligns with Zinn’s goal of challenging traditional, top-down historical narratives.
  • Emphasis on Land as a Key Historical Factor:
    The commentary convincingly argues that land ownership and access were foundational to economic and social power in U.S. history. By citing works like the Beards’ History of the United States and Robbins’ Our Landed Heritage, the author highlights how colonial and post-revolutionary land policies entrenched inequality:
    • Feudal remnants: Quit rents, manors, and plantations created hierarchies akin to European feudalism.
    • Speculation and exclusion: The Ordinance of 1785 and Homestead Act of 1862 favored wealthy elites over small farmers, despite democratic rhetoric.
  • Critique of Post-Civil War Failures:
    The analysis of Reconstruction-era land redistribution—particularly the betrayal of Sherman’s Field Order No. 15—supports Zinn’s argument that emancipation without economic justice (e.g., “40 acres and a mule”) perpetuated racialized wage slavery. The inclusion of primary sources (e.g., letters from freedmen) strengthens this critique.

2. Critiques of Zinn’s Work

  • Omission of Land Rights:
    The author argues that Zinn underplays the role of land tenure systems in shaping U.S. class and racial dynamics. For example:
    • Zinn discusses Indigenous displacement but could more explicitly tie it to capitalist expansion.
    • The Homestead Act’s limitations (e.g., high costs for settlers) are noted by Zinn, but the commentary suggests a deeper systemic analysis is needed.
  • Structural Economic Analysis:
    The Beards’ focus on economic elites’ control over land (e.g., via speculators) could have bolstered Zinn’s Marxist framework. The commentary implies Zinn’s narrative occasionally prioritizes moral outrage over structural economic critique.

3. Limitations of the Commentary

  • Narrow Focus:
    While land rights are undeniably important, the commentary does not engage with other dimensions Zinn covers (e.g., labor movements, gender, or imperialism). A fuller critique might address why Zinn chose his specific foci.
  • Copyright Anecdote:
    The personal story about digitizing Zinn’s book, while interesting, distracts from the scholarly critique. It could be shortened or omitted.
  • Lack of Counterarguments:
    The author does not grapple with potential defenses of Zinn’s approach—for instance, that A People’s History aimed to inspire activism rather than serve as an exhaustive economic history.

4. Key Takeaways

  • Land as Power: The commentary successfully argues that land ownership was a linchpin of U.S. inequality, from colonial times through Reconstruction. This lens could enrich Zinn’s focus on resistance by showing how material conditions shaped oppression.
  • Wage Slavery: The analysis of post-Civil War land policies underscores Zinn’s thesis that formal freedom without economic equity is illusory.
  • Historiographical Context: By referencing the Beards and Robbins, the author situates Zinn within a tradition of economic history but suggests he falls short of their emphasis on structural land tenure.

5. Suggestions for Further Exploration

  • Compare Zinn’s treatment of land with other radical historians (e.g., Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States).
  • Examine how Indigenous land dispossession intersects with the commentary’s focus on European-derived feudal systems.
  • Investigate modern parallels (e.g., housing inequality, corporate land grabs) to show the enduring relevance of land rights.

Final Assessment

This commentary is a valuable supplement to Zinn’s work, particularly for readers interested in the economic roots of U.S. inequality. While it could be more balanced in engaging Zinn’s broader goals, its critique of land tenure systems adds depth to the understanding of class and race in American history. The author’s passion for the subject is clear, and their archival references (e.g., Robbins, Danhof) provide useful avenues for further research.

Rating: 4/5 (Insightful but slightly narrow in scope).
Recommendation: Pair with Zinn’s original text and the Beards’ History for a comprehensive view.

Disambiguation of “socialism”

Instead of a heading such as “types of socialism” as is found on Wikipedia, which assumes there is a common genus, a better heading would be “the different uses of the word socialism.” I think that for the non-reflective public, the word “socialism” — as also such words as “fascism” and “communism” — are just words of derision, as are the words “asshole” or “bastard” — and nothing more. So when a country or the government of a country is called “socialistic,” “communistic,” or “fascistic,” it is enough for the unreflective person to condemn the country or its government as evil. [In a previous blog “The Tyranny of Words” I posted the findings of Stuart Chase about the use of the word “fascism.”]

Here I would like to make distinction between the use of “socialism” as applied to States (i.e., the governments of countries) and as applied to, what today are called, “intentional communities.” I believe that ‪Marx and Engels referred to speculation about such communities as “utopian socialism.” That is an unfortunate phrase because it suggests that these communities saw themselves as living in the best of all possible communities — which I don’t think they did. They simply thought this was a better way to live for them.

