Liberal Forum

HarveyMushman » 09 Feb 2024, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 7:39 am

The manifestation of institutionalized racism was timed with the rise of capitalism, for it's intimately interwoven with that of capitalism. As I've noted previously, the emergence of institutionalized racism coincided with the instituting of the transatlantic chattel slave trade. It greatly assisted the growth of Great Britain as a world power. And, as institutionalized racism's influence grew, it became an effective way of dividing workers who might seek to supplant capitalism. So, too, did it serve to "justify" the enslavement and general brutalization of human beings. Toward that end, Christianity was enlisted to quell the objections of Christians who might otherwise have issues with chattel slavery (see the Romanus pontifex, papal bull of Pope Nicolas V, Portugal, 8 January 1455).

When you say. "institutionalized racism," are you referring to minority hiring quotas, ear-marked minority business loans, set-asides at universities, tax breaks for hiring minorities - that sort of thing?

HarveyMushman » 09 Feb 2024, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 7:39 am

From that, newly minted capitalists began to amass gigantic fortunes through the primitive accumulation afforded them by chattel slavery, which initiated the cycle of exploitation that keeps billions of people in a state of inequality that continues to this day. That contradiction was resolved by instituting racial hatred to dehumanize black people. So, no, my assertion that racism - institutionalized racism is a byproduct of capitalism hasn't been "blown to smithereens."

You have mostly ignored my critiques of your positions on race, while inventing from whole cloth that I would deny the humanity of more than 90% of human beings.

It seems you are attacking capitalism, rather than my argument. Explain how affirmative action is not institutionalized racism against whites and asians.

HarveyMushman » 09 Feb 2024, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 7:39 am

Cannonpointer: "I think you have serious hang-ups about race, racism, etc. I'm sensing white guilt. Hell, I'm smelling it." 

I don't understand that response. I stated that to have a negative experience with a racialized person and to then "extrapolate [that] experiences to where one assumes that all black people are dishonest is racist and childish." I then noted that I have a well-to-do black neighbor who, although very honest, owns a business from which he and his wife amass/steal large amounts of worker-produced wealth every day. The point is that people like Cannonpointer focus on the petty theft committed by some black people while ignoring the colossal theft committed by capitalists of all pigmentation. I don't see how that suggests I "have serious hang-ups about race, racism, etc."

Except that anyone even SKIMMING our tete a tete understands that I do in fact acknowledge and detest those greater thefts. It appears to me that unless a fellow is willing to defend capitalism, you have problems debating - as if you are in a set-piece position with your arguments on auto-pilot. I do not believe that nuance is your forte. You rather gave the farm away on that when you betrayed that in your mind, unless one's ideas about race and race-relations align with yours, one is a genocidal Hitler with an exponent. That bi-valent ideation is not exceptionally mature or sophisticated.

HarveyMushman » 09 Feb 2024, 7:41 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 7:41 am

Very well. Nonetheless, Cannonpointer supports National "Socialism"... Indeed, since the Nazis severely reduced tax rates, worker pay, and pension contributions, most of the German capitalist class didn't have a problem with the said arrangement. Why would they?

There you go again with the canard that hitler cut wages yet was beloved - without a shred of evidence. And what is your evidence that I "support national socialism?" The fact that I was curious as to your take on it? Or the fact that I met your take with criticism? For me to full-on support national socialism would require a great deal more study than I have ever been willing to invest. This is more of that bi-valent thinking. Unless I despise and detest and DISMISS national socialism, I AM a national socialist. Have you any idea how silly that is?

HarveyMushman » 09 Feb 2024, 7:41 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 7:41 am

Cannonpointer may respond by saying that he supports capitalism's demise and the "return" of "free enterprise." Still, those things are the same since their "respective" means of production are privately owned. Therefore, irrespective of what one calls it, who owns the means of wealth production remains the same.

If we believe this, ^ then we must believe that there is no free enterprise whatsoever in a "true" socialist nation. Is that your position, or are you simply lacking nuance again? It seems to me that even in a socialist nation, a kid can cut your grass or a gal can cut your hair or a fellow can reupholster your couch in a free enterprise exchange of goods and services. Is this not true?

HarveyMushman » 09 Feb 2024, 7:41 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 7:41 am

So, wanting to delete capitalism while wishing to "replace" it with National "Socialism" is the pinnacle of a distinction without a difference.

And I took this position when? Are you now equating free enterprise with national socialism?
. 

