|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
As I just said I'm not talking about the early days of communism. I'm talking about communism from start until its finish. You could face severe penalties for failing to meet the Gosplan's requirements, even in the 1980's. Same with China, Korea, and more recently in Venezuela.
And how is that socialist ? Especially when you know that most socialists were killed way before. Just to give you some perspective on history, Victor Serge died in 1945 - so obviously he wrote what I just quoted you before that. He also wrote that the party of trotsky and lenin had been executed, in 1936... But sure, 1980 is socialism in practice right.
The main problem is that communism and socialism are essentially belief systems masquerading as economic systems.
That's your belief talking here right ? By the way, capitalism is the same exact thing, a belief system. And it does not work well either considering all the institutions we had to create in order to regulate it, and it still fuck up big time.
As for socialism in a 'local perspective' there is no such thing of any relevance. You can find all sorts of successful diversity in modern capitalism, but you will rarely find some form of success that is universally applicable.
Sure sure, again that's your belief talking.
Implying that practical problems can be addressed by removing said people... one way or another. Which is exactly what communists did in the past.
Sure, continue talking alone. It's nice to be a jonny, you can do the interpretation, the answers and everything that goes with it.
|
On April 27 2015 08:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +As I just said I'm not talking about the early days of communism. I'm talking about communism from start until its finish. You could face severe penalties for failing to meet the Gosplan's requirements, even in the 1980's. Same with China, Korea, and more recently in Venezuela. And how is that socialist ? Especially when you know that most socialists were killed way before. Just to give you some perspective on history, Victor Serge died in 1945 - so obviously he wrote what I just quoted you before that. He also wrote that the party of trotsky and lenin had been executed, in 1936... But sure, 1980 is socialism in practice right. Show nested quote +The main problem is that communism and socialism are essentially belief systems masquerading as economic systems. That's your belief talking here right ? By the way, capitalism is the same exact thing, a belief system. And it does not work well either considering all the institutions we had to create in order to regulate it, and it still fuck up big time. Show nested quote +As for socialism in a 'local perspective' there is no such thing of any relevance. You can find all sorts of successful diversity in modern capitalism, but you will rarely find some form of success that is universally applicable. Sure sure, again that's your belief talking. Show nested quote + Implying that practical problems can be addressed by removing said people... one way or another. Which is exactly what communists did in the past. Sure, continue talking alone. It's nice to be a jonny, you can do the interpretation, the answers and everything that goes with it.
Not sure why you keep citing the needed institutions as a reason capitalism sucks. Communism and socialism both need at least as many, possibly even more.
|
On April 27 2015 07:18 Millitron wrote:Can you find me some that correct for wealth? None of these conclusively show it's a race issue. Because of previous racist policies, black people make up a disproportionately large percentage of the country's poor. Poor people are more likely to be arrested. Ergo, black people are more likely to be arrested. You see how it may not be about race, and still affect one race more than another? I've said throughout this thread that police need to be held to higher standards. Force them to wear cameras. Institute oversight committees that are not part of the departments they watch. But I don't accept that the problem is racism. I think its just your standard power-tripping. This whole "You aren't part of group X, ergo you cannot disagree with group X." idea is total bullshit too.
Prejudice against poor people is obviosuly entangled with the institutionalize racism in the us justice system. the data is already difficult to obtain, so i dont think you will find a source which could meet your expectations. however, what confuses me quite a bit is why you are so confident that it is not a race issue, despite the provided data and reports from black people. do you have any data which could justify your confidence? I also dont know how racial profiling or higher rates of death penalties for black people could be anything but racism. Your economic explanation doesnt seem to make much sense here.
But I don't accept that the problem is racism. I think its just your standard power-tripping.
