If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Vegard Pompey]

"Cisgender Paradigm II"

"S. J. W."

I mean, musically it's pretty cool... [cringes a bit]

Kinda hoped this would be satirical but I get the feeling it's not. I wish there were lyrics available, kinda wanna know how bad they are.

 

[CiG]

Probably something about grinding the guts of the cisnormative.

 

[arg]

arg 2020.

Trump will run against him on a platform of anti-fascism.

What sucks is that in most western countries, the exact opposite of what I said is true: people on welfare can afford smartphones and drugs, they have unemployment benefits, and get more welfare for having more kids.

Dumbass lefty governments provide those benefits to the local bums, and to a large extent, illegals and refugees as well! Talk about fucking stupid and counterproductive! Society is on a path to ruin unless I save it!

 

[CiG]

But once you attain power you'll no longer care about society Slouching Toward Gomorrah and will simply revert back to being the ass-spelunker among men.

 

[Einherjar86]

Society is on a path to ruin unless I save it!

I think I'll take ruin.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well that is evident in Wigans Pier. However, it's evident that he recognized that proles had no use for the agitant bourgeoisie, nor the bourgeoisie for the true classlessness required of Marxism. In short, marxism was dead in the water, and if he was honest with himself, so was his communal Luddism.

I'm not sure about your assessment. This is timely and convenient:

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-orwell-used-wartime-rationing-to-argue-for-global-justice

In a provocative essay entitled ‘Not Counting my pals’ (1939), Orwell wrote that he refused ‘to lie about’ the disparity in income between England and India. The disparity is so great that, he asserted, an Indian’s leg is commonly thinner than an Englishman’s arm. ‘One mightn’t think it when one looks round the back streets of Sheffield, but the average British income is to the Indian as 12 to one. How can one get anti-Fascist … solidarity in such circumstances?’ he asked in a 1943 review of a book by his friend Mulk Raj Anand. To Britons, he explained that ‘Indians refuse to believe that any class-struggle exists in Europe. In their eyes the underpaid, downtrodden English worker is himself an exploiter.’ Orwell doesn’t say that the Indians are wrong, and there is much evidence that he thought they were right. ‘Under the capitalist system,’ he had written in The Road to Wigan Pier (1936), ‘in order that England may live in comparative comfort, a hundred million Indians must live on the verge of starvation.’ Six years later, he wrote: ‘The overwhelming bulk of the British proletariat doesn’t live in Britain but in Asia and Africa … This is the system which we all live on …’ Orwell recognised that, at a global scale, underpaid and downtrodden English workers were exploiters.

 

[Dak]

Typical. An SJW implying everyone was living in lavish splendor before the oppressive white male capitalist showed up.

 

[Einherjar86]

Actually, that's what Orwell was implying. He quotes the man.

 

[Dak]

Actually, that's what Orwell was implying. He quotes the man.

Yes, I understand that. The ignorance of history and economics is apparently not specific to the SJWs of the current year. Orwell understood that which stared him in the face, but obviously couldn't get much further. That is at least an improvement upon those that don't bother to face anything but their $1000 phone and $7 coffee in free air conditioning while they smash out screeds on the smooth responsive glass against the quality of life destroying capitalists.

 

[rms]

you're getting angrier than me, Dak

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, I understand that. The ignorance of history and economics is apparently not specific to the SJWs of the current year. Orwell understood that which stared him in the face, but obviously couldn't get much further. That is at least an improvement upon those that don't bother to face anything but their $1000 phone and $7 coffee in free air conditioning while they smash out screeds on the smooth responsive glass against the quality of life destroying capitalists.

I think you have a difficult time understanding what's staring you in the face. But then it's no surprise that all you can do is apologize for the mighty imperialists, so long as they bring science and technology.

There are multiple ways to rebut your comment, but at this point I'm just tired of arguing with you.

 

[Dak]

you're getting angrier than me, Dak

It's just frustration with seeing the same pattern repeatedly. At least Orwell had the excuse of living in the pre-internet era.

I think you have a difficult time understanding what's staring you in the face. But then it's no surprise that all you can do is apologize for the mighty imperialists, so long as they bring science and technology.

There are multiple ways to rebut your comment, but at this point I'm just tired of arguing with you.

I'm not defending the violent aspects of imperialism. I am saying that acting like (in this case British) imperialism is the cause of the whole situation of whereever they landed is a position mired in ignorance. Furthermore, the only consistently attempted alternative to global capitalism has been shown to consistantly fail at providing basic necessities to its population when not outright slaughtering people. The worst that global capitalism does, at least materially (Orwell's concern), is require a country to go through a brief phase of sweatshops etc (still materially advantageous in most cases to prior conditions) while capital builds up infrastructure and education to shift the population to more technical labor, while providing a surplus of material goods for the growing portion of the population that is unable to master the skills needed for an advancing economy. A material surplus which, by the way, exceeds that of the immediate and personal disposal of a king or multimillionaire up until the last century or less.

What does communism or socialism provide?