HarveyMushman » 09 Feb 2024, 7:41 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 7:41 am

That's interesting. Usually, I would be compelled to think that it would be torturous for a Nazi residing in San Francisco. But Cannonpointer's willingness to learn Spanish indicates otherwise, at least from his perspective. "Naturally, learning Spanish required much association with people from a different cultural background than me." Hmm. 
(END OF PART IV)

It does rather tarnish your "Cannonpointer wants to kill everyone who doesn't look like him" narrative. My passport is chockablock with entries ]into various nonwhite ports of call. I eschew resorts, travelling to the interior in rental cars and finding accommodations as I go. My last of a dozen trips to Mexico was to Morelia in Michoacan, where I stayed two weeks with Mexican friends - eating street tacos every morning with the residents of that fair city whom you believe me to revile. I have also made excellent use of dental tourism to keep my pearlies up to par. A racist who prefers Mexican dentists because he respects their culture - lol. I would be happy to explicate precisely WHY I prefer Mexican dentists - and it's not just about currency exchange rates. 

It seems you draw these hard lines and divide the world: a black and white point of reference. If one is on this side of the line, one is X. - and all X implies. If one is on the other side, then one is Y - and all Y implies. 

I have not read Fifty Shades of Grey. But if there were a book called Two Shades of Black and White, I would suspect that it were your primer, sir. 

 
 

Cannonpointer » 09 Feb 2024, 2:05 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 2:05 pm

 

I have not read Fifty Shades of Grey. But if there were a book called Two Shades of Black and White, I would suspect that it were your primer, sir. 

 
 

I am going to give you 5 greenies for this line only.

Nostradamus'omh » 09 Feb 2024, 5:04 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 5:04 pm

I am going to five you 5 greenies for this line only.

"And my reality imploded under Nostradamus' omh name already, my screen name hasn't changed any reality left ignoring how evolving doesn't exceed adapting as genetically displaced here now psychosis. so, ladies and gentlemen, hobos and tramps, cross-eyed mosquitoes and bowlegged ants; I'm here before you to stand behind you to tell you something I know nothing about. my reality is conjecture, not conjunction of generation gaps living in series parallel positions now pull up a chair and sit on the floor in my 'mind' staged to believe real isn't factually real." --Nostradamus' omh


Be well
Good day
"Harvey Mushman" 
 
 

Harvey Mushman » 10 Feb 2024, 9:36 am » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 9:36 am

"And my reality imploded under Nostradamus' omh name already, my screen name hasn't changed any reality left ignoring how evolving doesn't exceed adapting as genetically displaced here now psychosis. so, ladies and gentlemen, hobos and tramps, cross-eyed mosquitoes and bowlegged ants; I'm here before you to stand behind you to tell you something I know nothing about. my reality is conjecture, not conjunction of generation gaps living in series parallel positions now pull up a chair and sit on the floor in my 'mind' staged to believe real isn't factually real." 

;-)
Be well
Good day
"Harvey Mushman" 
 

You believe in the power of suggestion rules the living, but life only exists as adapting as displaced. Every brain navigates between ideas choosing the path of least resistance to comply with mob rule or die. Take away the faith nobody knew, and every brain goes back to understanding any hypothetical situation here now.

Factually real is history yesterday governing tomorrow's results arriving today. anyone of character has to ignore self proportion to believe people can inherit the earth by some unphysical being like intellectual choice between understanding time displaced or making believe relative time logistics changes everything factually here.

Cannonpointer » 09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm

Cannonpointer

 (PART I OF III)

I wrote: "Whether a black person who steals from a white person is given to interpersonal racism or not, most black people who steal things do so because of the socioeconomic conditions dealt to them by institutionalized or structural racism." 

Cannonpointer: "What if that was horse ****? What if the diaspora killed off 95% of those leaving Africa, and only a few capable of planning for the harsh European winters survived? What if evolution - efficient and never wasteful - didn't require subsaharans those extra 20 IQ points that European survival required? What if it left subsaharans more athletic, more impulsive, and less intelligent than their European counterparts? 

Cannonpointer: "..IF EVOLUTION HAD DONE THAT, would you want to know? It's a yes/no question, and it isn't rhetorical. If evolution had done that, would you want to know?" 

The assertion that so-called black criminality is primarily socioeconomically driven isn't folly. To assert the converse is merely to legitimize one's racist notions of racialized people. The fact that black people commit crimes disproportionally to their proportion of the overall population is a function of primarily white-people-driven institutionalized and interpersonal racism. A 2021 article published by Marketplace  states, "Researchers sent more than 80,000 fake job applications for entry-level openings to Fortune 500 firms and found that, on average, applications with distinctively Black names were about 10% less likely to get a call back than comparable applications with distinctively white names." https://www.marketplace.org/2021/08/03/ ... t-stages/A CSG Justice Center article reports, among other such things, that "White men with a criminal record had more positive responses [to their job applications] than black men with no criminal record.https://csgjusticecenter.org/2014/09/23 ... mployment/ 

Those are merely two examples of the perhaps thousands of articles and studies that demonstrate that many corporations go out of their way not to hire black people. And though few, if any, applicable studies have been conducted, the racially discriminatory hiring practices of small businesses are likely worse simply because state or federal agencies don't monitor such practices. So, too, do small business owners tend to cater to their racist customers who employers know don't want to interact with black people. That is especially true in small towns in rural areas. 

