Jump to content

US Politics: A Game of Chicken (with Constituents lives)


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Sure, that's what everyone says. But when push comes to shove, most people go with it's always not in my backyard, I can't afford to do so and a host of other reasons.

Okay, how does Socialism fix this?  Remember the Environmental record of the Soviet Union and China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Holy crap - does history just not exist in your world? Those “historically poorer” areas are “historically” poor because prior to capitalism there were centuries of colonial conquest *in those same “historically impoverished” areas*. 
 

That’s a huge part of the reason they’re now considered historically impoverished! 

For just one example -- ye olden days what we now call Angola, was a very rich, thriving polity -- and it was an actual polity collecting taxes, etc. -- and then came the Portuguese in the 15th C.  Who ruled and plundered its resources ever since until the war of independence, and began the trade in human beings that has left the region fairly unpopulated to this very day, with the help then, of the endless war of independence in which South Africa was involved with the idea of exploiting the resources itself, and making it an apartheid state like itself. No corruption is endemic, with the power and riches in the hands of a few.  But, of course the cultural influences have gone around the world due to the slave trade, from Brasil to the US.  The slaves taken from Congo are the founding African cultural platform for everything here in the USA from food to the Blues > rock 'n roll, etc.

Look what Europe has done to Hispaniola / Haiti from the git go.  On and on and on.

And No, SLAVERY WAS NOT FEUDALISM in any way -- that's another revisionist historical argument.  It was pure, unadulterated capitalism at every level, including it had to expand or die. Including the deliberate calculation that it was more profitable to work the labor force to death within ten years and buy new ones.  This is definitely not feudalism, because one could not buy and sell serfs. Serfs could not be alienated from the holding, which is exactly opposite of how slavery operated. Serfs were allowed to marry, indeed encouraged to marry. They had rights -- whether enforced or not, but they did within the system, and once escaped for a year and a day, they were legally free.

SLAVERY is capitalism at its most unadulterated.  This is the consensus among responsible historians, material, documentary, economic, cultural and political.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Holy crap - does history just not exist in your world? Those “historically poorer” areas are “historically” poor because prior to capitalism there were centuries of colonial conquest *in those same “historically impoverished” areas*. 
 

That’s a huge part of the reason they’re now considered historically impoverished! 

And that disproves my point because... Like I said, those were poor in the mercantilist era, centuries before capitalism itself. Likewise, there's no example of a country abandoning capitalism entirely and becoming richer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think bringing up the African slave trade in response to me wanting to keep money, markets and private property in my own country is a little hyberbolic no? But I'll bite the African coast was rich before the Portugese from trade from buying and selling goods the wealth the Portugese plundered was taken from merchants, you know the evil capitalists you hate so much. Also the Portugese conquered what they did to monopliize the spice trade the literal opposite of a market. 

Also colonialism is bad, slavery is bad what is your point? Plenty of capitalist societies exist without those things. And the socialist societies that ahve existed were not exactly free of atrocity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I think bringing up the African slave trade in response to me wanting to keep money, markets and private property in my own country is a little hyberbolic no? But I'll bite the African coast was rich before the Portugese from trade from buying and selling goods the wealth the Portugese plundered was taken from merchants, you know the evil capitalists you hate so much. Also the Portugese conquered what they did to monopliize the spice trade the literal opposite of a market. 

Also colonialism is bad, slavery is bad what is your point? Plenty of capitalist societies exist without those things. And the socialist societies that ahve existed were not exactly free of atrocity. 

Your post is incoherent as to the point you think you are making.  The point you actually make is ignorance of this history. And economic history too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You really should take a look at how Feudal economics worked and how much fun it was to be literally “tied to the land” as serfs were.  

I said is not is historically. As far as I know, we don't have a lot of feudal systems. I know this is your thing when you're not fond of someone around here--to intentionally misrepresent what they said, but I'll be clear for you Scot: Capitalism is the worst economic system currently in place for valuing human worth. I hope that helped you out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Zorral said:

For just one example -- ye olden days what we now call Angola, was a very rich, thriving polity -- and it was an actual polity collecting taxes, etc. -- and then came the Portuguese in the 15th C.  Who ruled and plundered its resources ever since until the war of independence, and began the trade in human beings that has left the region fairly unpopulated to this very day, with the help then, of the endless war of independence in which South Africa was involved with the idea of exploiting the resources itself, and making it an apartheid state like itself. No corruption is endemic, with the power and riches in the hands of a few.  But, of course the cultural influences have gone around the world due to the slave trade, from Brasil to the US.  The slaves taken from Congo are the founding African cultural platform for everything here in the USA from food to the Blues > rock 'n roll, etc.