This whole "You aren't part of group X, ergo you cannot disagree with group X." idea is total bullshit too.
it seems to be bullshit to you because you dont understand it. the acutal concept is nicely illustrated by the sentence above. you, someone who never had to face racism in the us justice system, are 100% sure that the problem cant be racism and dont acecept such conclusion, not listening to the people who are potentially victims of this system and who are making experiences with racist law enforcement. how can you be so sure? why are you not listening to the victims of the system.
you can disagree with any group you want, but than i would expect a better reasoning than the one you put up
|
|
|
On April 27 2015 08:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +As I just said I'm not talking about the early days of communism. I'm talking about communism from start until its finish. You could face severe penalties for failing to meet the Gosplan's requirements, even in the 1980's. Same with China, Korea, and more recently in Venezuela. And how is that socialist ? Especially when you know that most socialists were killed way before. Just to give you some perspective on history, Victor Serge died in 1945 - so obviously he wrote what I just quoted you before that. He also wrote that the party of trotsky and lenin had been executed, in 1936... But sure, 1980 is socialism in practice right. Show nested quote +The main problem is that communism and socialism are essentially belief systems masquerading as economic systems. That's your belief talking here right ? By the way, capitalism is the same exact thing, a belief system. And it does not work well either considering all the institutions we had to create in order to regulate it, and it still fuck up big time. Show nested quote +As for socialism in a 'local perspective' there is no such thing of any relevance. You can find all sorts of successful diversity in modern capitalism, but you will rarely find some form of success that is universally applicable. Sure sure, again that's your belief talking. Show nested quote + Implying that practical problems can be addressed by removing said people... one way or another. Which is exactly what communists did in the past. Sure, continue talking alone. It's nice to be a jonny, you can do the interpretation, the answers and everything that goes with it.
Capitalism is not a belief system. You actually do things, and actually look at how things work in real life. It changes and evolves based on evidence.
But I'm not going to convince you of that any more than I'm going to convince a religious fundamentalist to change their mind.
|
On April 27 2015 07:34 lastpuritan wrote:
We need an anger translator in here, too.
I would do some less than reputable things to have TB be my anger translator. Let him say all the things I want to but can't.
|
Still didn't have the data I'm looking for, which would involve correcting for socioeconomics. So you only compare the races within socioeconomic groups, not across them.
Anyways, from your own source:
"Other studies, however, demonstrate that higher crime rates are better explained by socioeconomic factors than race: extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods experience higher rates of crime regardless of racial composition. Because African Americans constitute a disproportionate share of those living in poverty in the United States, they are more likely to reside in low-income communities in which socioeconomic factors contribute to higher crime rates. As such, Ohio State University researchers Lauren Krivo and Ruth Peterson found that “it is these differences in disadvantage that explain the overwhelming portion of the difference in crime, especially violent crime, between white and African American communities.”"
Now, as for implicit biases, they don't just come from nowhere. People have the biases they do because they're based on the real world. Because black people commit more violent crimes, it is only natural that police are more on-edge with them. I'm not saying they should be, I'm just pointing out that they are, and not because they hate black people or whatever, but because in their experience, black people are more likely to be combative. Stereotypes don't just come from nowhere, they're inspired by real circumstances. So what I'm saying is, socioeconomics are still the root cause, because socioeconomics causes the black population to commit more violent crime, which inspires these negative stereotypes.
Now, the criminal justice system doesn't really help matters. The War on Drugs, and other victimless crimes have got to be done away with. Do away with all the nonsense drug cases, and public defenders won't be so swamped. That way real cases could actually be fairly tried.
