Actually that was the reason and which shows that politicians that supported a monarchy and see the needs of the people and react to issues before they turn into open revolution. — ssu

It strikes me as unnecessarily risky though, to hope that when things get really bad, someone will step in in time.

Yet doesn't unrestrained socialism lead to unrestrained power? — ssu

That depends on what you understand by "socialism". But I don't really want to debate the merits of either system in the abstract. I just think it's worth looking at other motivations apart from profit. For example, there is a growing movement of "purpose companies", like the search engine "Ecosia". These operate in the market, but their capital is held in a purpose-bound trust (in the case of Ecosia that is planting trees). It has all the advantages of a market economy, but instead of measuring it's success in terms of profit margin, it does so in terms of planted trees.

There are interesting approaches out there. One doesn't need to drag Stalin's corpse out of the closet in any discussion about economic reform.

And I simply don't buy it. — ssu

"It" being that only leftists argue for economic reform and welfare? I'd agree with you. Plenty of the new right wing parties across Europe promote redistribution, usually explicitly for the benefit of specific nationals.

There are interesting approaches out there. One doesn't need to drag Stalin's corpse out of the closet in any discussion about economic reform. — Echarmion

Bravo!

I quote the passage above to illustrate where we came in on this question - just a day or so ago, and how already, the point has wandered quite a ways from its origins. If it weren't possible to click back a page or two, and look up where we came in - I would be quite lost. I really couldn't explain why we are seeking to establish the precise mildness of your approval for removing statues that remind us where we came from. — counterpunch

Points tend to multiply when following them along their lines of connection. To my reckoning, you accused me of being inconsistent when I said I was indifferent to statues but approved of those statues being torn down. I replied describing that I had a mild preference for them being torn down.

I'd initially brought up the statues because I believed it would be an issue which shows that some political issues aren't resolvable by scientific means, and I believed you'd disagree with me on whether tearing down those statues was permissible.

I do worry though.

"The world's two largest standing Buddhas - one of them 165ft high - were blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan at the weekend. After failing to destroy the 1,700-year-old sandstone statues of Buddha with anti-aircraft and tank fire, the Taliban brought a lorryload of dynamite from Kabul."

How mild is your approval for this? Or do you disapprove of this - and maintain it's only your lefty cultural vandalism that's praiseworthy? — counterpunch

My approval/disapproval for tearing down a statue depends on what it represents, why it was torn down, and what the act enables. I don't know enough about that act of vandalism to form much of an opinion about it.

You don't? Ancient Egyptians, Greek, Romans all had slaves did they not? Ottomans, Muslims, Africans, Russians all had slaves. British people were slaves until 1584; only they called them serfs. Slavery is the default, and capitalism is the cure. Don't be sly - making sideways arguments, and referencing books I haven't read, and am obviously not about to run out and buy. Slavery was everywhere - all around the world and throughout all of history until the West ended it. — counterpunch

I think a book reference is rather generous actually. If you're not going to check reputable contrary citations to your historical+anthropological claims, I don't think there's much point talking about the issue with you.

Another sly argument. In society and economics, it's necessary to discriminate - for example, between people who are qualified for a job, and those who are not qualified. So, for example, if numerous black people applied for a job without having the necessary qualifications, by your logic - they are being discriminated against, relative to the white person who is qualified. The discrimination isn't racial discrimination, but you switch effect with cause - like with Redlining, to suggest a racial disparity in effect proves racist intent as a cause. It's not so. That's politically correct logic. The same logic that denies slavery existed everywhere, since the dawn of time. You - lefties, are not capable of an honest argument. — counterpunch

I gave you an easily attackable candidate definition/clarification of how I understand systemic discrimination. If you are unwilling to engage with the term on its terms, again, I don't think either of us will benefit from continuing the discussion.

Capitalism is the ownership of industry is held in private hands — ssu

"In private hands" as opposed to "in public hands" means precisely "in few hands" rather than "in everyone's hands".

For example, land ownership hasn't concentrated into relatively few hands, there are lot of small landowners in every country — ssu

Not relative to the population size; at least not if you're accounting for outstanding debts on land (e.g. mortgages). Most people don't own their own homes free and clear. Most people own no land at all free and clear. The ownership of land is concentrated in the hands of a small fraction of the population. That may be a large number, but that's irrelevant. "The 1%" is still millions of people, but that fact doesn't help the 99% any.

