Politics Rise of Marxism/Communism.

[M3J]

Often because they don't really know history.

 

[hokageji]

Capitalistic nations often do not grant opportunities and options to impoverished people, especially Black people, due to racism. Celebrity parents paying off colleges to admit their kids is a clear example of how capitalism creates inequality favoring the wealthy, as they can afford to bribe colleges to accept their kids who don't want to go to college or hire tutors, so their kids can get a leg up. Impoverished people often don't have advantages like that and have to work twice as hard to make any sort of living.

I wanted to start commenting by saying racism has nothing to do with capitalism, but then it occurred to me that slavery itself, was a form of capitalism. People even made investments like buying young aged people and selling them at adult ages, so i would be very wrong to say capitalism has nothing to do with it.
But i can say that racism is not exclusive to capitalism. While i dont have skin tone based example, there are several countries around the world with socialism where certain people are favored over the others.

The main problem with a socialistic agenda will be that it becomes a hierarchical society. People who work at higher places, will get higher privileges and that'll mean they have a higher influence and thus corruption will continue. Corruption is as serious issue in socialism world compared to Capitalism, and one may argue even more.

Oftentimes, I find people who defend capitalism/criticize socialism to know nothing of reality or what life is actually about. THey actually think capitalism is freedom when it's not. Homelessness shouldn't be a thing in USA, but thanks to capitalism, if people don't have money, they lose the right to have shelter, despite there being so many empty homes. That makes no sense.

I've never understood how or why Americans celebrate freedom. I would like someone to explain to me why it was such a big deal for people to be able to buy their own land and count that as freedom, but tats for another time. When India fought for their freedom, they were essentially fighting for their indepedance from an outsider. In one day, we overthrew the British and became our own rulers. And this extended to everyone in the country, they would be ruled by someone they elected and ruled with no exceptions. Now we can argue that freedom is not a real thing in India, but constitutionally atleast, we know it is, and all the laws apply to every citizen since independence.

America got freedom in 1776, had slavery till 1865, but still continued with segregation till 1964. So basically, there was never freedom to everyone, just a few select people. And dont a large portion of those who are proud of the freedom basically for small government too? bizarre....

 

[M3J]

I wanted to start commenting by saying racism has nothing to do with capitalism, but then it occurred to me that slavery itself, was a form of capitalism. People even made investments like buying young aged people and selling them at adult ages, so i would be very wrong to say capitalism has nothing to do with it.
But i can say that racism is not exclusive to capitalism. While i dont have skin tone based example, there are several countries around the world with socialism where certain people are favored over the others.

The main problem with a socialistic agenda will be that it becomes a hierarchical society. People who work at higher places, will get higher privileges and that'll mean they have a higher influence and thus corruption will continue. Corruption is as serious issue in socialism world compared to Capitalism, and one may argue even more.

I don't remember how, but I did read about how racism was important to capitalism, but that's probably because of white men dominating the economy and everything.

I've never understood how or why Americans celebrate freedom. I would like someone to explain to me why it was such a big deal for people to be able to buy their own land and count that as freedom, but tats for another time. When India fought for their freedom, they were essentially fighting for their indepedance from an outsider. In one day, we overthrew the British and became our own rulers. And this extended to everyone in the country, they would be ruled by someone they elected and ruled with no exceptions. Now we can argue that freedom is not a real thing in India, but constitutionally atleast, we know it is, and all the laws apply to every citizen since independence.

America got freedom in 1776, had slavery till 1865, but still continued with segregation till 1964. So basically, there was never freedom to everyone, just a few select people. And dont a large portion of those who are proud of the freedom basically for small government too? bizarre....

I dunno, but I know Americans celebrated freedom from British tyranny, and now they seem to celebrate bare minimum freedom like being able to buy houses and having "multiple options" to buy. But yeah, again, USA is dominated by white people, and as long as they had freedom or what they thought was freedom, they were okay with it even when they were oppressing Black people and denying them rights. In India, you have Indians of different religions but in USA, you have Americans of different race, ethnicity, and religion. Freedom was never truly a thing in USA, it's just a symbol to rally behind to feign pride in one's country.