|
On April 27 2015 09:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 08:01 WhiteDog wrote:As I just said I'm not talking about the early days of communism. I'm talking about communism from start until its finish. You could face severe penalties for failing to meet the Gosplan's requirements, even in the 1980's. Same with China, Korea, and more recently in Venezuela. And how is that socialist ? Especially when you know that most socialists were killed way before. Just to give you some perspective on history, Victor Serge died in 1945 - so obviously he wrote what I just quoted you before that. He also wrote that the party of trotsky and lenin had been executed, in 1936... But sure, 1980 is socialism in practice right. The main problem is that communism and socialism are essentially belief systems masquerading as economic systems. That's your belief talking here right ? By the way, capitalism is the same exact thing, a belief system. And it does not work well either considering all the institutions we had to create in order to regulate it, and it still fuck up big time. As for socialism in a 'local perspective' there is no such thing of any relevance. You can find all sorts of successful diversity in modern capitalism, but you will rarely find some form of success that is universally applicable. Sure sure, again that's your belief talking. Implying that practical problems can be addressed by removing said people... one way or another. Which is exactly what communists did in the past. Sure, continue talking alone. It's nice to be a jonny, you can do the interpretation, the answers and everything that goes with it. Capitalism is not a belief system. You actually do things, and actually look at how things work in real life. It changes and evolves based on evidence. But I'm not going to convince you of that any more than I'm going to convince a religious fundamentalist to change their mind.
Capitalism is not less or more of a belief system than socialism. And don't attempt to paint him as similar to a "religious fundamentalist" when you're the one refusing to even consider socialism as an economic system because you don't like it as much as the one you put on a pedestal.
|
Millitron -> crime rates differences are existent and moderate, it's the incarceration rate differences (6:1 or so) that are problematic, as well as other differences in how law enforcement responds.
I couldn't find any data that corrected for economic and other factors, but I only looked through a page of google searches.
did you read the whole thing? just curious.
|
On April 27 2015 12:08 zlefin wrote:
Millitron -> crime rates differences are existent and moderate, it's the incarceration rate differences (6:1 or so) that are problematic.
I couldn't find any data that corrected for economic and other factors, but I only looked through a page of google searches.
Ok? Like I said, that's still caused by socioeconomics. The implicit bias exists because it was inspired by those differences caused by socioeconomics.
|
It's still easier to fix the implicit bias than to fix the socioeconomics; so I don't see why you're so dismissive of the issue. Or maybe you don't intend to sound dismissive?
Also, you've not provided any evidence that the implicit bias was caused by the socioeconomic factors rather than some other factor.
|
WASHINGTON, April 26 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's arguments on Tuesday over same-sex marriage will cap more than two decades of litigation and a transformation in public attitudes.
Based on the court's actions during the past two years, a sense of inevitability is in the air: That a majority is on the verge of declaring gay marriage legal nationwide.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's pivotal member on gay rights, has been marching in this direction with opinions dating to 1996. In his most recent gay rights decision for the court in 2013, rejecting a legal definition of marriage limited to a man and woman for purposes of federal benefits, Kennedy deplored that U.S. law for making gay marriages "unequal."
That 5-4 decision did not address a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but lower court judges interpreted the ruling as an endorsement of it and began invalidating state bans.
When states appealed rulings striking down their same-sex marriage prohibitions, the Supreme Court declined to intervene, most notably in October 2014 when it denied appeals in seven cases on a single day.
Instead, the nine justices are hearing in Tuesday's oral arguments an appeal of the sole decision from a regional U.S. appeals court that went the opposite way. Last November, the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld gay marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.
With 37 of the 50 states now permitting gay marriage, many because of judicial orders, it seems unlikely the country's highest court would reverse course. Public opinion polls over the last decade have shown large increases in support for gay marriage. A ruling is due by the end of June.
Source
|
On April 27 2015 12:36 zlefin wrote:
It's still easier to fix the implicit bias than to fix the socioeconomics; so I don't see why you're so dismissive of the issue. Or maybe you don't intend to sound dismissive?
Also, you've not provided any evidence that the implicit bias was caused by the socioeconomic factors rather than some other factor.
I dunno I guess I'll start by saying I'm actually in law enforcement in a major city. I've been doing it for 5 years now and while I don't exactly have a wealth of experience compared to someone who has been doing this for 20 some odd years I know enough to get by. I also can only speak from the experience of a major city police department. I don't know how small ones really function and I have my beliefs that they probably have less stringent requirements. I'm also half black...if that even means anything.