Perhaps here one should make a difference between capitalism and market economy. — ssu

That's precisely what I'm doing. One can in principle have a propertarian free market economy without having capitalism, if one can somehow prevent the ownership of capital from concentrating in a small portion of the population instead of staying widely distributed across the whole population.

And how do you explain absolute monarchies then? — ssu

Explain what about them? In an absolute monarchy the monarch effectively owns everything. That's perfectly consistent the principles I'm talking about here, and why I kept saying "democratic state" and such to be clear that the legitimacy of taxation only implies partial public ownership if the state doing that taxation is of, by, and for the public. In an absolute monarchy it implies the monarch has (at least partial) ownership of everything, instead of the public.

The dark shadow hanging over Marxism is his stages of history analysis which is complete bunk. — Garth

An authoritarian, hierarchical state will survive longer against the threat of revolution if it asks its subjects what they want of it, and gives them a cut of its takings, naturally inclining such authoritarian, hierarchical states to evolve a layer of social democracy as a means of effectively buying the loyalty of its subjects, or else eventually fall to popular revolution.

Such a social democracy can then most easily appease the most people if it simply lets them make their own lifestyle choices instead of telling them how to live, and lets them provide each other with services instead of trying to do so itself, adding a layer of liberty and a free market.

Thus, the lazy selfish authority, acting in its own self-interest, naturally devolves power toward a social democracy; and a lazy selfish social democracy, acting in its own self-interest, naturally devolves power toward more anarchic ideals.

Not relative to the population size; at least not if you're accounting for outstanding debts on land (e.g. mortgages). Most people don't own their own homes free and clear. Most people own no land at all free and clear. The ownership of land is concentrated in the hands of a small fraction of the population. That may be a large number, but that's irrelevant. "The 1%" is still millions of people, but that fact doesn't help the 99% any. — Pfhorrest

Right. In addition, you can't just rely on snapshots: that isn't very meaningful. Where I am, quite a lot of people still own their own homes, but that percentage is falling rather rapidly. It is the trend of land ownership, not the current value, that is the measure.

Its like if you invite me to a wedding. The fact that I haven't drunk all the champagne yet does not mean I'm not drinking all the champagne. And I will drink all the champagne.

If someone is a racist then it's acceptable to call them a racist and criticize them for being a racist. If someone is black then it's not acceptable to call them a nigger and criticize them for being black — Michael

What does calling a person a racist accomplish in a philosophy forum that calling someone a nigger, doesn't? Calling them a racist doesn't accomplish anything. Laying out the arguement of how it is a logical fallacy of a false cause and ad hominems is the acceptable path to take.

But your simple mind can only seem to understand how to lower yourself to their level of intelligence. Calling people names is just childish.

Disagreeing that white privilege exists isnt criticizing blacks for being black. It is criticizing the argument. That is the difference. So to call people racist because they are criticizing an argument is no different than calling someone a nigger or cracker for criticizing your argument.

Isn't white privilege criticizing whites for being white?

Calling a person a "rat" is a pejorative, calling a rat a "rat" isn't, it's neutrally descriptive. Calling a black person a "nigger" is a pejorative, calling a racist, a "racist" is neutrally descriptive. — Baden

LO-Fucking-L!

As I have been arguing all along is that people that aren't racist are being called racist! Pay attention!

. Of course the success of globalism is a lie.
— Brett
Apart from seriously diminishing global povetry, but who cares about little things like that. — ssu

Sorry, a bit of confusion there. I mean globalism has destroyed so much. It’s not the great success story overall, i.e. American jobs, sweat shops, etc.

It doesn't matter whether they're racist or not, it's not the same class of word. You can simply be wrong about someone being racist. Calling someone a "nigger" is not a matter of being right or wrong. It's a pure insult. Do you get the distinction yet?

How about saying something you actually believe with some precision, rather than saying something not generally true then denying when it does or does not hold true? — Kenosha Kid

So you don’t think it’s true that the money the government spends on public programs comes from taxation?

