Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you going to argue that Capitalist countries with generous social safety nets as in Europe and Canada are really hellscapes for most people in those countries?

No - but it is unarguable that capitalist countries with generous social safety nets as in Europe and Canada mostly maintain those non-hellscape standards of living by either directly exploiting, or relying on countries like the U.S., China, and Russia to exploit, poor and underdeveloped nations for their natural resources, cheap labor, and corrupt governments.

Edited by The Great Unwashed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This feels like some are saying “captialism bad”… “socialism good” with absolutely no recognition of the nuance that exists between these two systems.  

It is setting up a false dichotomy assuming it has to be entirely one or the other.

  I don't see anyone, other than stupid extremist libertarians, arguing for absolutely no regulations or control of the government in the economy. However, a lot of neo-Marxist types argue for ending capitalism altogether.

47 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This doesn't seem accurate- it may reduce poverty in some areas but generally at the expense of keeping others in poverty.  Especially on a global scale.

Except you know pretty well, that every single of those poor areas was already poor- in fact, poorer- long before capitalism existed.  If capitalism ended worldwide, Bolivia or Haiti wouldn't turn in to a workers paradise, in fact they would be much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

No - but it is unarguable that capitalist countries with generous social safety nets as in Europe and Canada mostly maintain those non-hellscape standards of living by either directly exploiting, or relying on countries like the U.S., China, and Russia to exploit, poor and underdeveloped nations for their natural resources, cheap labor, and corrupt governments.

So, what evidence do you have that Socialist systems would be better?  Have you looked at the environmental record of formerly “socialist” nations like the Soviet Union and the PRC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

  I don't see anyone, other than stupid extremist libertarians, arguing for absolutely no regulations or control of the government in the economy. However, a lot of neo-Marxist types argue for ending capitalism altogether.

There are plenty in the Trumpanista lead Republican Party who go apoplectic at the mere mention of anything that hints of socialism or marxist philosophy to any degree.  Please don’t try to pretend like we aren’t seeing alarming degrees of extremism from the right side of the aisle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This feels like some are saying “captialism bad”… “socialism good” with absolutely no recognition of the nuance that exists between these two systems.  

It is setting up a false dichotomy assuming it has to be entirely one or the other.

This is a good point.

 I identify as a libertarian socialist, but that’s mostly to stress my anti-capitalism. I’m not wedded to one particular ideological way of doing things, however, because that’s not how the world works.

It’s frankly rather bizarre how economic systems are discussed, because so much gets ascribed to them that’s really beyond their purview.
 

It most certainly isn’t “capitalism” that has lifted billions out of global poverty the past century or so - capitalism may (and I stress may) have been the only economic system capable of generating enough wealth to lift so many out of poverty the during that time, but it was democratic (and socialist, let’s not forget) reforms that ensured that money isn’t just hoarded in the pockets of the few elite. And almost a century after capitalism nearly destroyed itself, here we are with income hoarding occurring at a rate to rival the Guilded Age, yet again.

I’d also argue the enforced competition inherently necessary to capitalism produces a more callous society, because we’re indoctrinated to see the people around us as competition for our survival, so if some arbitrary thing happens that benefits my competition but ruins me - my competition is then incentivized to see my ruin as a net positive. Not to mention the whole “it’s killing the planet” thing.

Edited by The Great Unwashed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

 Except you know pretty well, that every single of those poor areas was already poor- in fact, poorer- long before capitalism existed.  If capitalism ended worldwide, Bolivia or Haiti wouldn't turn in to a workers paradise, in fact they would be much worse.

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! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, what evidence do you have that Socialist systems would be better?  Have you looked at the environmental record of formerly “socialist” nations like the Soviet Union and the PRC?

I’m not a Marxist-Leninist, Scot. I don’t believe in state-enforced socialism, because it inevitably encounters the same problems as any other hierarchical system, which presupposes that there must be a class of people that tells everyone else what to do.

I’m instead a libertarian socialist (or anarcho-communist when I’m feeling saucy). I think state and capitalist hierarchies are literally destroying us because for whatever insane reason, the most powerful people in the world would rather hold on to that power and take the rest of us down with them, and that’s only possible because of the vast number of comfortable, well-off people who refuse to even consider the possibility of a slight reduction in *some*, NOT ALL, standards of living, so they give their leaders tacit approval to burn the world down around us, and apparently we can occasionally be bothered to complain about how they’re being so inconsiderate with the smoke while they’re lighting the world on fire.