So, although the overwhelming majority of poor black people don't engage in criminal activity, most of those who do do so because they have no other choice. "Morality" is relative to one's material circumstances, and most black people lead lives of material precarity. Declaring that "they should 'suck it up' and deal with it without breaking the law" is akin to telling a Palestinian whose home has been taken over by squatters, "Be peaceful. Forget about it. Move on." 

Concerning Cannonpointer's, "What if the diaspora killed off 95% of those leaving Africa, and only a few capable of planning for the harsh European winters survived? ... What if it left subsaharans more athletic, more impulsive, and less intelligent than their European counterparts?" The poverty and coups that pervade much of Africa that causes many white people to "think," Well, since there's so much poverty there, black people must be stupid and violent," are the results of hundreds of years of typically violent and poverty-inducing European and American colonialism. (Continued in PART II) 

(END OF PART I)
 

Cannonpointer » 09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm

Cannonpointer

 (PART II OF III)

In his book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney writes, “Pervasive and vicious racism was present in imperialism as a variant independent of the economic rationality that initially gave birth to racism." https://www.versobooks.com/products/788 ... ricaRodney and many others have documented how, although the African continent possesses a proverbial embarrassment of riches relative to natural resources, colonialism and imperialism have kept Africa impoverished through the underpayment for and the outright theft of those resources by Americans and Europeans. It's a plundering that has long been enforced and protected by handpicked indigenous comprador regimes, i.e., Mobutu Sese Seko's in Congo, who have facilitated the grotesque enrichment of European and American capitalists while subjecting their people to grinding poverty, disease, and their accompanying violence. But this is a reality few Americans understand since capitalist media sources nearly wholly ignore it or blame it on the "tribal and violent nature of black Africans." The economic exploitation of Africa is not unlike the financial exploitation of Central America, where the US government has forever blocked indigenous economic development and installed fascist regimes that protect American multinationals from workers and peasants. All the while, many Americans scratch their heads and wonder why the undocumented keep coming. Answer: Because they would starve to death were they to wait for as long as thirteen years for legal immigration status. But I digress. So, there's nothing to know, for human biological evolution has nothing to do with this. 

I wrote: "Concerning 'how to fix a bridge [or which bridge to fix under Socialist Industrial Unionism (SIU)], I imagine it would be a combined effort by the transportation and construction industries as roughly indicated by the SLP's Socialist Industrial Unionism chart: http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  And, given that elected, rotated, recallable, and thus fully accountable managers would decide which bridges need repair, there'd be no need for the cumbersome process of each worker voting on which bridges need repair." 

Cannonpointer: "Sounds like representative democracy. We've tried that - and we're reduced to fighting over who goes into which bathroom stall. Also, you switched the argument from how to fix a bridge to which bridge to fix. Without hierarchies, the how-to becomes more of an issue than the which. 

No, "representative "democracy" is a manifestation of capitalist rule. It's a political process in which politicians quarter-heartedly represent workers while vigorously protecting the capitalist class' legalized theft of gargantuan amounts of working-class-produced wealth. SIU would amount to worker self-government. As indicated above, workers elected to positions of authority by their fellow workers would serve for set durations and return to their previous jobs upon completing their terms. They would be subject to immediate recall whenever a majority of those who elected them deemed it necessary. 

Cannonpointer: "Engineers should have no more say than bricklayers - should they?" 

It's not that any worker would have more or less say than any other worker. It would be a matter of workers voicing their say in their workplaces. Engineers wouldn't vote for bricklayers, and bricklayers/construction workers wouldn't vote for engineers because they'd be employed in separate industries. 

http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  

 (END OF PART II)
 

Look an intellectual mind has come back to brag how it saved humanity from ancestors trying be themselves cradle to grave instead of typecast by rule of law to perform as stereotypes until extinction happens.

Cannonpointer » 09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm

 

(PART III OF III)  

Cannonpointer: " Do you want to keep those patriarchal hierarchies around to work their mischief?"  

I'm not sure what that means.  

Cannonpointer: "What I react to is the religious and mystical nature of the thing [Marxism]. The more I listen to you, the more it appears based on a priesthood of understanding. And for a guy who spits at the term hierarchy, you should spot the inevitability of hierarchy in a complex dogma that will be worked out on the fly."  