So you don’t think it’s true that the money the government spends on public programs comes from taxation? — Brett

That has nothing to do with the point I responded to. You're obviously not going to defend the point, I give up.

As I keep having to point out because certain people like to go off the tracks and attack something that I haven't said...
Calling someone a racist when they aren't is just as insulting. If you dont get that, then that's fine as it is just more evidence that there is no objective morality and we could sit here and argue all day about our subjective views of what is more insulting, but I'm not interested.

quote="Kenosha Kid;487732"]You're obviously not going to defend the point, I give up.[/quote]

What point? Make it clear and I’ll address it.

Is this it?

So basically you're saying there are circumstances in which capitalism can bring people out of poverty, even if we're not in those circumstances and likely never will be. — Kenosha Kid

What does calling a person a racist accomplish in a philosophy forum that calling someone a nigger, doesn't? Calling them a racist doesn't accomplish anything. Laying out the arguement of how it is a logical fallacy of a false cause and ad hominems is the acceptable path to take.

But your simple mind can only seem to understand how to lower yourself to their level of intelligence. Calling people names is just childish. — Harry Hindu

This was your comment that I responded to:

Hate was the primary reason you voted against Trump. You "progressives" like to believe that you are all open-minded and accepting of others differences, but your actions speak louder than your words. You people are are so filled with hate its insane.

But then that's part if the problem. You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference?

It had nothing to do with what people call each other on a philosophy forum. You were asking about the political views of progressives, and questioning what you believed to be an inconsistency in their position. I'm explaining to you that their position isn't inconsistent; their position is that it's acceptable to criticize people for unacceptable things (e.g. being a racist) and unacceptable to criticize people for acceptable things (e.g. being black).

Isn't white privilege criticizing whites for being white?

No, white privilege refers to "the implicit or systemic advantages that people who are deemed white have relative to people who are not deemed white; it is the absence of suspicion and other negative reactions that white people experience."

Oh boy, more straight up insults. I am forced to ask whether you think you, as a moderator capable of banning people from the forum, should be insulting people, creating personal antagonisms? — counterpunch

Banno isn't a moderator, FYI. The list of moderators is here.

Yes, but that’s not how it’s used, Michael. Re. White privilege.

I don't think either of us will benefit from continuing the discussion. — fdrake

"I don't think either of us will benefit from continuing this discussion."

My friend, I had no such illusions going in. But please don't discount the possibility that someone other than you and I, reading this, might benefit from seeing a lefty twit get handed his arse over and over again.

Yes, in response to this:

The video addresses the last four decades of globalism. Of course the success of globalism is a lie. But the idea that capitalism brought people out of poverty is true historically. — Brett

Okay. The period of the video and the video itself is about globalism. Globalism may have pulled some people out of poverty, which wouldn’t have been hard, but it then placed other people in trouble. I don’t think I need to explain all that. In that sense globalism is a big con, a global con job. We know who benefitted. But historically, going back as far as the industrial revolution, capitalism has slowly drawn people out of crippling poverty. There’s no doubt it created problems. But no other system has done this, until now, which is China. China is not Russia, they’re flexible with their Marxist ideology, they’re pragmatic. Which is interesting.

Okay. The period of the video and the video itself is about globalism. Globalism may have pulled some people out of poverty, which wouldn’t have been hard, but it then placed other people in trouble. I don’t think I need to explain all that. In that sense globalism is a big con, a global con job. We know who benefitted. But historically, going back as far as the industrial revolution, capitalism has slowly drawn people out of crippling poverty. There’s no doubt it created problems. But no other system has done this, until now, which is China. China is not Russia, they’re flexible with their Marxist ideology, they’re pragmatic. Which is interesting. — Brett

I'm going to forego the question of capitalism's history for now, the above is basically saying that in an isolationist country, capitalism is net good and in an internationalist country, capitalism is net bad.

Which is what I suggested above that you refuted: it is not that capitalism is net good, but may be so under certain circumstances and may be bad under others.

Btw China's rise in wealth and power comes from globalisation.