From my personal experience I have to honestly say that socioeconomic factors SEEM to be one of the biggest determinations in just how often I have to get called to houses or certain places. The poor areas of town have an incredibly more dense rate of crime, especially of the violent variety, than that of even middle class areas. The culture of these areas is a hell of a lot more doggy dog than what people who haven't experienced would believe to the extent that compassion and "being nice" is seen as something that should be exploited.
I have also noticed that these areas are much more densely packed with minorities than any other race. In my town in particular its largely hispanic as opposed to african american but either way you don't see that many white people. This simple numbers issue is why, for the most part, I have ended up arresting a "disproportionate" amount of minorities compared to white people. I'm...not actually racist...I simply go to the calls I'm dispatched to and deal with what's given. I generally have no control over this. What I have noticed though is that I have only arrested a very few amount of middle - upper class residents of ANY race and those times that I have it's actually been a fairly equal amount of each proportional to the amounts of each race per region.
This isn't to say there aren't racist cops out there. There most certainly ARE, but at least in my experience I only really know of one...out of the 150 people I work with on a relatively routine basis and even that guy isn't blatant about it because that shit simply isn't kosher anymore(A good thing). I just don't think it's truly about race to the extent that people believe. I really don't. It does happen, I will not deny that, but I don't think we are really in the age any longer where that is truly the issue anymore. Hell I don't even take note of skin color beyond what I'd have to call out in case they ran from me...which I literally do in my head to everyone.
This point kind of segways into the justice system and the inherent bias in it. From the court cases I have had to testify to just about everyone of every race gets probation or some sort of community roughly the same amount of times depending on the crime we're talking here. However, if you have been charged with x amount of crimes you're simply going to stand a higher and higher chance of being incarcerated. If you've been arrested more often you're much more likely to go to jail for whatever crime it is that has been done.
If...a group of individuals gets arrested more than another group...they are going to have a disproportionate amount of their group in prison. That's just how it's going to end up. There is also something to remember in terms of socioeconmic status...a poor person can't afford a high powered attorney where as a weathly or even some middle class could and as far as I know they have a higher chance of brokering a better deal or even getting off free entirely than someone who has to resort to public defense.
There most certainly is a bias in the system and I really do think it's toward socioeconomic status more than anything but solving that is a very...complicated issue. There isn't much the country can do about those areas of town simply getting more calls for service unless the underlying issues are solved. A vast majority of my arrests are not something I self initiated. I was called to the location and had to deal with a crime that's already been committed. Even those officers that do like to go out and find drugs or whatever else do so in the poor areas of town...where the drugs are being peddled. So yes, they are going to stop a lot more minorities than white people in those areas. So the issue... It likely originated from the extreme racism this country has had to deal with in only the last 60-70 years and has yet to truly recover from. Everything from the schools to the food available is simply worse in those areas. It's rather sad to see.
PS The war on drugs is so stupid. I wish it would end already. If it did end may be public defenders could actually focus on important cases instead of things that matter so very little in the grand scheme of things.
|
On April 27 2015 09:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 08:01 WhiteDog wrote:As I just said I'm not talking about the early days of communism. I'm talking about communism from start until its finish. You could face severe penalties for failing to meet the Gosplan's requirements, even in the 1980's. Same with China, Korea, and more recently in Venezuela. And how is that socialist ? Especially when you know that most socialists were killed way before. Just to give you some perspective on history, Victor Serge died in 1945 - so obviously he wrote what I just quoted you before that. He also wrote that the party of trotsky and lenin had been executed, in 1936... But sure, 1980 is socialism in practice right. The main problem is that communism and socialism are essentially belief systems masquerading as economic systems. That's your belief talking here right ? By the way, capitalism is the same exact thing, a belief system. And it does not work well either considering all the institutions we had to create in order to regulate it, and it still fuck up big time. As for socialism in a 'local perspective' there is no such thing of any relevance. You can find all sorts of successful diversity in modern capitalism, but you will rarely find some form of success that is universally applicable. Sure sure, again that's your belief talking. Implying that practical problems can be addressed by removing said people... one way or another. Which is exactly what communists did in the past. Sure, continue talking alone. It's nice to be a jonny, you can do the interpretation, the answers and everything that goes with it. Capitalism is not a belief system. You actually do things, and actually look at how things work in real life. It changes and evolves based on evidence. But I'm not going to convince you of that any more than I'm going to convince a religious fundamentalist to change their mind.