As I've stated before, one way or another, by definition, Marxism is no religion. Religions or faiths are connected to so-called transcendental Beings or Universe. Atheism is the antithesis of religion/faith, while Marxism has nothing to do with religion or faith. Marxism, or scientific socialism, concerns itself only with the inner dynamics of human society. Marxist's concern for the well-being of humankind constitutes a type of deistic devotion, but it isn't even remotely religious. Marxism is an ideology, not a religion. Moreover, and as I have demonstrated repeatedly, Marxism isn't dogmatic. It's a guide to revolutionary action. As I wrote concerning the Socialist Labor Party's concept of Socialist Industrial Unionism or industrial government, "It doesn't convey, 'This way, boys, we defeat the capitalists,' for it states, 'NOT A BLUEPRINT.'  It's a rough idea of how a futuristic socialist society could operate industrially. The assertion that it's 'the way to beat capitalism' is frivolous. And those who inhabit such a society may work out the rest of the diagram."If Marxism were dogmatic, it would be presented as a blueprint or diagram not to be diverted from. It's a fact reinforced by the reality that Marx and Engels never described a futuristic socialist society beyond the foundational need for the social ownership of its means of production. If Marx and Engels had been dogmatists, they would have, for example, railed against the leaders of the Paris Commune who proceeded with their plans despite Marx and Engels' warnings against it. And if they were dogmatic, they wouldn't have altered their positions vis-a-vis particular issues over the decades as they did. And so, once again, the conditioned assertion that Marxism is "dogmatic" has arrived stillborn. 

Cannonpointer: "If you are representative, Marxists deny God AND deny evolution. The very IDEA that evolution would magically produce virtually identical IQs in a species that it is KNOWN to turn into giants or midgets based upon environmental advantage can only be attributed to willful ignorance. The notion would be silly even if we didn't have copious contrary evidence. It stands to reason that intelligence is as much an inherited trait as is shortness or tallness. Or does Marxism deny that THOSE traits are heritable?" 

Yes, of course, intelligence is heritable. I've not stated nor suggested otherwise. 

I wrote: "Very few communists deny the feasibility of a borderless world. After all, one needn't be a communist to understand that nation-states have only existed for approximately five hundred years of humankind's 250,000 years and developed only because of mercantilism and later capitalism. Therefore, wholly contrived borders can be eliminated. So, there's no meaningful debate among communists concerning the feasibility of a borderless world." 

Cannonpointer's: "Let's pretend that claptrap is true." 

Does that imply that Cannonpointer believes that nation-states have been around as long as humans have been? 

(END OF PART III) 

 Be Well
Good day
"Harvey Mushman"
 
 
 

How you can tell an intellectual character from an ancestor adapting in space only timed apart now. The social identity cannot get off message regardless how evolving never stays the same results twice forward from here now.

Doing the same behavior over and over expecting a different outcome than the ideas sustained ancestrally so far people are never same ancestors twice so far doing the same ideas for hundreds of generations living isn't same tomorrow as arrived now each lifetime never same total sum again.

Resisting how evolving happens staging ideas anything else is possible only destroys the ancestry pretending life isn't self evidently eternally separated when genetically here now adapting as one unique displacement at a time.

HarveyMushman » 15 Feb 2024, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 8:01 am

 (PART I OF III)

I wrote: "Whether a black person who steals from a white person is given to interpersonal racism or not, most black people who steal things do so because of the socioeconomic conditions dealt to them by institutionalized or structural racism." 

Cannonpointer: "What if that was horse ****? What if the diaspora killed off 95% of those leaving Africa, and only a few capable of planning for the harsh European winters survived? What if evolution - efficient and never wasteful - didn't require subsaharans those extra 20 IQ points that European survival required? What if it left subsaharans more athletic, more impulsive, and less intelligent than their European counterparts? 

Cannonpointer: "..IF EVOLUTION HAD DONE THAT, would you want to know? It's a yes/no question, and it isn't rhetorical. If evolution had done that, would you want to know?" 

The assertion that so-called black criminality is primarily socioeconomically driven isn't folly. To assert the converse is merely to legitimize

Yeah, that ducks the question.

Maybe you'll speak pertinently to the question in your next post.

HarveyMushman » 15 Feb 2024, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 8:04 am

In his book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney writes, “Pervasive and vicious racism was present in imperialism as a variant independent of the economic rationality that initially gave birth to racism." https://www.versobooks.com/products/788 ... ricaRodney and many others have documented how, although the African continent possesses a proverbial embarrassment of riches relative to natural resources, colonialism and imperialism have kept Africa impoverished

Yeah yeah yeah - there be racism.

Didn't keep the jews down. They didn't have a state and were often disenfranchised and universally regarded with suspicion and hostility - and STILL they prospered. They are to this day the recipients of - what was that term you ran from defending? - so-called "anti-semitism." Yes they PROSPER.

Which leads to the question you keep ducking. SubSaharan Africans - with an "embarrassment of riches" in their own held lands, were easily made the victims of Ray Milhouse Cissum. Jews, NOT SO **** MUCH.

So what is the singular, sine qua non difference between a jew and a kalahari bushman or a thicket-dwellng pygmy that you keep ducking, dancer?