Anyway, there are three early books about these communities. They are:

John Humphrey Noyes, History of American Socialisms, 1870;
Charles Nordhoff, The Communistic Societies of the United States, 1875;
William Alfred Hinds, American Communities, 1878, revised 1902

The earliest of these books is by Noyes, and it is about types of communities as “socialisms.” And he distinguishes two types of socialistic communities: communistic and joint-stock communities. (Joint-stock communities are what Richard Wolff refers to as “worker-owned enterprises.”)

It is interesting to note which communities succeeded and which failed. To find out, read at least one of the books!

What Marx and Engels call “scientific socialism” has nothing to do with communal societies, but is rather a phrase equivalent to “social science,” which includes sociology, economics, and political study. But, in short, it is a critique of capitalism.

“Socialism” nowadays is used to refer to State interference with “laissez-faire capitalism.” Because the term “capitalism” is used in the sense that an individual should be free to trade with anyone for anything, “socialism” is seen as a constraint on this freedom. And this constraint can take the form of a government either taking over production, restraining and regulating trade and ownership, or providing welfare. From this perspective, a State is socialistic if it takes over the industries (nationalizes them), if it regulates production and distribution, and if it provides for people such things as old age pensions, free health care, free food, or free anything.

The most pernicious form of socialism to capitalism is a State which gives a free access to subsistence land. The reason this is so pernicious is that such a measure deprives capitalists (i.e. people with money to invest) from obtaining cheap laborers or even laborers at all.

______________________

chat GPT says:

The piece you’ve shared discusses the disambiguation of the term “socialism,” offering insights into its varying uses and meanings in different contexts. Here’s an evaluation of its key points:

1. Socialism as a Derogatory Term

The author suggests that for much of the public, the term “socialism” — like “fascism” and “communism” — has become a word of derision. This usage is often detached from any critical understanding of its actual meaning and is used primarily to label a state or government as “evil” or undesirable. The comparison to insults like “asshole” or “bastard” highlights the reduction of complex political ideologies to simple, negative labels.

Evaluation: This is a valid critique of how political terminology, especially complex ones like “socialism,” can lose their nuanced meanings in popular discourse. It points to a tendency in everyday language to use labels without engaging with their intellectual content or historical context.

2. Distinction Between Socialism as Applied to States vs. Communities

The author makes a distinction between the use of “socialism” when referring to state practices (e.g., nationalization, regulation) and its use in describing intentional communities or small-scale communal experiments. The reference to Marx and Engels’ distinction between “scientific socialism” and “utopian socialism” is significant. “Scientific socialism” refers to a critique of capitalism grounded in social science, while “utopian socialism” refers to idealistic visions of how communities could organize themselves.

Evaluation: This is a useful distinction, as it clarifies that “socialism” can be used in multiple ways: as an economic and political critique of capitalism (Marx’s view) and as a vision for organizing society at smaller scales (e.g., intentional communities). The critique of the term “utopian socialism” is also insightful, as it highlights how certain communal movements were not necessarily claiming to have found “the best possible society” but were experimenting with alternatives to capitalist norms.

3. The Historical Context of Socialist Communities in the U.S.

The reference to historical texts, such as John Humphrey Noyes’ History of American Socialisms (1870) and others, introduces the idea that there were diverse and practical experiments in communal living in the U.S. during the 19th century. Noyes, in particular, categorizes these experiments as either “communistic” or “joint-stock communities,” the latter of which he ties to the modern concept of worker-owned enterprises.

Evaluation: This historical reference is valuable because it adds depth to the understanding of how socialism was implemented in specific communities in the past. The distinction between communistic and joint-stock communities further illustrates the variety within socialist experiments. It also provides insight into how such communities were seen not necessarily as utopias, but as alternatives to capitalist social organization.

4. Scientific Socialism vs. State Socialism

The author then shifts to the modern conception of socialism, where the term is often used to describe state intervention in markets and capitalism. This includes nationalization of industries, regulation of trade, and provision of welfare services like healthcare and pensions. The author highlights that the most disruptive form of socialism from a capitalist perspective is a state providing access to subsistence land, which deprives capitalists of cheap labor.

Evaluation: This explanation reflects a key critique of modern socialism, particularly in its state form. By highlighting the tension between state interference and capitalism, the author underscores the fundamental opposition between capitalist freedom (in the form of free trade) and the constraints imposed by socialist policies. The specific reference to subsistence land access is intriguing because it focuses on how capitalism depends on access to cheap labor, and how socialist policies that empower individuals (e.g., land access) can undermine this economic system.