Lol jonny. "Communism" and "socialism" are belief systems but "capitalism" is basically a science that "changes and evolves." How are you taken seriously?
So back in the 17th century you would have said that liberal democracy was untested and unproven, with only failure to blot its record, and that the bourgeoisie merchants were upstart leeches who were immoral, while the landed gentry system had evolved throughout the centuries to keep the peace and bring prosperity to every nation under god. Zzzz. Talk about fundamentalism while trotting out uncritical and ignorant arguments about the supposed "failures" of socialism as if Stalin and Mao voided any critique of capital, and that anyone attempting to argue otherwise needs to put forward a 500 point alternative rather than laying out reasonable and reasonably apparent principles upon which to build one.
|
|
|
On April 27 2015 12:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 12:08 zlefin wrote:
Millitron -> crime rates differences are existent and moderate, it's the incarceration rate differences (6:1 or so) that are problematic.
I couldn't find any data that corrected for economic and other factors, but I only looked through a page of google searches. Ok? Like I said, that's still caused by socioeconomics. The implicit bias exists because it was inspired by those differences caused by socioeconomics.
This is a bit closer to what you are looking for
In the 15 counties with the highest median household incomes in the United States,
Blacks are two to eight times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana
possession. In Arlington, VA, for example, where the median household income is
$94,880, Blacks are almost eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana
possession than whites. In Delaware, OH (north of Columbus), where the median
household income is just under $88,000, Blacks are arrested at almost six times the rate
of whites. In Howard, Calvert, and Charles Counties in Maryland, the median household
income is between $88,825 and $103,273, and the Black marijuana possession arrest
rate is a stunning 837 per 100,000 (compared to the national rate of 253 per 100,000).
In Fairfax and Loudoun, VA, where the median household incomes are both over
$100,000, Blacks are approximately three times more likely than whites to be arrested
for marijuana possession. In Nassau, NY (part of Long Island), the median household
income is over $93,000 and Blacks are over 3.5 times more likely than whites to be
arrested for marijuana possession. See Figure 18.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JD2Bq9v.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +Turning to the 15 counties with the lowest median household incomes, see Figure 20, in Scotland, NC, and Adams, MS, where the median household income is below $30,000, Blacks are almost five times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. In Washington, LA ($27,797), and Dunklin, MO ($29,375), Blacks are four times more likely. In Dallas (includes Selma) and Pike, AL, both with median household incomes below $30,000 and white populations of 31% and 61%, respectively, the white arrest rate for marijuana possession was 0, while the Black arrest rate was 95 and 115, respectively. In Natchitoches, LA, and Oktibbeha, MS, the median household income is approximately $30,300, and the Black marijuana possession arrest rate is a staggering 1,201 per 100,000 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D8dxnRt.jpg)
Here's some more stuff.
+ Show Spoiler +
If people think socioeconomics explains 3,4,8,10:1 ratios, when consumption rates are basically the same I just don't know what would convince you otherwise.
The justice system is racist, the fact that there are reasons it is racist is not an excuse to be racist. Being unintentionally racist/racially biased has essentially the same impact by and large.
I'm not going to argue that socioeconomics have zero impact but your reasoning is way past preposterous at this point.
Source
EDIT:
In the worst offending counties across the country, Blacks were over 10, 15, even 30 times more likely to be arrested than white residents in the same county.
|
Found an interesting report:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/125618.pdf
Most interesting note is that per capita growth in black incarceration rate from 1926 to 1986 was from 106 to 342
while for whites it was 36 to 63; quite a difference in ratios. (numbers are per hundred thousand, and are based on admissions, rather than adjusting for years served).
