Black people helped built the U.S., what a fucking disgrace to the atrocities their ancestors suffered.
That’s precisely it, there’s lots of evidence which shows that welfare programs are better for creating stable societies.
And you’re just using a trite anti-west agenda talking point. The archaeological records shows existence of precolonial war
https://courses.washington.edu/war101/readings/Lambert--archy%20of%20N%20Am%20warfare.pdf
And when they got close, they killed each other. So to my point, maybe some people should just live on a different planet
No group of people has ever been peaceful with each other, let’s stop this anti-west fantasy and start talking about real problems, like how to fix democracies and capitalism
https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/north-american-indigenous-warfare-and-ritual-violence
Because I want people to discuss anti-communist and anti-Marxist povs.
Capitalism “works” up to a point, in a sense. The issues with Capitalism don’t arise from “selfishness.” Rather, Capitalism necessarily monopolizes and centralizes over time, and competition lowers the rate of profit through automation and raises the barrier to entry.
Those issues are related to corruption, as mentioned. Corruption exists in all forms of economic systems. The problem with a system which relies on central planning is that corruption is harder to root out or beat via democratic means.
Further, Marxists don’t believe people will “work for the common good.” At almost all phases of Socialism and Communism, people will almost certainly be paid for their labor, be it through traditional currencies in the earlier stages of Socialism to Labour Vouchers, distributed centrally and destroyed upon first use, in the earlier stages of Communism. This is how all Socialist societies have functioned.
I am saying that Marxists believe that people don’t want to own properties or the means of production in favor of central planning. Why shouldn’t they? Because they’re so altruistic and want to favor those who will never be able to achieve such means?
The fact is that some people will have better resources to become capitalists, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to do away with capitalism. What makes sense then is to make it easier for those who cannot or do not want to become capitalists to have a life free from being abused or harmed.
You keep saying things are non sequitors because you are essentially this meme
While I don’t like Turning Point USA, I think that’s the crux of the issue in all these contentious points. Can a group of a well-meaning individuals tell the PRC how to do anything?
No one here is patting me on the back lol, which is fine. I don’t care about internet points, only about pointing out issues where people think what they want or think is inherently moral or correct
Some people on lemmy think this place exists to propagate their Marxist ideology just because some of the fediverse devs are Marxists. People will just get turned off and go somewhere else
I added a comment, I haven’t read the book. I came across it and found it interesting. Is that kind of post allowed?
Never heard of Kelley before, so I don’t know what type of pundit he is,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesse_Kelly_Show
My guess is that the book will just have hot takes about the flaws in Marxist ideology.
I am not being insensitive, I am saying that there are nations who suffered and are doing well now because their leaders know how to govern.
A lot of the cry bully stuff Marxists do is to create guilt and make people in democratic nations hate their governments. They know that their corrupt leaders are not going to fix anything. If the leaders cared about their people, they’d figure out a way to work with the rest of the world, like the leaders in China, India, Brazil etc
Okay cool then
The state owns it in a Marxist society. Or are you saying that a group of farmers in China can go tell the PRC what to do
..as a tool for analysis because it has proven its handiness
If you mean, China then most would agree that their success is a natural consequence of intense competition, and not necessarily of their economic system of choice. When you run a country like an army, then it’s very likely to get good results. Yes, the people there have recourse via law (against each other, not the state), and freedom to decide where to work, but that freedom is limited when there are no natural mechanisms to create sources to direct productivity. Many new grads are jobless or underemployed.
you talk about why the concept of ownership of, say, a factory is foreign. Your point misunderstands theirs. The belief in a societal concept of “ownership” is separate from the actual, real world mechanisms at play. What is “morally correct” doesn’t guide society, starving people don’t refuse to steal bread because of morals. The reasoning behind ownership is punishment by the state for not respecting it.
So you say Marxist don’t believe moral superiority and then come out with this lol? Why isn’t owning moral good? If you give resources to acquire something, then why shouldn’t it be yours? The reason why Marxists insist on state ownership of means of production is because they fear losing control and power. The people don’t and wont own anything, just as they don’t in China or Vietnam.
In an inherently violent, imbalanced system like Capitalism, the violence is systemic and daily.
The problems are due to centralization of power and control. That’s why regulations protect everyone, including the wealthy and powerful. That’s why monopolies are dangerous to freedom.
The reality of Liberalism is violence and Imperialism, from murdering 1 million Iraqis for the pursuit of profits to dropping napalm and Agent Orange on the Vietnamese for daring to go against the US-dominated world marketplace to dropping more tons of bombs on Korea than the entire pacific front of World War 2, Liberalism dons the mask of “winning hearts and minds” for its public while slaughtering without care innocents to the tune of millions
You cant seriously say that Marxist nations won’t do asshole things to each other. This is magical thinking again. The problem is greedy people will always preserve themselves and their power, that’s what Stalin did. That’s what Lenin did. That’s what Marx would have done, if he had gotten the chance.
I am not saying the world is perfect right now. I am saying I don’t want to fool myself into thinking that creating a different hell is better than trying to make the current place less hellish.
Countries have been dicks to each other for fucking ever. Get over it. Many other counties did and are now doing just fine. Look at India or China or Brazil. The fact is that many countries which cry about colonialism still use it to distract their poor people from the corruption of their governments and leaders. There’s near overlap between being most corrupt on a corruption index and receiving the most aid from other countries
The downvote brigade wants to discredit a pov it finds threatening
The alien assumes a property cannot be owned because it in fact can not be owned.
Why? If someone pays for the resources to build it, then who owns it? If the labor could build it to begin with, then why didn’t it? Then labor could be the owner. But if labor relies on resources to build mechanisms of productivity, then it’s fair to say that those who build the mechanisms are justly due some compensation for their input.
We already tried armed conflict over resources, the pieces of paper were what we decided was a better alternative.
I was challenging that open source is always ethical tech. No one should have open source access to destructive tech, for example.