Of course, a more enlightened socialist would say that you just need to mix things right. Venezuela was a great example of this until it wasn't:

Even the worst slum you could find in the US is more likely to populated by obese persons fiddling on their smartphone than skin and bones starvation. Global capitalism has its own issues but they aren't material, they are cultural/"spiritual".

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not defending the violent aspects of imperialism. I am saying that acting like (in this case British) imperialism is the cause of the whole situation of whereever they landed is a position mired in ignorance. Furthermore, the only consistently attempted alternative to global capitalism has been shown to consistantly fail at providing basic necessities to its population when not outright slaughtering people. The worst that global capitalism does, at least materially (Orwell's concern), is require a country to go through a brief phase of sweatshops etc (still materially advantageous in most cases to prior conditions) while capital builds up infrastructure and education to shift the population to more technical labor, while providing a surplus of material goods for the growing portion of the population that is unable to master the skills needed for an advancing economy. A material surplus which, by the way, exceeds that of the immediate and personal disposal of a king or multimillionaire up until the last century or less.

What does communism or socialism provide?

Your pictures are some nice appeals to pathos.

Who is saying that imperialism is the cause of the "whole situation"? What someone like Orwell and more recent critics suggest is that capitalism survives off the back of those it purports to be helping. It might be that many of third-world countries lived in relatively pre-modern conditions before the ships arrived; the problem is that capitalist development (in its historically visible form) relies on maintaining the third-world order of those countries. To put it another way:

Even the worst slum you could find in the US is more likely to populated by obese persons fiddling on their smartphone than skin and bones starvation.

Yes, but only because there are third-world slums of skin-and-bone starvation. Capital accumulates, it forms in pockets, and it relies on the sheer destitution of the third-world.

Global capitalism has its own issues but they aren't material, they are cultural/"spiritual".

They're still material because they extend beyond the borders of any given "capitalist" country. Third-world countries shape and support global capitalism. They are the material issues of modern global capital.

 

[Dak]

Yes, but only because there are third-world slums of skin-and-bone starvation. Capital accumulates, it forms in pockets, and it relies on the sheer destitution of the third-world.

Third-world countries shape and support global capitalism. They are the material issues of modern global capital.

This is the crux of Orwell's contention, and an ongoing and common charge against global capitalism. An in depth analysis finds this charge to be general unsubstantiated. I outlined the process by which an already "third world country" is transformed by global capitalism. The first point is that capitalism has never been demonstrated to take a rich country and make it poor. Only socialism and communism are capable of that. Mercantilism has mixed reviews. A second point is that people leveling the charges against the poor performance of global capitalism can't even identify poor performance. Here's a very current example:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/14/the-fatal-flaw-of-neoliberalism-its-bad-economics

the sole exception of Chile in the 1980s under Pinochet, followed the neoliberal recommendation of a rapid opening-up to imports. Chile’s neoliberal experiment eventually produced the worst economic crisis in all of Latin America.

Is this true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_1982

The Crisis of 1982 was a major economic crisis suffered in Chile. The crisis took place during the time of the Chilean military dictatorship following years of radical neoliberal reforms. The 1982 crisis was the worst economic crisis in Chile since the 1930s.[1] The GDP of Chile retracted 14.3% and unemployment rose to 23.7%.[1]

In 1979 however, Chile decided to depart from the neoliberal principle of free floating exchange rates, with disastrous results.[4]

The lead up to the 1982 crisis can be traced to the overvalue of the Chilean peso (which was helped by the peg of the peso to the United States dollar) and to high interest rates in Chile. This would have hampered investment in productive activities. In fact in the 1977—1982 period much[vague] of the spending in Chile consisted in consuming goods and services.[3] From 1973 to 1982 Chile's external debt rose from 3500 to over 17 billion dollars.[3]

I don't see support for either claim here. Furthermore, we must ask where Chile is now:
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-richest-countries-in-south-america.html

The richest economy in terms of GDP per capita ($23,969 USD) in South America, Chile
....
Chile is one of the most prosperous and stable economies of the continent and the World Bank ranks the Chilean economy as a high-income economy. It is the world’s 30th most competitive country.

Thirdly, an assertion that global capitalism keeps some countries poor ignores any possible influence the country has on its own situation, ie, not adopting recommended market reforms, dictatorial governance, etc. Now, it is true that "capitalist" countries like the US have acted to support certain dictators where their interests were supported by said dictator. However, that says nothing about the economic situation. Generally speaking, the US either openly or clandestinely acted against Communist political movements - which all evidence available indicates was better than the alternative, even if not great in itself. Better to struggle along with situation as normal than have another Holodomor. It's a separate issue that certain companies were granted monopoly access. This is, ironically, not a recommended market reform. It may be countercharged that the presence of a Communist threat is responsible for the suppression of true market reform. Given that the Pinochet regime was unquestionably brutal in regard to Communism in comparison to other South or Central American countries, it's also convenient that Chile has had the greatest positive economic change.

 

[Dak]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12144/full

Using the cumulative American National Election Study Data 1994–2008, I find strong evidence that for a number of issue areas, women are more supportive of an activist government than men of the same party.

