Integrated societies have always been more economically fruitful than segregated societies. It’s why integration in sports leads to a better more valuable product: the legitimately free flow of talented labor without artificial legal state constraints will always redound to the benefit of the economy writ large.
Trivially, yes.
The more germane point is that increasing black access to education improves society’s outcomes.
If not for human nature you might have a point.
Slavery existed in Europe for centuries longer than in the US.
Surely you have some source you like. A Malcolm X speech or letter, a well-articulated column, something. I’m happy to read something about this, but if you’re not going to suggest anything, I’m going to Google it, randomly pick something off the first page that appears to be a decent source, and that’s what I’m reading, for better or worse.
Also just because Malcolm X said something doesn’t mean it’s an indisputable fact, whether you like that or not. Also some quick research tells me he was anti-capitalist, and not really for anything in general, but seemed to think socialism was worth a try.
Cite?
No, it’s been a saying for a while - no idea where it originated, honestly. Google says Mario Cuomo.
Cops buy sneakers, too.
He’s the best at burn it all down rhetoric, but it’d be great if there was some prose in there about what we’re supposed to replace it with and why. Like we’re all angry, we’re all frustrated by unregulated runaway capitalism. We can all rip it to shreds, we can all tell people why it’s a mess.
I’m interested in the solution. I’ll even settle for why the Nordic version of capitalism can’t work, which is a mixed model that’s something like 70-30 capitalism-socialism.
Same, I’m on good terms with most of my exes and very close friends with a couple of them. One key IMO is ending it as soon as you know it won’t work, thus not being an asshole and making the breakup not so messy.
2 Likes
Mario Cuomo, ldo.
1 Like
It’s the history of the world.
To be fair I think what you are proposing would be a huge win and frankly a miraculous outcome in this country. I’m not sure actually getting there is any more likely than more radical ideas though.
1 Like
Now do professional sports leagues without black players.
These historians and economists are so smart yet they can only see past their noses.
So you have one example, elite athletes, therefore capitalism is never racist? lol
Dude, Anti-Slavery is (not was in the US: prison labor) explicitly anti-capitalist because… wait for it… the slaves didn’t control their means of production. Can we at least start from that understanding?
1 Like
The discussion is whether racism is integral to capitalism. I only need one significant counter-example to disprove the contention. Please do try to keep up and don’t choke on your condescending premature laughter.
I resent that you aren’t explaining your side at all and are just giving me a fucking homework assignment - parts of which I’ve already explained, but for now I’ll continue.
I already suggested legally requiring corporations to pay a living wage to workers in other countries. Any other exploitation can be addressed similarly. They still get cheaper labor, but not as cheap and not immorally cheap.
This is a problem for ANY system we go to. It’s better than the current system because there can be more government investment in solutions that allow us to innovate our way into similar levels of economic activity with sustainable levels of carbon emissions. Short of just outlawing the use of oil and relegating ourselves to a massive cut in GDP, how else do we address this problem if not by weaning ourselves off of it ASAP in concordance with what scientists tell us gives us the best chance to avoid any furthering of our catastrophic climate change, while investing in alternatives?
Why does socialism make that any more likely to occur than the Nordic model?
Well, shit man, how are you railing against it with so much rage then? It’s a mixed-model system wherein there is a strong social safety net and strong regulations that keep things on the rails. It’s a social democracy. It’s pretty similar to what Bernie, AOC and Warren advocate for.
It addresses income inequality and lifts most people out of poverty. What I’ve been advocating for, with strong campaign finance regulation to get the money out of politics, separates political power from wealth. This means we can rely more on science and less on propaganda coming from political parties fighting over SuperPAC donations rather than votes. That gives us a fighting chance on climate change.
I’ve got a plan that keeps the plane in the sky for now, and gives us a better chance of living in a society in 5-10 years that believes in science, so hopefully we can keep it in the air from there. I haven’t heard a single plan that magically keeps the plane in the air forever.
I mean, all of your talk about unsustainable consumption, elaborate on that. Oil? Agreed. Plastics? Agreed. Okay, but like I’m pretty sure a social democracy can shift consumption from oil to alternative energy and from plastics to ??? depending on the goods in question.
So how do you think we fix that? I mean, fuck, if we get everyone back into the Paris Agreement and update it to 2020’s scientific consensus on what we need, then we’re on track. That is regardless of what economic system anyone anywhere is using.
So far this conversation consists of you raging at the system we have and the system I want to have, that you admit you don’t know much about. You aren’t suggesting a system, other than generally speaking, I assume, full socialism. You aren’t explaining why that system will work better than the Nordic model, you’re just raging at any form of capitalism.
Now, the level of rage is warranted given what’s going on, but directing it at the Nordic model doesn’t seem fair to me, unless someone can explain with logic and/or evidence why the Nordic model can’t work.
So I’m still waiting for someone to stop telling me “Fuck Nordic-style capitalism, go do some homework,” and to start presenting some evidence or reasoning about why that can’t work and what can.
I agree.
I disagree. Seizing the means would require a large-scale shooting war. Implementing reforms that get us toward the Nordic model would not.
1 Like
You were using that one example to argue against my claim that it was common and useful but not necessary, as well.
PocketChad literally gave me a homework assignment, I did it, and only discovered Vitale is NotVerySmart despite his IAmVerySmart acolytes.
I honestly didn’t read what you wrote.
I was responding to what the proponents of the theory I was disassmbling wrote.
JFC, smart people ain’t what they used to be.
The obvious point is that billion dollar businesses are incentivized to integrate, which means racism is NOT integral to capitalism.
JT literally arguing against natural brain chemistry and for lobotomies itt.
You’re equating all forms of current capitalism to slavery by claiming that anti-slavery = anti-capitalist. That’s an absurd claim. Nobody here is fucking advocating for slavery or for exploitative prison labor.
This entire country was built upon racism, and I would say that our current form of capitalism is sustained by racism, and given that it’s part of this country it was built on racism by way of our original sin. That fact does not mean that Nordic-style capitalism needs racism.
I’ll read that interview, but it’s 4,800 words so you’re going to have to give me some time to get to that.
As for the except, Kendi explains how the US and capitalism were built upon slavery and racism, but that except gives no proof that capitalism cannot exist without racism or slavery. To put this another way:
Capitalism was built upon racism, thus it cannot exist without racism.
would be like saying…
The USA was built upon racism, thus it cannot exist without racism.
So using the same logic, we should abolish the United States rather than seeking to improve it and eliminate racism, because it’s impossible to have the US without racism.
The Tricontinental paper is over 7,500 words, and it must be noted that it’s put out by a think tank that is advocating for socialism. The $30,000 per iPhone price tag is also based on all of the labor being in the US, and does not account for being able to take advantage of cost of living disparities with other countries that would still provide workers in other countries with a living wage while keeping costs down.
The Common Dreams piece by Wolff explains why racism is necessary in this capitalist system, and I’ve already repeatedly addressed why the Nordic model removes that necessity.
Are people reading my posts or just ignoring them and talking past me? Cause I keep explaining that lifting people up with a living wage, single payer, etc, and keeping money out of politics removes the need to divide the underclass against itself.
1 Like