 

[hokageji]

I don't remember how, but I did read about how racism was important to capitalism, but that's probably because of white men dominating the economy and everything.

Well, i am sure there's more to it. I think its more like racism has made capitalism a white man thing, because they have way more privileges. Its easy to say 'merit based' or 'hardwork pays' when you dont consider the privileges that come with. A white man has way more privileges than a black man. Honestly, i've only been in this country for 12 years and heck, i'll say even i have more privileges. But my point is socialism won't let that pass either. Sure, capitalism aides the wealth gap, but socialism wont get rid of biases.

I dunno, but I know Americans celebrated freedom from British tyranny, and now they seem to celebrate bare minimum freedom like being able to buy houses and having "multiple options" to buy. But yeah, again, USA is dominated by white people, and as long as they had freedom or what they thought was freedom, they were okay with it even when they were oppressing Black people and denying them rights. In India, you have Indians of different religions but in USA, you have Americans of different race, ethnicity, and religion. Freedom was never truly a thing in USA, it's just a symbol to rally behind to feign pride in one's country.

As a kid, it confused me what they were fighting for? Because for us, white people were the tyrannical rulers. They took over our country and literally treated people as shit. As an adult, i have come to understand that British were far less barbaric than Spanish or Portuguese, but the white superiority remained largely present. So for us to gain independence from that was also symbolic....
So as a kid, i always was like, were White people bad to white people, if so how? Cos American independence movement was of the white people, for the white people and from the white people. In my head, it should have been the natives,(ironically they are referred to as indians) because of our experiences. But its not, and when i dug up, i found it to be that people from Britain were given preferential treatment than people born in the US, one most common thing that was denied was land ownership... i guess i must dig more and read...

 

[M3J]

Well, i am sure there's more to it. I think its more like racism has made capitalism a white man thing, because they have way more privileges. Its easy to say 'merit based' or 'hardwork pays' when you dont consider the privileges that come with. A white man has way more privileges than a black man. Honestly, i've only been in this country for 12 years and heck, i'll say even i have more privileges. But my point is socialism won't let that pass either. Sure, capitalism aides the wealth gap, but socialism wont get rid of biases.



As a kid, it confused me what they were fighting for? Because for us, white people were the tyrannical rulers. They took over our country and literally treated people as shit. As an adult, i have come to understand that British were far less barbaric than Spanish or Portuguese, but the white superiority remained largely present. So for us to gain independence from that was also symbolic....
So as a kid, i always was like, were White people bad to white people, if so how? Cos American independence movement was of the white people, for the white people and from the white people. In my head, it should have been the natives,(ironically they are referred to as indians) because of our experiences. But its not, and when i dug up, i found it to be that people from Britain were given preferential treatment than people born in the US, one most common thing that was denied was land ownership... i guess i must dig more and read...

I think capitalism makes racism worse and widens the gap even more because they choose who to hire and who to provide service to. Would socialism say "because you come from a shit place, we'll charge you higher interest rate!"?


I don't know, I think the Brits were just as barbaric, if not more, especially given what Churchill did. White people seem to be bad to everyone, but to white people the least, at least when there are other races.

 

[kkck]

I think capitalism makes racism worse and widens the gap even more because they choose who to hire and who to provide service to. Would socialism say "because you come from a shit place, we'll charge you higher interest rate!"?


I don't know, I think the Brits were just as barbaric, if not more, especially given what Churchill did. White people seem to be bad to everyone, but to white people the least, at least when there are other races.

Capitalism and socialism have nothing to do with racism... Capitalism/socialism are about wealth creation and distribution, not about the amount of melanin in your skin. Right wing, left wing are not the same thing as capitalism, socialism...

 

[Ramen]

Right wing, left wing are not the same thing as capitalism, socialism...