My friend, I had no such illusions going in. But please don't discount the possibility that someone other than you and I, reading this, might benefit from seeing a lefty twit get handed his arse over and over again. — counterpunch

:up:

If this imaginary audience wants to read a more civilised and in depth discussion of related issues; which includes citations; I invite them to read here.

the above is basically saying that in an isolationist country, capitalism is net good and in an internationalist country, capitalism is net bad. — Kenosha Kid

No, I’m not saying that at all. (BTW I’m aware of China reaping the rewards of globalisation. I just think their success is interesting to look at.)

In all countries over the course of recent history they have benefitted from capitalism in that it has brought people out of poverty. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, I’m just making myself clear.

Globalism promised the same thing on a global level. So yes people in China, India, Bangladesh benefitted in obtaining jobs. They were able to earn reasonable money for where they lived. But the conditions were what we in the West had already moved on from, they are terrible. So that’s a lie there about the wonder of globalism. Then as a result of jobs going there they were lost in other countries. Whole industries closed down. You know all this. So yes capitalism pulled people out of poverty and globalism put them back in poverty.

It had nothing to do with what people call each other on a philosophy forum. You were asking about the political views of progressives, and questioning what you believed to be an inconsistency in their position. I'm explaining to you that their position isn't inconsistent; their position is that it's acceptable to criticize people for unacceptable things — Michael

Sure it does. And it is morally inconsistent to call people names for calling people names. It is also unacceptable to misuse "racist", in calling people who are not racist, "racist" simply because you can't argue against thing they said.

On a philosophy forum logic should be the arbiter of what is acceptable or not. Ad hominems are logical fallacies. It is also lazy thinking. It is more work to attack an argument than it is to attack a person.

Okay. The period of the video and the video itself is about globalism. Globalism may have pulled some people out of poverty, which wouldn’t have been hard, but it then placed other people in trouble. I don’t think I need to explain all that. In that sense globalism is a big con, a global con job. We know who benefitted. But historically, going back as far as the industrial revolution, capitalism has slowly drawn people out of crippling poverty. There’s no doubt it created problems. But no other system has done this, until now, which is China. China is not Russia, they’re flexible with their Marxist ideology, they’re pragmatic. Which is interesting. — Brett

No, white privilege refers to "the implicit or systemic advantages that people who are deemed white have relative to people who are not deemed white; it is the absence of suspicion and other negative reactions that white people experience." — Michael

Then what point are you trying to make, if not to guilt-trip whites into thinking that it is wrong to have this "privilege", when in Asian countries there is Asian privilege and in African countries there is black privilege? What should be done about the privilege in those countries? To say that we should only do something in this country is singling out whites to be criticized.

Sure it does. And it is morally inconsistent to call people names for calling people names. It is also unacceptable to misuse "racist", in calling people who are not racist, "racist" simply because you can't argue against thing they said. — Harry Hindu

Who said anything about misusing "racist"? I'm saying that if someone is a racist then it's acceptable to criticize them for being a racist, and that if someone is black then it's unacceptable to criticize them for being black. And the same for homophobia/being gay and sexism/being a woman. Progressives aren't inconsistent in holding this view.

Then what point are you trying to make, if not to guilt-trip whites into thinking that it is wrong to have this "privilege" — Harry Hindu

I've never used the term "white privilege". Others talk about it because it's a fact of life. And it is wrong that there is white privilege, but that's not to say that every white person is responsible for it.

What should be done about the privilege in those countries? To say that we should only do something in this country is singling out whites to be criticized. — Harry Hindu

People don't tend to have much control over what happens in other countries. There's nothing I can do to address racism in Japan or corruption in Russia.

It strikes me as unnecessarily risky though, to hope that when things get really bad, someone will step in in time. — Echarmion

Of course. When we look at the history of nearly all Western nations, there have been those critical times when a socialist revolution was possible. Let's not forget that Germany indeed experienced after WW1 brief revolts.

That depends on what you understand by "socialism" — Echarmion

I think a good divide would be with social democracy and with the more communists and marxist-leninist. Social Democratic ruled Sweden is quite different from Cuba (or Venezuela) are quite different.

"It" being that only leftists argue for economic reform and welfare? I'd agree with you. — Echarmion

Yes, this was what I was meaning.

Explain what about them? In an absolute monarchy the monarch effectively owns everything. — Pfhorrest

That would be owned by the government in a democracy. Not that there isn't private property. I think that people in Brunei, Monaco or Saudi Arabia do have private property.