We’re apparently caught in the death-throes of a near species-wide fit of insanity, and I’d posit that if such a large majority truly can’t discern the atrocities that are *still being committed under capitalist systems*, even to the extent that it may kill off humanity, then I’d argue that capitalism as a system has forced humans into an evolutionary dead-end.

Edited by The Great Unwashed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you going to argue that Capitalist countries with generous social safety nets as in Europe and Canada are really hellscapes for most people in those countries?

Of course not and it's a good thing I said nothing like that...Do you think the wealth of Europe and North America would have been possible without cheap materials and labor from overseas?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ran said:

You are sending this out on a hosted forum by typing the above on a device that sends it over a network made up of millions of miles of wires and cables being routed by complex machinery and software that are powered by electrical generators fueled by various forms of energy from renewables to fossil, and every step of that is the work of capitalism.

Every. Single. Step.

You can convince me that there are problems with capitalism, but you'll never be able to convince me that the solution is that capitalism must be done away with. Until such time as we reside in a Star Trek/Culture future of post-scarcity, capitalism seems, like democracy, to be the worst form of economy, except for everything else we've tried.

 

 

 

The network you are referring to is an evolution of Arpanet, a fully funded government project with zero capitalism involved. Key steps in its evolution were funded by NSF (government organization), CERN (international government organization). IETF? Started out by the US government. IANA? Likewise. ICANN? Depended on US government for funding.

Depending on where you are sitting, your telecom and electrical utility company may or may not be privately-owned, but the majority of the world's population uses electricity provided by a government-owned monopoly - even in North America, if you are living in, say, Quebec. Renewable energy? Wouldn't exist in a market-acceptable form without government support and subsidies in early stages. Nuclear power? Came as a result of government research. Those transmission lines? Good luck building them without government support (eminent domain).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Of course not and it's a good thing I said nothing like that...Do you think the wealth of Europe and North America would have been possible without cheap materials and labor from overseas?

 

I don’t know.  But claiming Norway, Sweden, Demark, and Finnland are aggressive imperialists… is a tad off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

On a different note, today we have to ask the annual question, why is Columbus Day still a thing?

Because who doesn't want a day off? And the purpose of the day is slowly changing; every year more places are calling it Indigenous Peoples Day.

But also, it's worth remembering that the Day was first created at a time when Italian Americans weren't really considered White and faced a lot of discrimination (the day was first declared shortly after 11 Italian Americans were lynched in New Orleans). The holiday was to make them more included and note their place in the history of the US. Granted, even at the time it should've been called Vespucci Day instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I''m all for some kind of regulation to protect workers in third world countries and the goods they send to the first world that would also help re-industrialize the first world a win win. But I don't think Capitalism needs that to prosper nor is global colonialism in inherrent part of capitalism. Look at Norway's model of investing their national fund as a way to promote human rights. Or that the scandinavian countries in general are prosperous despite never having vast colonial empires.

Ever since we've had complex societies we've had trade and mediums of exchange and currency I don't see a need to get rid of these when we have models that work pretty well with them. I think trying to supress money would go about as well as the drug war and you'll get a huge black market with unofficial currency. 

Edited by Darzin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Can you be legally punished or fined by your boss for quitting or leaving town to get a better job than the one you already have?

That did happen UNDER UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM ALL THE TIME.  Look at Jim Crow, i.e. 'slavery by another name.'

But, ya, no white men, so OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the -ism's. Its people. You might get a better ride in another vehicle, but ultimately, the driver decides the destination.

Also, I think the definition of capitalism we're talking about has been very flexible and interpreted both broadly and narrowly to suit the argument. It's rather disingenuous. If I follow the logic that capitalism = trade = the means to be wealthy, then does that mean that impoverished countries do not participate in trade? Its really a matter of having the means (resources or capital, not method) to do so. That's where people are at with capitalism increasing inequality. Not if they participate in trade or not.

39 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I''m all for some kind of regulation to protect workers in third world countries and the goods they send to the first world that whould help re-industrialize the first world.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That did happen UNDER UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM ALL THE TIME.  Look at Jim Crow, i.e. 'slavery by another name.'

But, ya, no white men, so OK.

No, not okay.  And it was Feudalism by a different name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison
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.

 

 

Edited by Zorral
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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...