Not necessarily, the right has become one with capitalism and the left has become known to represent socialism.

 

[M3J]

Capitalism and socialism have nothing to do with racism... Capitalism/socialism are about wealth creation and distribution, not about the amount of melanin in your skin. Right wing, left wing are not the same thing as capitalism, socialism...

The right are about capitalism, and far left want socialism. But capitalism does have a lot to do with racism, especially in the West's history. If I recall correctly, white people see Black people as the inferior race/species so they don't think Black people should be allowed to have wealth or property. I don't know the level of racism that socialism might consist of, but I know capitalism is often racist.

 

[desin24]

The right are about capitalism, and far left want socialism. But capitalism does have a lot to do with racism, especially in the West's history. If I recall correctly, white people see Black people as the inferior race/species so they don't think Black people should be allowed to have wealth or property. I don't know the level of racism that socialism might consist of, but I know capitalism is often racist.

Because Socialist China or Cuba are paragons of anti-racism and peaceful inclusivity of all people. Most modern societies have a mixed economy and political system. History has proven that you need capitalist structures to keep innovation as the motor of your economy. The Norse countries have a capitalist economic system and they have the happiest inhabitants despite their shit weather. If they had more sun they would leave the rest of the world in the dust. Not because they are socialist. A socialist economy mixed with apparently inevitable corruption leads to depression, economic and physical. This does not mean that you need to leave everything up to the market. That just leaves the door open for bad actors to exploit the system. You need a specific rule set and a system behind this economic system to maximize utility for the majority of people. The best way for that is a welfare state as of now. Sure as hell not perfect but it uses the pros of capitalism and tries to diminish the negatives and limit externalities.

Back to racism, it mostly comes down to living standards in my eyes. The better and happier the average human life in your country, paired with education = less racism.

 

[kkck]

The right are about capitalism, and far left want socialism. But capitalism does have a lot to do with racism, especially in the West's history. If I recall correctly, white people see Black people as the inferior race/species so they don't think Black people should be allowed to have wealth or property. I don't know the level of racism that socialism might consist of, but I know capitalism is often racist.

That's just political mumbo jumbo. The fact remains that the capitalism-socialism debate is still entirely about economic policy. Right wing and left wing politics are distinct from that since they include a ton of stuff which has jack shit to do with the economy. Granted that this is a bit nitpicky but these sort of discussions are hard enough even when you don't include random political mumbo jumbo to economic concepts. I mean, even within what is capitalism and socialism you can refer to a ton of different things. Socialism itself can refer to a particularly large range of things.

Say, with socialism you could refer to failed projects like the soviet union, cuba or venezuela... No sane person would want any of that. But within today's context you could also refer to europe as socialist and they have largely successful decades old models that are drastically different from the soviet union or cuba. That said, I would stress that European economies are fundamentally capitalist (as they largely do not have stated owned and centralized means of production), they actually have a strong private sector which is also heavily taxed to pay for social services.

Obviously the term capitalist is heavily connected to the right wing but the fact remains that right wing and capitalism are distinct terms which refer to different things. Capitalism, being about economic models, and right-wing/left-wing which include a whole host of issues many of which have nothing to do with economic models.

 

[M3J]

Because Socialist China or Cuba are paragons of anti-racism and peaceful inclusivity of all people. Most modern societies have a mixed economy and political system. History has proven that you need capitalist structures to keep innovation as the motor of your economy. The Norse countries have a capitalist economic system and they have the happiest inhabitants despite their shit weather. If they had more sun they would leave the rest of the world in the dust. Not because they are socialist. A socialist economy mixed with apparently inevitable corruption leads to depression, economic and physical. This does not mean that you need to leave everything up to the market. That just leaves the door open for bad actors to exploit the system. You need a specific rule set and a system behind this economic system to maximize utility for the majority of people. The best way for that is a welfare state as of now. Sure as hell not perfect but it uses the pros of capitalism and tries to diminish the negatives and limit externalities.

