If Mort Divine ruled the world

[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.

 

[CiG]

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.

Of course, because "the left" isn't synonymous with socialism or communism. Most left-wingers are actually just center-left Democratic Party types, essentially social liberals who want capitalism (even if they sneer at its name) and social programs via taxation.

 

[arg]

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



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.



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.

But what if they’re not lazy, but instead unwillingly rendered “worthless” by capitalism replacing them with the chinese, the indians and the robots? What do we do with those people?

Extreme-right aug would say “let them die off” but what if it was a cool dude or gal?

 

[arg]

Actually I’ll just answer my own question
- they need to be repurposed!
- no brainer 1st: legalize prostitution across the USA so they can whore themselves out
- eliminate the minimum wage so they can compete with the chinese/indians/robots
- more “gig economy” type jobs like uber, etc
- bring back coliseum-style arena fighting for money that anyone, even grandmothers and one-legged folks can enter
- any more suggestions that would work?

See I’m not a complete monster, what do you guys think?

 

[CiG]

- bring back coliseum-style arena fighting for money that anyone, even grandmothers and one-legged folks can enter

You have my symbolic vote for 2020 dude.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

they already have that, it's called mma...

 

[arg]

Holy shit is that real? Lmao literally a grandmother and a no-limbed guy! That shit needs to be expanded on a global scale! The solution to poverty right there folks. Let the poor and downtrodden duke it out in mortal kombat for prize money, entertainment and gambling!

 

[Dak]

The two are one and the same.

The two are one and the same.

So the poor performance of communism or socialism, or modes of economic activity which predate all, are the fault of capitalism?

 

[Dak]

Scott Adams has recently posted about trying to meet certain BLM chapters halfway. He is repping an NY chapter. They have, according to him, provided the following request list:

Ideas from Black Lives Matter – New York

1. Prosecute and jail police that falsify reports.
2. Police must call an ambulance if defendant complains of illness.
3. Voting rights for people in prison
4. Independent prosecutors for police killings of unarmed civilians.
5. Comprehensive national database of police shootings.
6. New York holiday for Day of Remembrance for victims of police brutality.

There's some very sensible requests in this list. But then we have items like 6 which are ridiculous, and items 2 and 3 which are problematic at the very least. These sorts of requests water down the likelihood of very obvious positive changes like independent prosecution for police brutality cases.

 

[Dak]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/grandparents-raiding-grandchildren/548117/

The Atlantic: Late to the party but at least they made it.

Essentially, then, our major entitlement programs don’t just pay back “contributors” what they themselves put up for their own pensions and old-age care: They represent the grandparents if not “stealing” from the grandchildren, as Vonnegut put it, then at least living off them while pretending not to. And with “grandparents” living longer and Boomers retiring at the rate of one per hour, spending on entitlements is growing and consuming an ever-larger share of both government expenditures and the nation’s economy as a whole.
..................
Which begs the question, why would we “reform” entitlements in a way that delays the changes until the problem they are supposedly intended to address will be largely history, imposing draconian cuts on the future? This amounts, purely and simply, to forcing our grandchildren both to pay for our profligacy today and our parsimoniousness tomorrow—or, if you prefer, our liberality toward ourselves and conservatism toward everyone else.

Good article even if it ends on a passive aggressive note. The Atlantic is killing the Times and WaPo lately. Both have more or less contracted TDS since the election.

 

[Einherjar86]

So the poor performance of communism or socialism, or modes of economic activity which predate all, are the fault of capitalism?

Why the jump to "modes of economic activity which predate all"? Economics is not an ahistorical science; it's a historically and culturally conditioned system of relations. Global capitalism is tied to the rise of the modern state. So no, I'm not talking about all "modes of economic activity which predate all." I'm talking about modern systems of economic organization, of which capitalism and socialism are a part.

it was through the State-form and not the town-form that capitalism triumphed; this occurred when the Western states became models of realization for an axiomatic of decoded flows, and in that way resubjugated the towns [...] But the relation is a reciprocal one: if it is the modern State that gives capitalism its models of realization, what is thus realized is an independent, worldwide axiomatic that is like a single City, a megalopolis, or "megamachine" of which the States are parts, or neighborhoods.

Capitalism constitutes the global economic axiom. Socialism has always, since its inception, been made to compete within the framework of global capital. I'm not championing it or trying to apologize for it; but logically speaking, it's absurd to expect success of socialism when its only context of operation is that of global capital.

To the extent that capitalism constitutes an axiomatic (production for the market), all States and all social formations tend to become isomorphic in their capacity as models of realization: there is but one centered world market, the capitalist one, in which even the so-called socialist countries participate. [...] When international organization becomes the capitalist axiomatic, it continues to imply a heterogeneity of social formations, it gives rise to and organizes its "Third World."

This isn't a metaphysical argument, it's a historical one. The capitalist axiomatic doesn't mean that every economic system in all of history is capitalism's fault; it means that since the modern State established capitalism as the global economic model, all alternative forms of economic organization must participate in the wake of that model. Modern socialism is only socialism insofar as it's defined against the capitalist axiomatic. Economies don't end at the borders of their nations.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

Where? Every suffering third-world nation I can think of (most of them in Africa) is a nation that rejected capitalism. Every former third-world nation that embraced global capitalism has seen their wealth skyrocket (every "Asian miracle", Nigeria, the Arab world, etc). There is literally not a better system in existence for helping the international poor than global capitalism. Capitalism only hurts those entrenched in anti-market protectionist schemes, e.g. anyone that voted for Trump because of opposition to NAFTA.