I certainly wouldn't think blacks situation had, relatively speaking, worsened from 1926 to 1986, so that their incarceration rates went up disproportionately during that time is troubling.
|
On April 27 2015 13:30 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 09:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 27 2015 08:01 WhiteDog wrote:As I just said I'm not talking about the early days of communism. I'm talking about communism from start until its finish. You could face severe penalties for failing to meet the Gosplan's requirements, even in the 1980's. Same with China, Korea, and more recently in Venezuela. And how is that socialist ? Especially when you know that most socialists were killed way before. Just to give you some perspective on history, Victor Serge died in 1945 - so obviously he wrote what I just quoted you before that. He also wrote that the party of trotsky and lenin had been executed, in 1936... But sure, 1980 is socialism in practice right. The main problem is that communism and socialism are essentially belief systems masquerading as economic systems. That's your belief talking here right ? By the way, capitalism is the same exact thing, a belief system. And it does not work well either considering all the institutions we had to create in order to regulate it, and it still fuck up big time. As for socialism in a 'local perspective' there is no such thing of any relevance. You can find all sorts of successful diversity in modern capitalism, but you will rarely find some form of success that is universally applicable. Sure sure, again that's your belief talking. Implying that practical problems can be addressed by removing said people... one way or another. Which is exactly what communists did in the past. Sure, continue talking alone. It's nice to be a jonny, you can do the interpretation, the answers and everything that goes with it. Capitalism is not a belief system. You actually do things, and actually look at how things work in real life. It changes and evolves based on evidence. But I'm not going to convince you of that any more than I'm going to convince a religious fundamentalist to change their mind. Lol jonny. "Communism" and "socialism" are belief systems but "capitalism" is basically a science that "changes and evolves." How are you taken seriously? So back in the 17th century you would have said that liberal democracy was untested and unproven, with only failure to blot its record, and that the bourgeoisie merchants were upstart leeches who were immoral, while the landed gentry system had evolved throughout the centuries to keep the peace and bring prosperity to every nation under god. Zzzz. Talk about fundamentalism while trotting out uncritical and ignorant arguments about the supposed "failures" of socialism as if Stalin and Mao voided any critique of capital, and that anyone attempting to argue otherwise needs to put forward a 500 point alternative rather than laying out reasonable and reasonably apparent principles upon which to build one.
To be fair though, it isn't just Mao and Stalin, it's the system itself. If you want to point out things like Robert Owen's failures, Puritan failures, the general failure of 19th Century socialism and communism, which contrary to 20th Century were actually pretty dang OK (local, non-aggressive, fit within property rights (e.g. most bought a property and then instituted socialism/communism), etc. It's not like the system is being unfairly maligned based on a few poor apples - the whole of history demonstrates its abysmal failure, especially the State variety.
|
On April 27 2015 17:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 13:30 IgnE wrote:On April 27 2015 09:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 27 2015 08:01 WhiteDog wrote:As I just said I'm not talking about the early days of communism. I'm talking about communism from start until its finish. You could face severe penalties for failing to meet the Gosplan's requirements, even in the 1980's. Same with China, Korea, and more recently in Venezuela. And how is that socialist ? Especially when you know that most socialists were killed way before. Just to give you some perspective on history, Victor Serge died in 1945 - so obviously he wrote what I just quoted you before that. He also wrote that the party of trotsky and lenin had been executed, in 1936... But sure, 1980 is socialism in practice right. The main problem is that communism and socialism are essentially belief systems masquerading as economic systems. That's your belief talking here right ? By the way, capitalism is the same exact thing, a belief system. And it does not work well either considering all the institutions we had to create in order to regulate it, and it still fuck up big time. As for socialism in a 'local perspective' there is no such thing of any relevance. You can find all sorts of successful diversity in modern capitalism, but you will rarely find some form of success that is universally applicable. Sure sure, again that's your belief talking. Implying that practical problems can be addressed by removing said people... one way or another. Which is exactly what communists did in the past. Sure, continue talking alone. It's nice to be a jonny, you can do the interpretation, the answers and everything that goes with it. Capitalism is not a