|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 11 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior.
Yes, please tell us about how Chavez treated his people equitably and with dignity. You apparently like him quite a bit. Or maybe you can elaborate on other socialist institutions like China or the USSR.
|
|
|
On July 11 2018 01:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior. Yes, please tell us about how Chavez treated his people equitably and with dignity. You apparently like him quite a bit. Or maybe you can elaborate on other socialist institutions like China or the USSR.
Only if you tell use the story of the robber barons, Pinkertons, union busters, the imperial supreme court of the 1930, the great depressions and the prosperity gospel. We don’t even need to leave the US to see the worst of capitalism. We took it as far as it could go without destroying the country.
|
On July 11 2018 01:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:31 Schmobutzen wrote:
GH, how capitalism inextricably connected to white supremacy?
And, how opposes socialism it fundamentaly? Well... On July 11 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:
The best argument for socialism is that it provides more systems to address racism and inequality within itself, rather than having to prohibit specific practices in capitalism. That's the TLDR Capitalism has to have systems outside of itself to restrain/modify it, otherwise it would be even more exploitative and there would be more civil unrest (coups, revolutions, war, etc...). Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior. Again "theoretically" in practice humans get in the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Soviet_Union
No kidding. If I had more time, I'd do a detailed post complete with research into how actual socialist and other authoritarian governments acted when it comes to race. This idea that Americans, capitalism, or even white people in general are uniquely racist is offensively absurd.
|
On July 11 2018 01:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:50 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:31 Schmobutzen wrote:
GH, how capitalism inextricably connected to white supremacy?
And, how opposes socialism it fundamentaly? Well... On July 11 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:
The best argument for socialism is that it provides more systems to address racism and inequality within itself, rather than having to prohibit specific practices in capitalism. That's the TLDR Capitalism has to have systems outside of itself to restrain/modify it, otherwise it would be even more exploitative and there would be more civil unrest (coups, revolutions, war, etc...). Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior. Again "theoretically" in practice humans get in the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Soviet_Union No kidding. If I had more time, I'd do a detailed post complete with research into how actual socialist and other authoritarian governments acted when it comes to race. This idea that Americans, capitalism, or even white people in general are uniquely racist is offensively absurd.
I'm not surprised that you guys would align on the butchering of history, but if someone does something racist that is not a socialist action, but you guys wouldn't say doing a racist thing isn't capitalist.
For instance, chattel slavery is fundamentally antithetical to socialism, can you guys say that about capitalism?
If I owned slaves I couldn't be a socialist (I could support socialist stuff I guess), but I could totally be a capitalist and own slaves. There is nothing contradictory about that.
|
On July 11 2018 01:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:50 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:31 Schmobutzen wrote:
GH, how capitalism inextricably connected to white supremacy?
And, how opposes socialism it fundamentaly? Well... On July 11 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:
The best argument for socialism is that it provides more systems to address racism and inequality within itself, rather than having to prohibit specific practices in capitalism. That's the TLDR Capitalism has to have systems outside of itself to restrain/modify it, otherwise it would be even more exploitative and there would be more civil unrest (coups, revolutions, war, etc...). Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior. Again "theoretically" in practice humans get in the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Soviet_Union No kidding. If I had more time, I'd do a detailed post complete with research into how actual socialist and other authoritarian governments acted when it comes to race. This idea that Americans, capitalism, or even white people in general are uniquely racist is offensively absurd.
There is nothing special about white people when it comes to racism. We are just as bad as any other race or nationality. We are also not any better. For examples, please see the collective state of denial regarding the goverment funded abuse around 3000 children currently going on in this country.
|
On July 11 2018 01:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. Your argument assumes a capitalist market is a pure meritocracy, which has never been the case. The markets devalue non-white labor simply because the white dominated market prefers to hire white workers.
If your population prefers whites then it will continue to prefer whites under socialism.
|
Assuming we've established that capitalism is indeed pretty bad in this conversation (otherwise we would have defenses of capitalism instead of "look the communists did it too"), shouldn't the next step be us working together to find a solution to this rather than us continuing with capitalism unchanged?
|
On July 11 2018 01:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:48 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior. Yes, please tell us about how Chavez treated his people equitably and with dignity. You apparently like him quite a bit. Or maybe you can elaborate on other socialist institutions like China or the USSR. Only if you tell use the story of the robber barons, Pinkertons, union busters, the imperial supreme court of the 1930, the great depressions and the prosperity gospel. We don’t even need to leave the US to see the worst of capitalism. We took it as far as it could go without destroying the country.
This isn't an argument about how Capitalism is bad its an argument about how capitalism is white supremacist and socialism isn't. You don't get points by pointing out how admittedly capitalism has had its faults. You lose points by admitting that socialism has had the same faults.
Nothing is more disingenuous then advocating for failed government types based on theoretical "but I'm sure we'll make it work this time" appeals. Socialism in its complete form doesn't work and its never worked. Capitalism doesn't work in its complete form either. But capitalism can be compromised and keep much of its benefits while socialism can't.
|
On July 11 2018 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:50 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:31 Schmobutzen wrote:
GH, how capitalism inextricably connected to white supremacy?