HarveyMushman » 15 Feb 2024, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 8:04 am

I wrote: "Concerning 'how to fix a bridge [or which bridge to fix under Socialist Industrial Unionism (SIU)], I imagine it would be a combined effort by the transportation and construction industries as roughly indicated by the SLP's Socialist Industrial Unionism chart: http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  And, given that elected, rotated, recallable, and thus fully accountable managers would decide which bridges need repair, there'd be no need for the cumbersome process of each worker voting on which bridges need repair." 

Cannonpointer: "Sounds like representative democracy. We've tried that - and we're reduced to fighting over who goes into which bathroom stall. Also, you switched the argument from how to fix a bridge to which bridge to fix. Without hierarchies, the how-to becomes more of an issue than the which. 

No, "representative "democracy" is a manifestation of capitalist rule. It's a political process in which politicians quarter-heartedly represent workers while vigorously protecting the capitalist class' legalized theft of gargantuan amounts of working-class-produced wealth. SIU would amount to worker self-government. As indicated above, workers elected to positions of authority by their fellow workers would serve for set durations and return to their previous jobs upon completing their terms. They would be subject to immediate recall whenever a majority of those who elected them deemed it necessary.

Yes yes - immediate recall. Governments that live only in the mind dispense perfect justice. They function beautifully and efficiently and seamlessly. Like my sexual escapades with a young kim basinger. All she DOES is come and call me daddy. Meanwhile, in the real world...

HarveyMushman » 15 Feb 2024, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 8:04 am

Cannonpointer: "Engineers should have no more say than bricklayers - should they?" 

It's not that any worker would have more or less say than any other worker. It would be a matter of workers voicing their say in their workplaces. Engineers wouldn't vote for bricklayers, and bricklayers/construction workers wouldn't vote for engineers because they'd be employed in separate industries.

The people who design the bridges and oversee their construction are in a different industry than the fellows they order about? Is that so? I had no idea. But in the world of the mind, all things are possible.
 

HarveyMushman » 15 Feb 2024, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 8:07 am

As I've stated before, one way or another, by definition, Marxism is no religion. Religions or faiths are connected to so-called transcendental Beings or Universe.

And your faith based assumptions that marxism will transcend the corruption that lives in the mud from which we are fashioned fits the bill to a T, padre.

In your imaginings, all of the petty agendas that flavor every society will magically be dispensed with under marxism. We just never understand quite HOW.

"On the fly, as progress toward Utopia is made," would be my (now) educated guess.

HarveyMushman » 15 Feb 2024, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 8:07 am

NOT A BLUEPRINT.'  It's a rough idea of how a futuristic socialist society could operate industrially.

Well, I roughly support the rough idea of a more just society. Can ya roughly instruct me on the role I should play - while eschewing any hierarchical thinking?

HarveyMushman » 15 Feb 2024, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 8:07 am

If Marxism were dogmatic, it would be presented as a blueprint or diagram not to be diverted from. It's a fact reinforced by the reality that Marx and Engels never described a futuristic socialist society beyond the foundational need for the social ownership of its means of production. If Marx and Engels had been dogmatists, they would have, for example, railed against the leaders of the Paris Commune who proceeded with their plans despite Marx and Engels' warnings against it. And if they were dogmatic, they wouldn't have altered their positions vis-a-vis particular issues over the decades as they did. And so, once again, the conditioned assertion that Marxism is "dogmatic" has arrived stillborn.

Stillborn is an interesting adverb, considering it sounds like they were making more baby batter than meaningful headway toward Utopia.

HarveyMushman » 15 Feb 2024, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 8:07 am

Cannonpointer: "If you are representative, Marxists deny God AND deny evolution. The very IDEA that evolution would magically produce virtually identical IQs in a species that it is KNOWN to turn into giants or midgets based upon environmental advantage can only be attributed to willful ignorance. The notion would be silly even if we didn't have copious contrary evidence. It stands to reason that intelligence is as much an inherited trait as is shortness or tallness. Or does Marxism deny that THOSE traits are heritable?" 

Yes, of course, intelligence is heritable. I've not stated nor suggested otherwise.

But of course you have, as anyone reading knows full well. You have dismissed the notion of heritable intelligence as Ray Cissum. Repeatedly.

You did so ONE post ago. It cheapens debate to bounce between positions for mere convenience.

HarveyMushman » 15 Feb 2024, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2024, 8:07 am

Does that imply that Cannonpointer believes that nation-states have been around as long as humans have been?

It rests on the fact that nation states - contrary to your claims - have been around for millennia. If we are only allowed to embrace that which is known to have been extant at the dawn of history, we are back to tribalism and your borderless world becomes a silly topic.
 

Cannonpointer » 09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm

Cannonpointer

(PART I OF III) 

Cannonpointer wrote: "I think you have serious hang-ups about race, racism, etc. I'm sensing white guilt. Hell, I'm smelling it." 