belief system. You actually do things, and actually look at how things work in real life. It changes and evolves based on evidence. But I'm not going to convince you of that any more than I'm going to convince a religious fundamentalist to change their mind. Lol jonny. "Communism" and "socialism" are belief systems but "capitalism" is basically a science that "changes and evolves." How are you taken seriously? So back in the 17th century you would have said that liberal democracy was untested and unproven, with only failure to blot its record, and that the bourgeoisie merchants were upstart leeches who were immoral, while the landed gentry system had evolved throughout the centuries to keep the peace and bring prosperity to every nation under god. Zzzz. Talk about fundamentalism while trotting out uncritical and ignorant arguments about the supposed "failures" of socialism as if Stalin and Mao voided any critique of capital, and that anyone attempting to argue otherwise needs to put forward a 500 point alternative rather than laying out reasonable and reasonably apparent principles upon which to build one. To be fair though, it isn't just Mao and Stalin, it's the system itself. If you want to point out things like Robert Owen's failures, Puritan failures, the general failure of 19th Century socialism and communism, which contrary to 20th Century were actually pretty dang OK (local, non-aggressive, fit within property rights (e.g. most bought a property and then instituted socialism/communism), etc. It's not like the system is being unfairly maligned based on a few poor apples - the whole of history demonstrates its abysmal failure, especially the State variety.
The main problem is the discussion is going nowhere because 1) you caricature socialism 2) you caricature capitalism 3) you (and mostly jonny) talk alone. I'll force myself and develop a little altho I'm pretty sure it will have no value whatsoever..
Capitalism has a certain "plasticity" according to jonny, so capitalism is in essence everything that works - brilliant definition ! Except that is not the case, if we defined capitalism then we would say that it is is a regime of production and distribution of ressources based on the "free" private property of the means of production, the accumulation of capital. I rarely if ever accept to discuss "capitalism", as it is a flawed concept and an anachronism : in Marx's day, capitalism as a word did not exist and it was the accumulation of capital (hence why his famous book is called The Capital and not Capitalism) that was criticized (and the capitalist class). The word capitalism, for historian, date to Werner Sombart's "Der moderne Kapitalismus" in 1902 ! Most if not all debate on "capitalism" vs "socialism" then go to nowhere because the (usually poor and unclear) definition of capitalism make the debate useless.
As for socialism, it is collectivization of the capital, either through the free associations of workers (that's Marx definition), or through the state (creating an army and forcing the society to accept collectivization through the state is the specificity of marxism-leninism, Stalin's invention, but who cares right ?).
So does capitalism work ? No it doesn't, it create way too much inequalities, it is pretty inefficient in terms of growth (endegenous growth theory in here), neglect market failures and has disastrous effect on nature - to quote Proudhon it is immoral, unfair and impossible. But our current systems, while mainly capitalists, are still quite "socialist". Even in the US, if you looked at the GDP, the government by itself create 13 % of the output. In France, in 2012, collective and non profit driven production of goods and services (government production and associations which are well developped in France) were accounting for 412.7 trillion € out of the 1 820.9 trillion (in real terms) of our GDP - 22.6 % overall. A capitalist argument is that those 412 trillion would be used more efficiently produced/used in a regime of free competition/accumulation (which would permit excess production factor to go in other field, boosting GDP), but that is historically wrong : even economists acknowledge that, as GDP progress, the weight of the state and various socialised product is going up and that is one of the few laws of economy (the law of wagner). Our societies has a need for socialized production, there must be a reason right ?
My "belief" is that socialized ownership of the means of production not only have value for a society, is morally superior, but also that it is better at managing the social cost of the production, which is why almost all societies always turns themselves to the government for the production and the regulation of the most sensitive part of our production (health, education, energy, mobility, etc.).
Meanwhile, a regime of free property of the means of production has an edge on any socialist endeavor because it is way better in managing ressources thank to the decentralized qualities of the market, and most notably the way it handle information through prices (things that boost short term growth). But, it has huge problems in the way it handle the social costs of the production, that it does not account for (things that hinder long term growth and that are most of the time immoral, unfair, and everything else that goes with it).