Back to racism, it mostly comes down to living standards in my eyes. The better and happier the average human life in your country, paired with education = less racism.

though mate, I'm not advocating for socialism, I don't know much about it. My main issue with capitalism in US (and UK?) is how it's one of the main reasons why people go hungry, lose homes, and struggle immensely and often have poor health. From what I've read, Nordic people are happy because while they pay more in taxes, most of that money goes back to them in some way, like parks and welfare. I don't think US citizens see most of that money coming back to them, it just goes to wars and corporations, but I could be wrong on the latter.

My personal preference is capitalism because I like working and having freedom. I'm not a fan of capitalism because of how it affects others who aren't as lucky as Bill Gates or I or is privileged like Elon or Trump. Capitalism has led to depression as well, and often it's been exploited horribly.

Seems to be false, and that racism before Trump was just more hidden than anything. I also did read that happiness in Nordic countries went down once immigrants came in.

That's just political mumbo jumbo. The fact remains that the capitalism-socialism debate is still entirely about economic policy. Right wing and left wing politics are distinct from that since they include a ton of stuff which has jack shit to do with the economy. Granted that this is a bit nitpicky but these sort of discussions are hard enough even when you don't include random political mumbo jumbo to economic concepts. I mean, even within what is capitalism and socialism you can refer to a ton of different things. Socialism itself can refer to a particularly large range of things.

Say, with socialism you could refer to failed projects like the soviet union, cuba or venezuela... No sane person would want any of that. But within today's context you could also refer to europe as socialist and they have largely successful decades old models that are drastically different from the soviet union or cuba. That said, I would stress that European economies are fundamentally capitalist (as they largely do not have stated owned and centralized means of production), they actually have a strong private sector which is also heavily taxed to pay for social services.

Obviously the term capitalist is heavily connected to the right wing but the fact remains that right wing and capitalism are distinct terms which refer to different things. Capitalism, being about economic models, and right-wing/left-wing which include a whole host of issues many of which have nothing to do with economic models.

Yes, but left wing and right wing politics also have a lot to do with economical debates as well. The right want to move closer to free market capitalism, even cronyism, while the left want to move further away from that and for an economic system that's for the people.

I"m not disagreeing with that, but still, the strong ties

 

[kkck]

Yes, but left wing and right wing politics also have a lot to do with economical debates as well. The right want to move closer to free market capitalism, even cronyism, while the left want to move further away from that and for an economic system that's for the people.

I"m not disagreeing with that, but still, the strong ties

Well, yeah, but that is sort of the point. They aren't the same. And cronyism isn't even in capitalist-socialism or right wing-left wing spectrum.. Cronyism doesn't even have that much to do with the debate altogether. Within the private sector its a problem that solves itself... by helping the competition. And in the public sector its at least in theory a crime.

And yeah, sure, there are ties. But still, right wing is not the same as capitalism and left wing is not the same as socialism. They are different terms which refer to different things...

 

[desin24]

though mate, I'm not advocating for socialism, I don't know much about it. My main issue with capitalism in US (and UK?) is how it's one of the main reasons why people go hungry, lose homes, and struggle immensely and often have poor health. From what I've read, Nordic people are happy because while they pay more in taxes, most of that money goes back to them in some way, like parks and welfare. I don't think US citizens see most of that money coming back to them, it just goes to wars and corporations, but I could be wrong on the latter.

My personal preference is capitalism because I like working and having freedom. I'm not a fan of capitalism because of how it affects others who aren't as lucky as Bill Gates or I or is privileged like Elon or Trump. Capitalism has led to depression as well, and often it's been exploited horribly.

Seems to be false, and that racism before Trump was just more hidden than anything. I also did read that happiness in Nordic countries went down once immigrants came in.


Yes, but left wing and right wing politics also have a lot to do with economical debates as well. The right want to move closer to free market capitalism, even cronyism, while the left want to move further away from that and for an economic system that's for the people.