My response: "I don't understand that response. I stated that to have a negative experience with a racialized person and to then 'extrapolate [that] experiences to where one assumes that all black people are dishonest is racist and childish.' I then noted that I have a well-to-do black neighbor who, although very honest, owns a business from which he and his wife amass/steal large amounts of worker-produced wealth every day. The point is that people like Cannonpointer focus on the petty theft committed by some black people while ignoring the colossal theft committed by capitalists of all pigmentation. I don't see how that suggests I "have serious hang-ups about race, racism, etc." 

Cannonpointer's counter: "Except that anyone even SKIMMING our tete-a-tete understands that I acknowledge and detest those greater thefts. Unless a fellow is willing to defend capitalism, you have problems debating - as if you are in a set-piece position with your arguments on auto-pilot. I don't believe that nuance is your forte. You rather gave the farm away on that when you betrayed that in your mind unless one's ideas about race and race relations align with yours; one is a genocidal Hitler with an exponent. That bivalent ideation could be more mature and sophisticated." 

I see. Yet Cannonpointer does somewhat admire National "Socialism," which doesn't threaten the private ownership of a given society's means of economic production. So, maybe in a subsequent post, he'll unpack the meaning of his detestation of "those greater thefts" of worker-produced wealth. And no, I'm not of the mind that if "one's ideas about race and race relations [don't] align with [mine], one is [necessarily] a genocidal Hitler..." Nonetheless, Cannonpointer has made disparaging remarks concerning groups of non-white people. Finally, I don't understand Cannonpointer's use of the term "bivalent," which I know to be a word used to describe cognate chromosomes. So, I'm confused by "bivalent ideation." 

Cannonpointer facetiously asked: "When you say. 'institutionalized racism,' are you referring to minority hiring quotas, ear-marked minority business loans, set-asides at universities, tax breaks for hiring minorities - that sort of thing?" 

Institutionalized racism is descriptive of types of racism that are built into the social and political organizations of an entire capitalist society, not merely employment and university admissions. The most glaring example is the unquestionably and highly unequal treatment of racialized people relative to the criminal "justice" system. To deny that obvious fact is to admit to being a typical knuckle-dragging racist. The typically feckless efforts to alter that injustice, such as various Affirmative Action programs, which ignore the cause of institutionalized racism, attempt to level the playing field for racialized people in a futile effort to eradicate such racism. As useless as such programs are, the plaintiff cries of racists who shout "reverse discrimination" are merely resentful of any effort to better the lives of racialized people and women. But they needn't worry, for those efforts are, again, useless. 

I wrote: "So, wanting to delete capitalism while wishing to 'replace' it with National 'Socialism' is the pinnacle of a distinction without a difference." (Continued in PART II). 

(END OF PART I)  

 
 

Cannonpointer » 09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm

Cannonpointer

 (PART II OF III) 

Cannonpointer: "And I took that position when? Are you now equating free enterprise with national socialism?" 

So, Cannonpointer doesn't wish to replace capitalism with National "Socialism." Alright. Is it "'free' enterprise" that he would place in capitalism's stead? If so, how is it that "free enterprise" isn't anything more than a harking back to an earlier and more "fair" form of capitalism? How is it that "free enterprise" doesn't also encompass the private ownership and administration of the means of production? And does Cannonpointer's concept of "free enterprise" include the existence of markets? If so, how is it that laws, characteristic of a lack of freedom, don't structure markets? 

Additionally, as I mentioned in the discussion of Singapore, "free enterprise," the idealized concept of an earlier and more "evenhanded" form of capitalism, is dead and can't return. Or am I mistaken? Are mega-corporations willing to surrender the things that give them advantages over - what? - "free enterprisers"? Are Mattel and Hasbro, for example, ready to support a new system where petty toy manufacturers wouldn't be required to submit hundreds of copies of each product for safety testing? Lastly, no, I haven't equated "free enterprise" with National "Socialism," for large corporations would be advantaged over small firms just as they were under Germany's Nazis. 

I wrote: "Cannonpointer may ... support capitalism's demise and the 'return' of 'free enterprise.' Still, those things are the same since their 'respective' means of production are privately owned. Therefore, irrespective of what one calls it, who owns the means of wealth production remains the same. 

Cannonpointer: "If we believe that, then we must believe that there's no free enterprise in a 'true' socialist nation. Is that your position, or are you simply lacking nuance again? It seems that even in a socialist nation, a kid can cut your grass, a gal can cut your hair, or a fellow can reupholster your couch in a free enterprise exchange of goods and services. Is this not true?" 