Much surprise, so wow.

 

[arg]

@Dak

I think the term socialism is used incorrectly by almost everyone because nobody refers to owning the means of production when they say socialism. The left for the most part does not really care about the public owning the farms, factories, fisheries, etc. what they really want is capitalism with high taxation.

Which is what the Scandinavian countries and Germany have, capitalist with high taxes, not really socialist in the owning means of production sense.

And it sort of does work over there to an extent, what do you think about that? Obviously a guy like me doesn’t want to pay that much tax, fuck that, but could it work in theory in the US?

 

[CiG]

America could better attempt to do it if it shrunk its military costs and presence but that would mean those European countries would have to spend more on their own national defense and increase their own military presence which would probably threaten the successes they've had with their expensive social welfare systems.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is the crux of Orwell's contention, and an ongoing and common charge against global capitalism. An in depth analysis finds this charge to be general unsubstantiated. I outlined the process by which an already "third world country" is transformed by global capitalism. The first point is that capitalism has never been demonstrated to take a rich country and make it poor. Only socialism and communism are capable of that. Mercantilism has mixed reviews. A second point is that people leveling the charges against the poor performance of global capitalism can't even identify poor performance. Here's a very current example

It's not poor performance. It's performing fine.

As capital accumulates, it displaces "poor performance" to other regions. Chile's success means failure elsewhere.

Thirdly, an assertion that global capitalism keeps some countries poor ignores any possible influence the country has on its own situation, ie, not adopting recommended market reforms, dictatorial governance, etc. Now, it is true that "capitalist" countries like the US have acted to support certain dictators where their interests were supported by said dictator. However, that says nothing about the economic situation. Generally speaking, the US either openly or clandestinely acted against Communist political movements - which all evidence available indicates was better than the alternative, even if not great in itself. Better to struggle along with situation as normal than have another Holodomor. It's a separate issue that certain companies were granted monopoly access. This is, ironically, not a recommended market reform. It may be countercharged that the presence of a Communist threat is responsible for the suppression of true market reform. Given that the Pinochet regime was unquestionably brutal in regard to Communism in comparison to other South or Central American countries, it's also convenient that Chile has had the greatest positive economic change.

It doesn't "keep" countries poor, it relies on the displacement of extreme poverty. That might mean Chile for several decades, and then another country for the next several decades. There's no one pulling the strings, no man behind the curtain. It's just the logic of capitalist development. If I'm making an argument (and I don't think I am), it's a structural one, not an ethical one. Capitalism necessitates poverty, that's the way it is. And in the context of global capitalism, we can't judge success on the basis of individual countries.

U.S. support of dictators and opposition of communism does speak to the economic situation. These things are inextricable.

@Dak

I think the term socialism is used incorrectly by almost everyone because nobody refers to owning the means of production when they say socialism. The left for the most part does not really care about the public owning the farms, factories, fisheries, etc. what they really want is capitalism with high taxation.

Which is what the Scandinavian countries and Germany have, capitalist with high taxes, not really socialist in the owning means of production sense.

And it sort of does work over there to an extent, what do you think about that? Obviously a guy like me doesn’t want to pay that much tax, fuck that, but could it work in theory in the US?

Wow. This is... pretty much accurate. Is this sarcasm?

 

[Dak]

It's not poor performance. It's performing fine.

As capital accumulates, it displaces "poor performance" to other regions. Chile's success means failure elsewhere.

Well, this isn't entirely inaccurate. It's just that the poor performance is far and away better than comparative "good" performance.

It doesn't "keep" countries poor, it relies on the displacement of extreme poverty. That might mean Chile for several decades, and then another country for the next several decades. There's no one pulling the strings, no man behind the curtain. It's just the logic of capitalist development. If I'm making an argument (and I don't think I am), it's a structural one, not an ethical one. Capitalism necessitates poverty, that's the way it is. And in the context of global capitalism, we can't judge success on the basis of individual countries.
[/q

U.S. support of dictators and opposition of communism does speak to the economic situation. These things are inextricable.

An alternative explanation is that it shifts the improvement of the economic situation of countries as countries improve their situation. Capitalism can't improve situations that aren't already shit. Capitalism doesn't necessitate poverty; improvement of impoverishment necessitates capitalism.

Wow. This is... pretty much accurate. Is this sarcasm?

Yes, most "socialists" are really capitalists but want free shit for nothing. Omg super accurate. Lazy and/or worthless people wanting the readily available capitalist provided surplus which isn't available if the preferred economic organization were enacted. Oh nos, much oppression, many starvation.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, this isn't entirely inaccurate. It's just that the poor performance is far and away better than comparative "good" performance.

The two are one and the same.

Capitalism doesn't necessitate poverty; improvement of impoverishment necessitates capitalism.

The two are one and the same.

Yes, most "socialists" are really capitalists but want free shit for nothing. Omg super accurate. Lazy and/or worthless people wanting the readily available capitalist provided surplus which isn't available if the preferred economic organization were enacted. Oh nos, much oppression, many starvation.