And, how opposes socialism it fundamentaly? Well... On July 11 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:
The best argument for socialism is that it provides more systems to address racism and inequality within itself, rather than having to prohibit specific practices in capitalism. That's the TLDR Capitalism has to have systems outside of itself to restrain/modify it, otherwise it would be even more exploitative and there would be more civil unrest (coups, revolutions, war, etc...). Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior. Again "theoretically" in practice humans get in the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Soviet_Union No kidding. If I had more time, I'd do a detailed post complete with research into how actual socialist and other authoritarian governments acted when it comes to race. This idea that Americans, capitalism, or even white people in general are uniquely racist is offensively absurd. I'm not surprised that you guys would align on the butchering of history, but if someone does something racist that is not a socialist action, but you guys wouldn't say doing a racist thing isn't capitalist. For instance, chattel slavery is fundamentally antithetical to socialism, can you guys say that about capitalism?
I am going to need you to clarify this. Is this in reference to all the people who died under Soviet rule in the 1920-1930s?
|
|
|
On July 11 2018 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:
Assuming we've established that capitalism is indeed pretty bad in this conversation (otherwise we would have defenses of capitalism instead of "look the communists did it too"), shouldn't the next step be us working together to find a solution to this rather than us continuing with capitalism unchanged?
The answer is to keep doing what we are doing and continue to work with capatalism to make it better for the worker. Europe may have socialist ideals but they're not seriously advocating for a socialism state.
|
On July 11 2018 01:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:22 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. I don't want to speak for GH, but I don't read this at all as saying that nonwhites can't succeed in a capitalist society. White supremacy isn't "no nonwhites ever succeed," it's "whites need to roll higher than a 10 on a D20 to pass the good life check and nonwhites need to roll a 15." The fact there's a higher skill check is what generates the supremacy. Surely you'd agree a society which split people into good life/bad life this way would be white supremacist, right? Even if you don't agree capitalism fits that mould. I don't see how you can read GH's statement to mean anything other than capitalism is so inherently racist that it must be destroyed and replaced with socialism. So while it may not be technically accurate to state that GH is saying that nonwhites can never succeed, I'm having a lot of difficulty seeing why that is not essentially his point. Do you think the hypothetical society I described would ever become non-white supremacist, just because 25% of nonwhites are rolling the good life? If one doesn't believe capitalism will ever make the 10s and 15s converge, which I feel pretty confident in saying GH doesn't...I hope the logic is obvious. Unless you believe they can succeed to the point where they can fundamentally alter the constraints of the system, whether individuals can "ever" succeed is irrelevant. I don't see why it couldn't be. Again, I'm more demanding in my definitions of racism and racial supremacy than most everyone else is around here. Additionally, I reject the radical egalitarianism that is intrinsic to GH's argument. "Equal protection under the law" means neither that people are entitled to outcomes nor that people aren't entitled to be assholes. So do you contest that a society where 50% of white people have good lives-just because they're white-and 25% of nonwhites have good lives-just because they aren't white-is white supremacist, then? I think I'm confused. I'm also not sure I understand what you mean by radical egalitarianism-all I see if necessary for his argumentation is that agree we should have equality of opportunity given race, which has nothing to do with equality of outcomes except insofar as equality of opportunity converges to equality of outcomes when individuals are equal with equal preferences. If you're saying that the disparity is strictly due to race and nothing else, then yeah, there's racial supremacy going on. But that's not what we're dealing with in the US. As for the radical egalitarianism, you need to take another look at his arguments. Again, his definition of racism (and yours for that matter) is the broad version that incorporates concepts of institutional racism. Once you cross that line, you're not talking strictly about direct racial preference anymore. You're talking about altering fundamental economic and social relationships to level the playing field in terms of opportunity and outcome.
I guess I don't see how any of that maps to his statements saying nonwhites can never succeed in a system that's white supremacist, which you originally brought up. Whether individuals with condition X can succeed in a given system has nothing to do with equality of opportunity given X (except at the utter extremes of 100%/0% success), which is the entire problem that hypothetical society.
Capitalism has a much more complex system than rolling a D20 to determine whether you have a good life, but it still has *some* mechanism. It's also (hopefully) universally agreed upon that the capitalist societies that generated today's did not have equality of opportunity with respect to race. If one believes there's no self-correcting mechanism inherent in capitalism for this inequality of opportunity-or, worse, that there's in fact an exaggerating mechanism because it concentrates power away from the people that started off disadvantaged-it's not hard to see why people find issue with the capitalist system and equality of opportunity. Either way they've had to or continue to have to move outside the central mechanism to fix it.
