not sure if you’re serious, but if I’m choosing i’m probably going with the shorter lifespan there.
1 Like
Yeah I’m also pretty much on board with the nordic model because I think its something realistic in my lifetime, though when I’m a lot older obviously.
The biggest issue with the 15/h thing though is how much it varies by state. No way you can survive with dignity in places like CA/NY on 15/h. Maybe if they did MASSIVE low cost housing.
Dunno. But, like us, they aren’t self-sufficient. Their lifestyle depends on a lot of people with much less who live in other countries. And no one (not me) is arguing against the Nordic model - which is quite a mix of socialism. In Norway the people own the oil - one of the biggest sources of wealth for the country.
I think this is generally right, but it’s not right to characterize the position “Capitalism → Racism” as a matter of “faith” just because it cannot be proven empirically or axiomatically(?). Taking a look at limited evidence and thinking about principles and having thoughts about whether or not the supposition is likely true is not the same as faith. There is ground in between proof and having literally no idea about what is and what isn’t true.
1 Like
I would prefer to do something chained to local cost of living, but it gets tricky and it’s hard to explain in one sentence to campaign on. A living wage or $15/hr is an easier sell. Campaign in poetry, govern in prose.
1 Like
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. Anticipating the oft cited stats about how many people capitalism has lifted out of poverty.
eta: and a couple posts later there it is. Such an increase in wealth. Factory workers making $0.31/hr vs people who make $0.00/hr.
1 Like
I also think that part of the problem is that the growth of Western capitalism was fueled by both slavery and then the Industrial Revolution.
Slavery was needed in the US because picking crops was backbreaking and sometimes life threatening work (due to heat and disease), and there weren’t enough white people willing and available to do this work.
Just because 19th century capitalism was turbo charged by slavery doesn’t mean it’s a required element of the system.
2 Likes
Fair to ask if America would be the richest country if not for slavery. The answer is pretty obviously no. Silly to state capitalism itself only works with slavery. Just look outside America. To say capitalism hadn’t been good for the world outside America just ignores the massive decrease in global poverty which is directly tied to globalism and the spread of capitalism.
It wasn’t necessarily necessary. The large slaveholders were insanely rich.
I think a good idea for the protesters is to crowd fund and pay some musicians to set up and play at certain destinated corners, or such. 
1 Like
Weird to hear everyone use the term Nordic model as Im use to that term referring to a terrible legal framework for regulating sex work. It’s the model used in Canada.
It was necessary in order to produce the crop yields beyond what was available with the free labor force.
Are you saying that:
- They were wealthy enough to pay good enough wages to run a non-slave plantation?
or
- They didn’t need to be in the agriculture business because they were already independently wealthy?
That was a Malcolm X quote. Do you think I was telling him what to say back then? This has nothing to do with me personally. SMH @ you fools.
This fact is acknowledged by 100% of anti-racist movements… except for you liberal types. This has been the case going back before the abolition of slavery. There’s something going on around here, and your first step in overcoming your “you don’t know what it is, do you” problem is getting over your denial that there is something going on around here, my Mr. Jones.
Look up the context and commentary on that Malcolm X quote.
1 Like
Number 1.
I’m not even talking about wages per se, but yeah, they could have produced cotton or rice and contracted with people who were free to come and go and negotiate with other landowners and still produced cotton. I think that’s probably true. Maybe they would have produced less cotton and the price of cotton would have been higher. I would think the greatest impediment would have been that they would have had to compete with other slaveholders. (that’s a bit of a problem with capitalism/free markets today - like we buy a lot of stuff from slavesholders right now - there should be a law, right? or at least boycotts, right?)
Obviously though if cotton production were not possible without slavery, then there shouldn’t have been commercial cotton (or tobacco or rice or w/e).
You might be right about cotton and rice. I was thinking more about sugar cane, which grows best in tropical climate and is a bitch to harvest.
I think that’s probably true and man there definitely shouldn’t have been sugar cane plantations in the 16th-19th centuries.
Johnny on fire today.
4 Likes
Not even. It’s more like, okay, let’s overhaul the current system - we all agree it’s broken. So what’s the best one to try? I say well-regulated capitalism with a strong social safety net, the Nordic model. You say…? And why?
Well-regulated capitalism is not ensuring the end of humanity. Runaway freight train capitalism is. And while we’re at it, it’s not like China isn’t polluting a ton. From what I’ve seen, the carbon emissions of countries on the Nordic model are among the lowest per capita.
I would replace requires with desires, and I don’t think it collapses in on itself without constant growth. Again, all of this could be taken care of with good, strong regulations. The toughest part to control is the exploitation of people outside the given country, but if you think we’re going to stop doing that altogether under a 100% socialist system, I’ve got bad news for you… So that’s an issue either way, it needs to be addressed in any system.
You’re great at eloquent self-righteous ranting against the system, but that’s not the point here. I can do the same thing against this system. I’m not advocating for this system, I’m advocating for strong regulations and a strong safety net. You equating my desired version of capitalism with the current one is just as disingenuous as someone saying all socialism must fail and pointing to all the socialist regimes we fucked with to ensure their demise.