I"m not disagreeing with that, but still, the strong ties

I think that's a tough one to state. In general poverty is higher in socialist economies by a longshot. Venezuelan horror stories are everywhere and I can share a couple of them from communist Romania. Pure capitalism surely is the "exploitation of one human on another" but that is practiced nowhere. Most western economies are mixed and for good reason. You can see capitalism as the engine that keeps the economy going with "socialism" (government intervention/redistribution) as the exhaust system that limits the negative consequences that a free market brings about.

Nordic countries redistribute their wealth at a much higher percentage that is for sure. That's why they are welfare states since redistribution is a major part of the economy and the culture has developed into a mentality where they accept that the country as a whole does better when they all do better. Not much "taxation if theft" going on up there.

It's not perfect for sure and my country copied the Swedish system so I have to admit that it hurts a bit when you see so much money leave your paycheck but it is worth it mostly. Probably because becoming filthy rich is not my nation's "dream".

I haven't heard about the happiness thing and immigrants in Sweden. That is certainly interesting. Just anecdotal but I certainly heard from swedish friends that it brought quite some challenges and their system was not really ready for such an endeavor.

 

[hokageji]

I think capitalism makes racism worse and widens the gap even more because they choose who to hire and who to provide service to. Would socialism say "because you come from a shit place, we'll charge you higher interest rate!"?

Great point.

I don't know, I think the Brits were just as barbaric, if not more, especially given what Churchill did. White people seem to be bad to everyone, but to white people the least, at least when there are other races.

well, Churchill, yes. Brits didn't "convert or kill" like the spaniards or the portuguese did. Churchill just treated indians as shit, i remm one time when his officers pleaded to send rations to india during the famine and said people are dying, his response was, "then why is bloody gandhi still alive".... He shouldn't be glorified as much as he is..

Well, yeah, but that is sort of the point. They aren't the same. And cronyism isn't even in capitalist-socialism or right wing-left wing spectrum.. Cronyism doesn't even have that much to do with the debate altogether. Within the private sector its a problem that solves itself... by helping the competition. And in the public sector its at least in theory a crime.

And yeah, sure, there are ties. But still, right wing is not the same as capitalism and left wing is not the same as socialism. They are different terms which refer to different things...

the debate around the connection of capitalism and racism has to do with how oppotunities are not provided. Capitalism encourages individuals to work harder and rewards their hardwork and success. But it doesn't offer the same opportunities for everyone. Socialism on the other hand being based on equality opens a little more than capitalism. American capitalism has helped white people more than minorities, because their social backgrounds are stronger. So its not truly a merit system. Lets take India for example, where caste system has been prevalent, India has taken some decent steps to allow lower caste community people to do better.Theoretically at least, if you come from the backward caste background, who haven't been allowed education for thousands of years have seats reserved in educational institutions which allowed them to come out of poverty. The system fails to an extent due to corruption, but it has helped people who've never received education for years. This was only possible due to India's socialistic principles post independence, where the government has the responsibility of making sure equal oppotunity is awarded to all the people. If they had a capitalistic principle, spending would be prioritized over anything else.

 

[M3J]

I think that's a tough one to state. In general poverty is higher in socialist economies by a longshot. Venezuelan horror stories are everywhere and I can share a couple of them from communist Romania. Pure capitalism surely is the "exploitation of one human on another" but that is practiced nowhere. Most western economies are mixed and for good reason. You can see capitalism as the engine that keeps the economy going with "socialism" (government intervention/redistribution) as the exhaust system that limits the negative consequences that a free market brings about.

Nordic countries redistribute their wealth at a much higher percentage that is for sure. That's why they are welfare states since redistribution is a major part of the economy and the culture has developed into a mentality where they accept that the country as a whole does better when they all do better. Not much "taxation if theft" going on up there.

It's not perfect for sure and my country copied the Swedish system so I have to admit that it hurts a bit when you see so much money leave your paycheck but it is worth it mostly. Probably because becoming filthy rich is not my nation's "dream".