The solution was pretty different for every countries : to get back to my first two exemples, the US mostly tried to "reform" capitalism (by state regulation and taxation) and kept socialized production at its lowest, with bad results for poverty, education, inequalities, and nature - but still managed to produce some amazing infrastructure and wealth. France had, for a long period, a huge growth and a very equal society that was in part permitted by a mixed regime between capitalism and socialism, with entire branch of its economy completly socialised, either by state monopoly (energy, education, finance with the main banks, mobility, even part of the industry) or by the free association of workers (with our very important associative sector). It worked perfectly for our health insurance for exemple - that is not a state health insurance (even tho it tend to change) but that was a form of mutualism / associative insurance (that took monstruous size as time passed) - which is still today arguably the most efficient health insurance of the world (but don't let it fool you, socialism does not work right). Europe forced us to privatize the entirety of state production, which indeed put a stop to our mixed regime late 80s (which in turn created an increase in inequalities and poverty up to this day despite an almost constant growth).
Am I necessarily for a forced socialist "society" ? No, I just think that there are entire field where the property rights are to be changed, mostly in regard to the earth (due to the destruction of our natural ressources). That makes me a socialist, yeah (not a communist tho; for different reasons that I will not discuss here), altho I don't see any future in trying to force collectivisation on capitalist-like markets with small externalities like say the production of socks and jeans. I leave that higly important business to the jonnys of the world for now.
|
I did read it.
What it shows me is that there is racial bias in the justice system.
I already knew that, as unfortunate as it is. I never made the claim that racial bias doesn't exist. I know that it does, my only issue is that I don't think it's the absolute major contributing factor.
...On the arrest side at any rate. The court room side is apparently a complete fucking mess which, all things said, doesn't surprise me. The United States is top of the world in a very few things and one of those happens to be just how many of our own population we throw in to prisons.
Some of the studies actually surprised me. The study that stated that black and white people equally use Crack Cocaine was actually rather shocking to me because in my experience that straight wasn't the case. The white people in this city that like drugs like Crystal Meth and the black/hispanic people are in to the crack cocaine. Everyone seems to like heroin equally. So that did surprise me because of the report that stated black people were getting charged for using cocaine more than anyone else. My initial thought was, "well no shit for some reason as a race they use crack cocaine more than anyone else," and apparently I was wrong. Interesting. It also surprised me just how many more black people got charged federally over white people.
This is really why I can only speak about the arrest side of things. The traffic stop report amazes me simply because I have never understood why any cop would automatically suspect someone differently based on their skin color. It makes absolutely no sense to me at any level. It's how they act that always clues me in. The traffic stop based on race thing also surprises me because I can't remember the last time I even knew the race of the driver before I stopped them. They're either driving too fast, have tinted windows, or I was behind them from the start. There is just about no way I can even find out before I pull them over. This rather implies that officers make the effort to find this out before pulling them over...which is galling and stupid. I don't even understand the point of why.
I have been through several racial profiling training courses and it is the most annoying training I have to endure. All of the things "taught" during the course is flat obvious and shouldn't have to be told to anyone at all but the thing is everyone I talk to SAYS THE SAME THING.
So either I'm in a department that simply doesn't have this issue, because not all of them really do, or my coworkers are damn good at hiding their bias from all the reporting we have to do on it. The report did mention that socioeconomic status probably accounts for at least some of the bias we see so there is THAT at least.
I am actually behind most of the changes they talk about, especially the war on drugs with its mandatory sentencing bull that we deal with here. What I really want to see is a study about the correlation of racial bias in a department with how damn hard it is to even get in to the department. I know that in mine out of 1500 applicants only about 30 tend to make it through the whole process and the process is a long one. Makes me wonder if other agencies are just really bad at catching the people that shouldn't be in possession of arresting power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s4GRT83.jpg)