Look what Europe has done to Hispaniola / Haiti from the git go.  On and on and on.

And No, SLAVERY WAS NOT FEUDALISM in any way -- that's another revisionist historical argument.  It was pure, unadulterated capitalism at every level, including it had to expand or die.  This is the consensus among responsible historians, material, documentary, economic, cultural and political.

 

 

Yeah, you're wrong. Slavery existed millennia before capitalism. Hell, millennia even before feudalism itself appeared in Europe.

Trans-Atlantic slave trade specifically was heavily tied to mercantilism practices of the 16th to early 19th centuries, and ended with ascension of industrialization and capitalism in Europe- not because of goodness of anyone's heart of course, but simply because slaves can't be consumers.

This also explains why capitalistic and industrialized North drove abolition in the US- (if slavery was an inherent part of capitalism, wouldn't they be the ones most fighting to keep it?). Also why Brazil, which inherited Portuguese mercantilism (the ones who imported more slaves from Africa than anyone), with it's late industrialization was the last country in the West to abolish it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Zorral said:

SLAVERY is capitalism at its most unadulterated.  This is the consensus among responsible historians, material, documentary, economic, cultural and political.

Hold on… are you suggesting Slavery is a necessary feature of capitalism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I said is not is historically. As far as I know, we don't have a lot of feudal systems. I know this is your thing when you're not fond of someone around here--to intentionally misrepresent what they said, but I'll be clear for you Scot: Capitalism is the worst economic system currently in place for valuing human worth. I hope that helped you out.

Counterpoint: Cuba and North Korea are still communist. Do they value human worth more than capitalist countries? Forgive me for being a little skeptical.

  

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Hold on… are you suggesting Slavery is a necessary feature of capitalism?

Yeah, seems like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Yeah, you're wrong. Slavery existed millennia before capitalism. Hell, millennia even before feudalism itself appeared in Europe.

Trans-Atlantic slave trade specifically was heavily tied to mercantilism practices of the 16th to early 19th centuries, and ended with ascension of industrialization and capitalism in Europe- not because of goodness of anyone's heart of course, but simply because slaves can't be consumers.

This also explains why capitalistic and industrialized North drove abolition in the US- (if slavery was an inherent part of capitalism, wouldn't they be the ones most fighting to keep it?). Also why Brazil, which inherited Portuguese mercantilism (the ones who imported more slaves from Africa than anyone), with it's late industrialization was the last country in the West to abolish it.

 

Mercantilism and trade are not the same thing as the system of capitalism. But everywhere, every time, the institution of slavery carries the seeds of capitalism, for the right of destruction of the means of production in favor of larger profit, production, with replacement of something cheaper, by violence, is foundational to slavery, 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I found this to be an odd response, because I’m really not sure the argument you’re making. That fiber optic cables by default could not have been invented under feudalism, or communism? Not to mention the apparent implication that no one in the future could ever come up with a better system than capitalism? That’s some real Fukuyama End of History shit right there.

 I mean, the commies beat the cappies to space, so technological innovation alone doesn’t seem to be exclusively reserved to capitalism.

 The truth is that capitalism is pretty much like every large-scale economic system humankind has had throughout recorded history, which is the system where a few really wealthy, powerful individuals “convince” everyone else that it is in the masses’ best interest to keep these wealthy, powerful individuals in power.

And those individuals then proceed to reinforce their worldview by killing, imprisoning, starving, or enslaving the people who disagree because they can pay other people to do the killing, imprisoning, starving, and enslaving.

 Seems to me capitalism is just authoritarianism with a much better PR department.

Capitalism also stunts growth and development, and the internet argument is particularly strange as researchers, the media, and tech experts have talked about how bad the U.S. internet is compared to the rest of the world. We are more capitalist than most of those countries.