I haven't heard about the happiness thing and immigrants in Sweden. That is certainly interesting. Just anecdotal but I certainly heard from swedish friends that it brought quite some challenges and their system was not really ready for such an endeavor.

I've heard mixed things on Venezuela, like how the problems are more because of the capitalist leader that US wanted to put in power or US trying to sabotage the country to make them prefer capitalism.

That's practiced in USA. Target for example raised minimum wage, but it cut hours while doubling workload. Amazon also increased minimum wage, but it cut or reduced benefits. A lot of companies are also exploiting workers in other countries by paying them so little and aren't held accountable for that. Bezos and others were able to exploit people to accumulate their wealth.

Yes, while USA doesn't want money to go out of their pockets even if they benefit from it immensely later. They'd rather save $200 now than save $2,000 down the line, like with medicare for all. Nordic countries probably have proven to be trustworthy though, giving people back their money through programs whereas we pump most of the money into defense and warfare.

oh believe me, it hurts my derriere hole as well to see my pay go down a lot because of taxes, and even worse because most of it doesn't come back to me or to society. I'm also of the opinion that I'd rather see my taxes go up as result of schools like LeBron James' being set up to help kids. I don't think it's just wanting to be filthy rich that's the problem, but people being brainwashed into seeing tax as a bad thing while also seeing it as a negative that taxes aren't being spent on defense and warfare.

I don't remember which Nordic country, probably Denmark, but I did read about it while doing research for an argument.

Like, I don't mind free market, but I care more about how people are doing under the free market, and so many people are not doing well.

Great point.


well, Churchill, yes. Brits didn't "convert or kill" like the spaniards or the portuguese did. Churchill just treated indians as shit, i remm one time when his officers pleaded to send rations to india during the famine and said people are dying, his response was, "then why is bloody gandhi still alive".... He shouldn't be glorified as much as he is..




the debate around the connection of capitalism and racism has to do with how oppotunities are not provided. Capitalism encourages individuals to work harder and rewards their hardwork and success. But it doesn't offer the same opportunities for everyone. Socialism on the other hand being based on equality opens a little more than capitalism. American capitalism has helped white people more than minorities, because their social backgrounds are stronger. So its not truly a merit system. Lets take India for example, where caste system has been prevalent, India has taken some decent steps to allow lower caste community people to do better.Theoretically at least, if you come from the backward caste background, who haven't been allowed education for thousands of years have seats reserved in educational institutions which allowed them to come out of poverty. The system fails to an extent due to corruption, but it has helped people who've never received education for years. This was only possible due to India's socialistic principles post independence, where the government has the responsibility of making sure equal oppotunity is awarded to all the people. If they had a capitalistic principle, spending would be prioritized over anything else.

Yep, he's a piece of shit.


Capitalism tricks people into thinking hard work is the main factor to wealth.

 

[TotalEconomist]

Marxism will never be achieved, because it goes against basic human nature.

Why are we discussing this again?

 

[Ramen]

Marxism will never be achieved, because it goes against basic human nature.

Why are we discussing this again?

Some would disagree. It's good discussion.

 

[kkck]

it's not. Marxism has a long history of consistent and predictable failure... it's the 21th century... What marxs actually proposed in his manifesto hasn't been tried in over 100 years and what has passed for communism/socialism (within the context of the soviet union/cuba) is well past its expiration date. I am not going to say capitalism is a flawless system, that would be absurd, but every country within the last 200 years that has achieved some degree of prosperity has been fundamentally capitalist...

 

[Ramen]

Marxism has a long history of consistent and predictable failure... it's the 21th century...

Some would disagree. That's why it's a good discussion.

 

[kkck]

Some would disagree. That's why it's a good discussion.

I mean, name one properly communist country that has brought its population any degree of prosperity. Even modern day examples have failed either because their policies fail or because of comical levels of corruption...