Why does it demand that? Why can’t we regulate that aspect of it away? I think we can. I would also argue that it worked pretty well when tax rates on the wealthy were much higher. You’re going to come back at me with “but the racism of the 50s and 60s” and I’m going to say that the racism of that time would have been there regardless, and neither of us can factually prove our point there, we’re both guessing to support our arguments.
Again you’re conflating our current version of capitalism with all forms possible of capitalism.
The solution is to stop exploiting, per se. We can still “exploit” differences in cost of living, but we should chain what we allow our corporations to pay people in other countries to the cost of living there. To oversimplify it, if our minimum wage is $15/hr, and a gallon of milk here costs $3.25, then the minimum wage we allow to be paid to foreign workers should be 4.6x the cost of a gallon of milk there.
I think you’re addressing numerous problems here, and I think a lot of them could be addressed with a Nordic model system that provides better healthcare, more workers’ rights and more paid time off. But this has to go beyond just changing our system, to changing the way we think and make decisions as a society.
I think we’re better positioned to do that by creating a system where our GDP per capita stays around where it is, but we divide it up more equitably in a system that still rewards hard work and achievement.
The reason we can’t stop during a pandemic is because we can’t agree on scientific facts. So trace that back, why is that? It would go away over time with strong campaign finance reform. Take away the outsized influence of the 1% with their money in politics, and make both parties fight over votes rather than donations. Once that happens, there will be a chain reaction that reduces the amount of 1%er friendly propaganda.
You’re twisting my words. I didn’t say that capitalism hasn’t been entwined by racism. I’d put it like this: unregulated runaway capitalism weaponizes racism to perpetuate divisions that it finds profitable. But if you flipped a switch tomorrow and made us a socialist country, we would still have tons of work to do on race - the system wouldn’t get rid of it.
The reason that racism is so weaponized by capitalism is to keep the underclass fighting itself rather than the wealthy. In order to alleviate that, you need to get the foot off the throat of the underclass. The Nordic model, in my opinion, does that.
Again, great rhetoric and all, but you’re not addressing the actual point here. Like we agree the current system here is out of control, it’s broken, etc. We agree it’s entwined with racism. What I’m trying to get somebody to explain to me is why a Nordic model of capitalism is going to need racism to function.
I see no reason. Now if your argument is that it won’t just get rid of it, I agree, but neither will anything else. It is a more complex problem than we can solve just by switching our economic structure.
I’m sitting here presenting what I think the best system is. The other side of this argument basically boils down to:
“Nah, fuck you man, capitalism and racism can never be separated for reasons that are so obvious I won’t even explain them, fuck that. Full-throated socialism in 100% of the economy is the only solution and it’ll totally work, for reasons that are also so obvious that I can’t explain them, now allow me to rail against our current capitalist system with the self-righteous burning rage of 1,000 suns.”
Meanwhile I’m explaining how and why I think the Nordic model works to resolve the issues that make racism such a weapon in unregulated capitalism. So, like, maybe tone down the rage and rhetoric because we all agree that unregulated runaway capitalism is a dumpster fire right now, and explain to me why you think 100% socialism is going to be better for America and/or the world than the Nordic model.
Stop being disingenuous, I’m not talking about pulling our poverty rate from 14% to 13% here. The Nordic model I’m advocating for would most likely reduce poverty to below 5%. $15/hr is about $30K a year, and when you factor in single payer that money goes farther. When you factor in a federal jobs guarantee, you’re looking at an extremely low unemployment rate.
It’s probably impossible to get the poverty rate to 0% for a number of reasons. It should be a goal and something to work toward, but in a country of 330M people there will be cracks people slip through and you just have to do your best to keep filling in the cracks and pulling people up.
And how is this at the expense of “everything”?
I’m still not advocating for the way we are currently living, no matter how many times you try to create that false equivalency.
I’m still waiting for you to present a better option. I’m against the current system AND for a better system. Nobody has made a compelling argument that the better system I’m advocating for is worse than XYZ system. It’s just a lot of “Fuck your Nordic model, it’ll be entwined with racism but I won’t explain why.”
I’m not sure I agree with this. I suppose you could argue that people making $15/hr with free healthcare are victims, but I don’t think so. You could argue people around the world are victims, but there are ways to work on that problem too, and I’ve mentioned some of them.
Tldr; less fuck your Nordic model and more logical explanations of why it can’t work and/or what would be better are needed here.
5 Likes
Before 1858, oil had not yet been discovered. Technological advancement and the access to resources said advancement expands is far more important to the flourishing of capitalism than the cost of labor. The growth of the economy between 1870-1950 (abolition and the birth of unions) absolutely dwarfs the economic growth between 1600-1870.
Such a slow roll, given the 5 stars on GTA I thought he was going to somehow break free and steal the cop car and drive off. :(
1 Like