Again, beyond the requirement for a socially owned and democratically administered means of production, there are no set and thus dogmatic rules for ordering and governing socialist societies. So, since a child mowing lawns, an adult cutting hair, or reupholstering a couch wouldn't be related to the commanding heights of an economy, the futuristic "American Socialist Commonwealth" may not have a problem with any of that or more. I know from firsthand experience that Cuba's revolutionary government has never had difficulty with small-scale - "free enterprise"? - hair salons. So, who knows? The only reservation I would have would be one related to whether, say, this "American Socialist Commonwealth" would choose to eliminate cash in favor of digitized labor-time vouchers. If so, it might be challenging to establish a medium of exchange concerning the interactions between young gardeners and their customers. Too, given that, under socialism, workers would enjoy the total economic value of their labor power, it's likely that few, if any, workers would find the need to engage in cottage "industries." With the ability to support and advance oneself and one's family while working much less than under capitalism, workers and their family members could develop themselves as human beings rather than continue to be little more than appendages to a privately owned means of production. In brief, there would be no need to "side hustle" to keep oneself afloat as there is now. 

(END OF PART II)
 

Cannonpointer » 09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm

 

 (PART III OF III) 

I wrote: "Very well. Nonetheless, Cannonpointer supports National "Socialism"... Indeed, since the Nazis severely reduced tax rates, worker pay, and pension contributions, most of the German capitalist class didn't have a problem with the said arrangement. Why would they?"

 Cannonpointer: "There you go again with the canard that Hitler cut wages yet was beloved - without a shred of evidence. And what's your evidence that I 'support national socialism?' The fact that I was curious as to your take on it? Or the fact that I met your take with criticism? For me to full-on support national socialism would require a great deal more study than I have ever been willing to invest. That's more of that bi-valent thinking. Unless I despise and detest and DISMISS national socialism, I AM a national socialist. Have you any idea how silly that is?"

The book that the following website mentions is pricey and, therefore, not something the casual reader would care to order. Still, it's an astoundingly well-documented writing that shows that the Nazis did indeed slash the pay and benefits of Germany's workers to finance their scheme. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24455387 A more accessible yet less credible source, at least concerning this neo-Nazi-infested forum, is the following article: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -elections 

Concerning Cannonpointer's comments denying supporting National "Socialism," I apologize for painting him otherwise. I misunderstood his position. And, as mentioned in my previous post, I'm interested in knowing what economic system that wouldn't entail the private ownership of the means of wealth production he does advocate. Per his not being a National "Socialist," I wonder what he is politically speaking. 

(END PART III)  

Be well
Good day
"Harvey Mushman" 

 
 

HarveyMushman » 05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am

Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the GDR, and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. 

Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, homelessness, and other social ills were virtually and easily eliminated in socialist societies. I say "easily" because those pathologies are all but effortlessly eliminated when doing so becomes a governmental priority, unlike in the U.S. 

Interestingly, the lives of American workers also improved because of the Bolshevik Revolution. The progressive achievements won by Soviet workers pressured the U.S. capitalist state to concede reforms for American workers. Reforms including homeownership, desegregation, investments in education, public healthcare, etc. 


(Note: Respondents who employ vulgarity and typically desperate ad hominem attacks will be ignored. Thank you.)

How many people have died for the leaders of socialism to install their socialist agenda?...communism?....nazism?...and where does capitalism stand in comparison?....in the real world....not in just theory. 

Capitalism doesn't build walls to keep people in...only those living in socialist aka communist countries out...the people know it sucks and want out!

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am

I see. Yet Cannonpointer does somewhat admire National "Socialism," which doesn't threaten the private ownership of a given society's means of economic production.

And you somewhat admire communism, which would give the same rewards to people for disparate effort. What is your point? I told you in my very first response to you that I do not care about isms - I care about people.

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am

Nonetheless, Cannonpointer has made disparaging remarks concerning groups of non-white people.

It's a long trek and several shades of hysteria to equate that with genocidal intent.

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am

Cannonpointer facetiously asked: "When you say. 'institutionalized racism,' are you referring to minority hiring quotas, ear-marked minority business loans, set-asides at universities, tax breaks for hiring minorities - that sort of thing?"

I would say sarcastically rather than facetiously. I think I would get near universal agreement, as there was no attempt at humor. I was just trying to wake you to reality by presenting reality, in opposition to your generalities and superstitions.

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am

Institutionalized racism is descriptive of types of racism that are built into the social and political organizations of an entire capitalist society, not merely employment and university admissions.

Yes, whites are being systemically discriminated against in other areas as well. It is full-on institutionalized and systemic.

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am

The most glaring example is the unquestionably and highly unequal treatment of racialized people relative to the criminal "justice" system.

Are you going to pretend that people who commit more crime receiving more police attention is racist?

Do me a favor. Justify my claim that you are bigoted and utterly without nuance by insisting that whoever disagrees with you is a knuckle-dragging racist.

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am

To deny that obvious fact is to admit to being a typical knuckle-dragging racist.