5 years ago, we had Comcast in my small-sized city. For about 130 a month, you could get 100 Mbps. That had been the top speed for years. 5 years ago, we also voted to allow the city to setup municipal high speed internet that started at 1 Gbps for 70 bucks a month. Suddenly, as that infrastructure was being installed, we saw Comcast speeds go up to 1 gbps at a competitive price. Though, Comcast only does this when construction begins in an area. There are parts of this town still waiting, and they've gotten up to 200mbps for 130 or so a month.

These companies actively thwart development because their goal is only profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay, how does Socialism fix this?  Remember the Environmental record of the Soviet Union and China.

Frankly? Nothing. As I said, it doesn't matter what -ism it is. The problem is people. You're only as strong as your weakest link and there will be a lot of weak links along the chain no matter what. Anyway, even the proposed solution I quoted can be construed as socialism. Protections? That's practically wealth redistribution.

Besides, we'll exhaust ourselves just trying to nail down definitions that all parties agree on although everyone prefers to skip that part and go straight into talking past each other.

I'm out for now anyway. I might continue if the conversation hasn't move past when I'm next available although I doubt it considering how fast these threads move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Proudfeet said:

Frankly? Nothing. As I said, it doesn't matter what -ism it is. The problem is people. You're only as strong as your weakest link and there will be a lot of weak links along the chain no matter what. Anyway, even the proposed solution I quoted can be construed as socialism. Protections? That's practically wealth redistribution.

Besides, we'll exhaust ourselves just trying to nail down definitions that all parties agree on although everyone prefers to skip that part and go straight into talking past each other.

I'm out for now anyway. I might continue if the conversation hasn't move past when I'm next available although I doubt it considering how fast these threads move.

I agree the problem is people.  People like power and people can manipulate any “system” to empower themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Mercantilism and trade are not the same thing as the system of capitalism. But everywhere, every time, the institution of slavery carries the seeds of capitalism, for the right of destruction of the means of production in favor of larger profit, production, with replacement of something cheaper, by violence, is foundational to slavery, 

 

Yeah...no. You're pushing for a connection in a connection when there's none just to force the "capitalism= evil" point.

  

3 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

How is north korea communist? And cuba? Or china ? 

Ah...the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in play, nothing to see here (and notice I didn't even mention China).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Hold on… are you suggesting Slavery is a necessary feature of capitalism?

Well, we do have the concept of wage slavery. And maybe is not necessary, but it sure as hell happens allot. Specially left on its own with now regulation. 

And scandinavian countries exploite the global south 100% with no care for our human rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Counterpoint: Cuba and North Korea are still communist. Do they value human worth more than capitalist countries? Forgive me for being a little skeptical.

  

Yeah, seems like it.

North Korea is not communist. They claim to be socialist, but they are actually state capitalism--just like the USSR was under Stalin. This is not socialism. The issue with this argument is that you point to countries where a single ruler exploits the people.

When you look at mixed economy models where the state heavily regulates the nasty features of capitalism, those countries (Nordic countries, Germany, etc.) are rooted deep in Marxist belief. The social democratic party of Germany were Marxist socialists who disagreed with the notion that capitalism needed violently overthrown--but, instead, socialism could be achieved through democratic means. Those countries do care about their people because they're truly invested in Marxist thought which is about people over money. 

Cuba is more complicated. How much of how poorly they are doing can be attributed to Castro's implementation of a socialist system, or 50+ years of the U.S. crushing any growth they could have? We've heard that Castro wasn't quite the monster we were all led to believe. I don't know if that's true or not (I lean toward probably not true), but let's say he is an asshole. This is another Stalin, Kim Jong-Un scenario.

Lenin was a man for the people and as ruthless as he could be, he was ruthless against those who sought to hurt and exploit the working class. 

I always struggle with this argument as presented as its not an accurate representation of Marxism--that's a U.S. myth that perpetuates textbooks, classrooms, and the media.

If you are pointing to North Korea or the USSR as examples of why pure communism or socialism doesn't work, you aren't in touch with history. Those literally were not communist or socialist countries. 

We have seen socialist and communist-like cultures--several indigenous tribes in America, for example, but those were cruelly destroyed by imperialist desire for wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Well, we do have the concept of wage slavery. And maybe is not necessary, but it sure as hell happens allot. Specially left on its own with now regulation. 

And scandinavian countries exploite the global south 100% with no care for our human rights. 

Can you please provide specific examples of Scandinavian explotation of the global South?  How would you prevent your alleged explotation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...