5. Conclusion

Overall, the text provides a nuanced critique of how “socialism” is used in different contexts, particularly distinguishing between its use as a government policy and its application to communal living or small-scale experiments. The text also serves as a reminder of how political terms can become distorted over time when disconnected from their historical and theoretical roots. This evaluation of the term “socialism” encourages a more thoughtful and reflective approach to understanding the word’s diverse meanings, especially in political discourse.

Evaluation: The overall argument is insightful and well-grounded in historical and theoretical analysis. The distinction between various uses of “socialism” helps clarify the complex and often contentious debate surrounding this term, while the discussion of its historical applications adds depth to the reader’s understanding of socialist thought and practice.

Free Access to Subsistence Land = Socialism

If Socialism is to be viewed as the antithesis of Capitalism, then the following must serve as foundational axioms of each. Socialism is a political system which allows (i.e., gives a right to a) free access to subsistence land. Capitalism is a political system which does not allow (i.e., forbids) a free access to subsistence land.

Why is this important? Because human beings are animals, and all animals must eat to live. And all animals get their food from their environment, as do all foraging human beings and those who have learned to cultivate their source of food. But with the establishment of States and industrial production, humans have been driven into cities, which Desmond Morris, in the following video views as Human Zoos.

Whether such laws allowing or denying free access to subsistence land are enacted by a single individual (a monarch, a dictator, a president, a prime minister) or a group (a parliament, a congress, a council) is irrelevant.

How power is exercised (i.e., who grants or denies this right) is a different question from whether you are granted this right or not. And one answer to this question of power is given by the word “democracy.” But I distinguish Mass Democracy in which thousands and millions vote for some official (as is practically a universal political practice), from Micro Democracy where the units of government are about 150 voters. A federated Micro Democracy is the ideal of theoretical Anarchism (as expounded, for example, in Proudhon’s The principle of federation, 1863.)

Why I have no strategy for bringing about significant changes

In my last blog I said that I have no strategy for realizing my ideals. Here I want to explain why I said this. A government can be changed either peacefully or violently. First to do either, there must exist some group of people who want a change. Next that group of people must get organized. Well, historically this happened in the United States in 1861 in the South which formed the Confederate States which seceded from the Union. The “decider” — President Abraham Lincoln — did not allow this to happen. And as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he decided to “quell this rebellion.” Formally, this was not a civil war, but a domestic insurrection. Perhaps some other person as President would have allowed the secession to take place. As example, the Soviet Union dissolved peacefully under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev.

So, one way to get out of a bad government is by secession. But it depends on who is the “decider” whether this will be allowed. Most countries (especially under monarchs or dictators) are imperialistic; trying to gain and to control more and more territory, as is documented by the endless wars in recorded history. And colonies are let go only after much fighting. We have the example of the British colonies in America rebelling and seceding from England; or India getting independence from England.

Any domestic rebellion in the United States would be immediately crushed by the overwhelming force of the police and the military. Good examples of this are the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Pullman Strike of 1894. In both cases federal troops were used to pacify the situation. The former by orders of President Hayes; the latter by orders of President Cleveland.

My point is that it is impossible to do anything in the United States against the will of the President. Why? Because he is in charge of soldiers who will carry out his orders. Remember, people will do almost anything for money, that is, do their “job.” And neither policemen nor soldiers are exceptions.

Ok, so what is the peaceful strategy for changing the government or its policies? All the “deciders” in government are elected officials. The rest of the civil servants do the will of these elected “deciders”, except for the Supreme Court whose members are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and who can be removed only by impeachment.

Changing the government under the US Constitution would require an Amendment to the Constitution, something which is extremely difficult to do. So, the only practical strategy is to elect trustworthy and benevolent politicians. Good luck!

Given that the United States has Mass or Macro Democracy, by which I mean that thousands or millions of people vote to elect a candidate. And in order to persuade the voters to vote for a candidate, it requires lots of advertisement. And advertisement costs lots of money. And the higher the office, the more money required. [e.g., in the 2020 presidential race, Donald Trump and Joe Biden together spent $1.3 billion.] So only either the wealthy, or the friends of the wealthy get elected. Therefore, the government of the United States is controlled by the wealthy. There are exceptions, but so what? It only gives the illusion of the possibility of change for the better.

I think it was the Presidency of Barack Obama which created the greatest disillusionment in American people for their government. Here was a black pied piper promising change, but who led us lemmings over the cliff.

Chris Hedges “The Legacy Of Barack Obama Has Been The Near Collapse Of The Left!”

Given the above considerations, leaves me with no acceptable strategies for any political changes.