Thanks.

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:14 am

The typically feckless efforts to alter that injustice, such as various Affirmative Action programs, which ignore the cause of institutionalized racism, attempt to level the playing field for racialized people in a futile effort to eradicate such racism. As useless as such programs are, the plaintiff cries of racists who shout "reverse discrimination" are merely resentful of any effort to better the lives of racialized people and women. But they needn't worry, for those efforts are, again, useless.

It isn't reverse. It is quite straight forward. There is IDENTIFIABLE, provable, inarguable, systemic, institutionalized racism against whites and asians. Racism against whites and asians is government POLICY - set asides, quotas, biased hiring practices, biased advancement policies, biased lending practices, biased contracting policies that exclude whites and asians. 

And opposing that, there is your superstitious, unbacked fantasy claim about institutionalized racism against blacks. You can make hackneyed, echo-chamber-backed complaints about the criminal justice system - but you have no actual written rules you can point to. Without those, even if there IS racism (and you're a long way from sustaining THAT claim), it is NOT institutional, NOT systemic. The SYSTEM is not racist against blacks. It is manifestly racist against whites and asians.
 
 
 

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

So, Cannonpointer doesn't wish to replace capitalism with National "Socialism." Alright. Is it "free' enterprise" that he would place in capitalism's stead? If so, how is it that "free enterprise" isn't anything more than a harking back to an earlier and more "fair" form of capitalism?

Because capitalism is the opposite of free enterprise. Capitalism cannot exist without state sponsorship; free enterprise stubbornly continues to exist, even when the state forbids it.

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

How is it that "free enterprise" doesn't also encompass the private ownership and administration of the means of production? And does Cannonpointer's concept of "free enterprise" include the existence of markets? If so, how is it that laws, characteristic of a lack of freedom, don't structure markets?

Your complaint that laws affect markets applies to your own ism. You cannot assign to me a duty that you do not shoulder.

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

Additionally, as I mentioned in the discussion of Singapore, "free enterprise," the idealized concept of an earlier and more "evenhanded" form of capitalism, is dead and can't return. Or am I mistaken? Are mega-corporations willing to surrender the things that give them advantages over - what? - "free enterprisers"? Are Mattel and Hasbro, for example, ready to support a new system where petty toy manufacturers wouldn't be required to submit hundreds of copies of each product for safety testing? Lastly, no, I haven't equated "free enterprise" with National "Socialism," for large corporations would be advantaged over small firms just as they were under Germany's Nazis.

Handing off the power of the mega corps to politburos and pretending that they will be "easily recalled if the workers are unhappy with them" isn't a better solution than outlawing capitalism and letting free enterprise supplant it. At least what I recommend has not been UTTERLY debunked by hard experience. And yes, I know, I know - the commissars and the executive committee would have been more even-handed, if not for those meddling capitalists...

I support the idea of an activist government that is the biggest player in the market, a progressive tax scheme that will prevent preposterous, out-sized dynasties, and the return to the people of their right to issue currency.
 

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

I wrote: "Cannonpointer may ... support capitalism's demise and the 'return' of 'free enterprise.' Still, those things are the same since their 'respective' means of production are privately owned. Therefore, irrespective of what one calls it, who owns the means of wealth production remains the same.

Women and men are both bipedal - doesn't make them the same. Birds and jets have wings and take flight - not the same thing.

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

Again, beyond the requirement for a socially owned and democratically administered means of production, there are no set and thus dogmatic rules for ordering and governing socialist societies. So, since a child mowing lawns, an adult cutting hair, or reupholstering a couch wouldn't be related to the commanding heights of an economy, the futuristic "American Socialist Commonwealth" may not have a problem with any of that or more. I know from firsthand experience that Cuba's revolutionary government has never had difficulty with small-scale - "free enterprise"? - hair salons.

You JUST GOT THROUGH insisting that free enterprise is capitalism. IN THIS SAME POST. Can you understand why people might be puzzled, reading your arguments? I'm a nazi/I'm down with Che and Fidel. WTF???

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

So, who knows? The only reservation I would have would be one related to whether, say, this "American Socialist Commonwealth" would choose to eliminate cash in favor of digitized labor-time vouchers. If so, it might be challenging to establish a medium of exchange concerning the interactions between young gardeners and their customers. Too, given that, under socialism, workers would enjoy the total economic value of their labor power, it's likely that few, if any, workers would find the need to engage in cottage "industries." With the ability to support and advance oneself and one's family while working much less than under capitalism, workers and their family members could develop themselves as human beings rather than continue to be little more than appendages to a privately owned means of production. In brief, there would be no need to "side hustle" to keep oneself afloat as there is now.

So there would be an industrial people's hair cutting bureau? And art - artists would rather "develop themselves" than make art? I don't think so. I think your worker's paradise is extremely unrealistic.