Now, my general perception is you believe that there is some self-correcting mechanism inherent in there or failing that, that we've managed to stick enough levers into it that everyone needs to roll a 12. Which is another discussion. But I don't see what equal outcomes or other buzzwords beyond equality of opportunity have to do with this discussion.
|
On July 11 2018 02:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:52 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 01:48 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior. Yes, please tell us about how Chavez treated his people equitably and with dignity. You apparently like him quite a bit. Or maybe you can elaborate on other socialist institutions like China or the USSR. Only if you tell use the story of the robber barons, Pinkertons, union busters, the imperial supreme court of the 1930, the great depressions and the prosperity gospel. We don’t even need to leave the US to see the worst of capitalism. We took it as far as it could go without destroying the country. This isn't an argument about how Capitalism is bad its an argument about how capitalism is white supremacist and socialism isn't. You don't get points by pointing out how admittedly capitalism has had its faults. You lose points by admitting that socialism has had the same faults. Nothing is more disingenuous then advocating for failed government types based on theoretical "but I'm sure we'll make it work this time" appeals. Socialism in its complete form doesn't work and its never worked. Capitalism doesn't work in its complete form either. But capitalism can be compromised and keep much of its benefits while socialism can't.
You are right, that was not my argument. It is a response to bringing up the worst of socialism and communism as an argument against the merits of those systems. Don't bring up Chavez, the USSR or communist China if you don't want the Pinkertons and Union busters thrown back at you in response.
|
|
|
President Donald Trump has pardoned two ranchers whose case sparked the armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon. apnews.com
Trump has pretty much established a pattern of feeding his base by pardoning its criminal element.
|
On July 11 2018 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:
Assuming we've established that capitalism is indeed pretty bad in this conversation (otherwise we would have defenses of capitalism instead of "look the communists did it too"), shouldn't the next step be us working together to find a solution to this rather than us continuing with capitalism unchanged?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, don't go making sense now, you'll make the "unwitting assets" angry. Many of them still aren't comfortable recognizing capitalism as a bad system. They're still stuck on their "lesser of two evils" and completely beholden to capitalism's unyielding propaganda.
You know the US is too busy spreading democracy in the middle east to look introspectively at our own failings (as if we have any).
On July 11 2018 02:04 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:
Assuming we've established that capitalism is indeed pretty bad in this conversation (otherwise we would have defenses of capitalism instead of "look the communists did it too"), shouldn't the next step be us working together to find a solution to this rather than us continuing with capitalism unchanged? See this is the discussion worth having. It is the reason people try to set up checks and balances within any form of government. There are issues with both "pure" forms when put into practice. So what are the good elements of both and how to we put them into practice to make it the best for the biggest number of people, ideally everyone.
What are some of the "bad" parts of socialism?
|
On July 11 2018 02:02 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:
Assuming we've established that capitalism is indeed pretty bad in this conversation (otherwise we would have defenses of capitalism instead of "look the communists did it too"), shouldn't the next step be us working together to find a solution to this rather than us continuing with capitalism unchanged? The answer is to keep doing what we are doing and continue to work with capatalism to make it better for the worker. Europe may have socialist ideals but they're not seriously advocating for a socialism state.
That's not what we've been doing at all, and it is a logical consequence of our system that this isn't what we've been doing: the ruling class has the most power and the ruling class can influence the direction of our politics much better than the workers can, which means they have the means and the incentive to make capitalism better for themselves as opposed to the worker. There is a fundamental distance here between your stated goal and the system that you've chosen to obtain it.
|
On July 11 2018 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. Your argument assumes a capitalist market is a pure meritocracy, which has never been the case. The markets devalue non-white labor simply because the white dominated market prefers to hire white workers. If your population prefers whites then it will continue to prefer whites under socialism.
True. But my argument was that capitalism isn't not inherently egalitarian.
|
On July 11 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 02:00 Sermokala wrote:On July 11 2018 01:52 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 01:48 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior. Yes, please tell us about how Chavez treated his people equitably and with dignity. You apparently like him quite a bit. Or maybe you can elaborate on other socialist institutions like China or the USSR. Only if you tell use the story of the robber barons, Pinkertons, union busters, the imperial supreme court of the 1930, the great depressions and the prosperity gospel. We don’t even need to leave the US to see the worst of capitalism. We took it as far as it could go without destroying the country. This isn't an argument about how Capitalism is bad its an argument about how capitalism is white supremacist and socialism isn't. You don't get points by pointing out how admittedly capitalism has had its faults. You lose points by admitting that socialism has had the same faults. Nothing is more disingenuous then advocating for failed government types based on theoretical "but I'm sure we'll make it work this time" appeals. Socialism in its complete form doesn't work and its never worked. Capitalism doesn't work in its complete form either. But capitalism can be compromised and keep much of its benefits while socialism can't. You are right, that was not my argument. It is a response to bringing up the worst of socialism and communism as an argument against the merits of those systems. Don't bring up Chavez, the USSR or communist China if you don't want the Pinkertons and Union busters thrown back at you in response.
But that would still be an extremely favorable argument for capitalism. Widespread death vs keeping people poor. The cultural revolution and Stalin vs Rockerfeller and the great depression. How is that an equal argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
