>racism is
>against the law and racists
>shunned by
>most of society,


One might argue that, while explicit racism is against the law (in that, of course, we have laws which prevent 'racism' in the workplace, and keep people from doing harm on others as a result of race) there is a certain racism implicit within society, which has not been eradicated, and which in fact is protected under law. From racial profiling, to lower average wages for blacks, to assumptions people make about one and other based on the color of their skin. We've got a long way to come in terms of racism.

>no one
>beliefs in an
>aristocracy anymore or that
>those of
>"noble blood" are better than
>others.


In Marjorie Kelly's book, The Divine Right of Capital she makes the argument that corporations are analogous to, if not exactly the same as, feudal estates. The stockholder, she argues, is considered noble (and yes, many in our society hold so much stock that they don't have to work.) These people are in control of the serfs, or wage laborers, who can be bought and sold by these lords with impunity. So, once again, while the 'aristocracy' of our society is not explicit, it still exists, and there is a powerful structure in place to protect it.

>Democracy, individual
>liberties, the right
>of freedom of speech and so
>aren't
>present in ancient or medieval
>societies.
>Even though Athens was a
>Democracy,
>Socrates was put to death for
>things we
>no longer consider crimes.

In a speech made by University of Wisconsin professor Robert McChesney, he points out in no unclear terms that Freedom of Speech is not Democracy. Democracy is, by definition, "1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges (Merriam-Webster) In the last of the definitions, the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges, the United States (and just about every country) falls quite short.

>There have
>been no real large-scale wars
>since
>Vietnam--only skirmishes.
>Compare our
>relative peace with the
>history of the
>ancient or medieval world,
>which was one
>of perpetual warfare.

I'm sorry, but help me out here; for this statement about the world being relatively peaceful since the Vietnam conflict to be true, the definition of war would have to be "A conflict in which a number of white, American college boys die." As far as I know, the world has been a fairly violent place since Vietnam. It just hasn't been highly publicized in this country. Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Iran/Iraq, Northern Ireland, the Chech Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Hondures, Guatemalla, Colombia, the Khlem Rouge, Cuba, Somalia, East Timor, South Africa, Afghanistan, and so on, have all been in and out of war since (before) the early 1970s (the 'end' of the Vietnam war, not counting Laos). While, for the most part, Americans have not died in these places (save for Somalia, where ten American deaths inflamed the rage and fear of the American people so much that they refused to assist the ethnic Tutsis in Rwanda a year and some change later, resulting in a genocide of more than 200,000 Tutsis over the course of about 200 days) other people have. Sorry for being so pedantic, but with all due respect, I think you ought to think twice before calling the latter half of the 20th century peaceful. It was probably peaceful for you, but in the rest of the world...

>Since
>the advent of
>agriculture, most of the
>world's population
>engaged in long hours of
>back-breaking
>labor, with a few in the
>aristocracy who
>didn't have to work. Now only
>the third
>world does this sort of labor
>and in the
>long run, it is hoped that
>they will become
>second then first world as
>their
>economies devleop.

Okay, let's not even get into the WTO/NAFTA/GAT/FTAA/IMF/World Bank argument. I highly recommend the film This is What Democracy Looks Like as some background on that. Nonetheless, the current political climate worldwide says that it's goal is to help 'developing' nations develop strong western economies, but in fact, the system which this political/economic regime is holding in place is one which holds 'third world' countries at bay, as it were. The system is designed to keep poorer countries in debt, so that International Banking organizations can impose rules which are favorable to the so called 'first' world. As a side note, the "First, Second and Third world" terminology came into play in the west during the Cold War. The second world referred to the USSR, and thusly no longer exists. I understand not wanting to be a pessimist. Despite how it may sound, I myself would consider my views to be optimistic, but I also have my facts straight. I don't believe the world is in a good place (because, realistically we're not. I think I've expounded that enough in this post). I do believe that there is potential for real, positive social change. But spending our resources and energy keeping the elites out here in America and Western Europe alive once they've come down with a critical illness is not the way to bring such change about. The way is putting those resources into keeping everyone alive, like for example, making sure everyone has food. Or clean drinking water. Or a warm place to sleep. Or...