Is there any way to fix the white working class? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15067612
B0ycey wrote:
It can work because it has before. Although you can debate whether it is better or worse than what we have.

The solution to Capitalism is perhaps only to keep what works and change what doesn't. I only regard Marx and an economist. He is no better or worse than Adams. Both see Capitalism from different angles and both make a strong case for what can and cannot be achieved from it. I don't think Chinas growth is coincidence. They are what all economic models should inspire to be. But perhaps they are not the political model we should follow. But thats besides the point. Enterprise should be kept to the Free market and China does that. Everything else run by the state. The Soviet Union knew how to educate, house and treat their populous far better than America do today. They just couldn't compete with the Capitalists free market and ultimately that is what broke the Union not Socialism. Gorbachev was too late with Perestroika. But that doesn't mean it was a failure. It made Russia what it is today. It no longer is just a ice wasteland. It is a superpower. And one with little debt. And should dollars become monopoly money, I believe is a state that will perhaps revert back to it origins although this time perhaps less secular.



The economy of the USSR collapsed because it couldn't adapt to changing circumstance fast enough.

You're going to need to do some fancy dancing to convince people the same wouldn't happen to us.
#15067614
Wellsy wrote:My concern is that I wouldn’t even argue for communism on the basis of it being more ‘natural’.


Sure, but remember I don't argue for it at all. It is difficult to articulate as really the structure of the argument stemmed from the original post and that wasn't mine. My point was really on what type of behaviour came from non-civilised human and what type of economic model could have come had we not the intelligence to create new concepts. The best examples are other species and of course using words to the correct definitions result in the construction of the argument made by me.

There is a continuation between humanity in its primitive and modern forms although they are different culturally and not biologically. And thus we can see how the social forms of man change man historically such that whilst greed isn’t only found in modern man the view of it is definitely different to the position taken on the many forms taken as acceptable today. Such as charging interest rates on loans and such ie usury.


Funny you write this as this is largely something I agree with and something I consider is the function of morality - and the social contract. Biologically we are no different but culturally we are. Behaviour seems to stem from social constructs of what is right and wrong. Capitalism has altered our behaviour. It some ways it has made man more greedy, others perhaps not. Without laws I cannot see humans being so civilised but at the same time I see humans being more cooperative. Much like the orangutans in Borneo. But whilst the objective is to make a profit cooperation takes a back seat, stealing surplus labor is just accepted and interest is considered just - regardless is it sends someone into debt.
#15067616
late wrote:You're going to need to do some fancy dancing to convince people the same wouldn't happen to us.



I don't need to. The success or failure of Capitalism is how well it adapts to its contradictions - and debt on debt on debt is completely unsustainable. Do you believe in Dialectical Materialism? Ultimately it will be the people themselves who will decide the fate of Capitalism. Whilst they profit from it the system maintains itself. It's when they don't and the cost of Bread outstrips cake that change comes into play.
#15067622
late wrote:Doubt you're gonna solve 21st Century problems with 19th Century ideas.


It isn't really an idea to solve problems but a form of social evolution. Looking only into recent history and you can see Dialectical Materialism has merits. But whether you accept the principle or not, from your posts, especially the one of the cake on wealth inequality in America, how much debt do you think America can hold in the lower class before another finacial crash? And if this happens what is your solution? More debt?
#15067624
Sivad wrote:The Muslims will never have any real power.

Isn't that what Iranian leftists thought when they overthrew the Shah?
#15067625
foxdemon wrote:By your logic it is OK if Serbs and Croats slaughter each other. Because, you know, history. And it is OK by your logic that Tutsis and Hutus slaughter each other. Because, you know, history. And the Koreans and Japanese can slaughter each other. Because history.

I think you need to spend some time critically reevaluating your ethno-revanchist beliefs. It is that way of thinking that historically (dare I use that term) has led to racist prejudice and genocide.

History is no excuse for hating a particular ethnic group.


So at what point did the US become post-racial? The Civil War? Civil Rights? Eddie Murphy? :lol:

It's amazing how religiously fanatical white Americans are about denying what they did to the blacks and natives. Again, America isn't exempt from history.
#15067631
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

Money, private property, debt, et cetera, as we know them came about during 5e modern era and were specifically created as a reaction to previous economic paradigms.

Private property exists because before that, the king was allowed to take anyone’s property at any time for any reason.

Money exists because it evolved out of IOUs. A ten dollar bill used to be just a piece of paper whose only worth was that you could go to the bank and trade it in for ten dollars worth of gold.

These are no more innate than conjugating French verbs is.

That is your personal belief system, so you cannot say "we know", you should say "I believe".

Incidentally even Chomsky recognised that grammar was innate, so your analogy does not work for you. The specific sounds used to signal various states of grammar are very variable but the specific states of meaning to which the arbitrary sounds represent such as "performed in the past", "possessed by", "performed by a female", etc are in fact wired in and innate. Read Stephen Pinker's The Language Instinct for a more modern look at innate human concepts of language.
Last edited by SolarCross on 16 Feb 2020 17:50, edited 1 time in total.
#15067635
B0ycey wrote:
It isn't really an idea to solve problems but a form of social evolution. Looking only into recent history and you can see Dialectical Materialism has merits. But whether you accept the principle or not, from your posts, especially the one of the cake on wealth inequality in America, how much debt do you think America can hold in the lower class before another finacial crash? And if this happens what is your solution? More debt?



https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_1?crid=362SFTJG25REI&keywords=stiglitz+price+of+inequality&qid=1581873587&sprefix=stiglitz%2Caps%2C160&sr=8-1
#15067655
SolarCross wrote:That is your personal belief system, so you cannot say "we know", you should say "I believe".


No. Anyone who has studied the Baroque era and the rise of capitalism (from mercantilism and feudalism) knows this.

These are historical facts.

Incidentally even Chomsky recognised that grammar was innate, so your analogy does not work for you. The specific sounds used to signal various states of grammar are very variable but the specific states of meaning to which the arbitrary sounds represent such as "performed in the past", "possessed by", "performed by a female", etc are in fact wired in and innate. Read Stephen Pinker's The Language Instinct for a more modern look at innate human concepts of language.


No, we have found people with language that is not recursive, making Chomsky’s theories either incorrect or limited.

But even if language is innate, the specific forms of conjugated verbs in French are not.
#15067680
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Anyone who has studied the Baroque era and the rise of capitalism (from mercantilism and feudalism) knows this.

These are historical facts.

You did not give any facts only your incorrect personal beliefs.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, we have found people with language that is not recursive, making Chomsky’s theories either incorrect or limited.

But even if language is innate, the specific forms of conjugated verbs in French are not.

That claim apparently is controversial and literally only one tribe allegedly lacks this.. Moreover the absence of an ability in only one tribe in no way refutes the reality of an innate facility for language because humans are not clones of each other. Genetic variation allows for variation in phenotypic behaviour since the latter follows the former. Your claim is as ridiculous as claiming that humans do not have on innate capacity for processing visual information because of that one guy who was born with no eyes. Once again humans are not clones of each other unlike your ant friends.

The specific forms of money are: gold, silver, bitcoin, tobacco, favours, IOUs, paper bills decorated with national symbols, paper bills not decorated with national symbols, etc. Different people value them differently according to their circumstances but excepting the profoundly autistic everyone understands innately the mechanism of trading of value for value and tracking value which is the function that money fulfils.

So "re-education" will not work, sorry. Better learn genetic engineering instead.
#15067683
You can’t fix what ain’t broken. The white working class is the front line of the Yakubian beast. The sword and the shield. It’s a feature not a bug
#15067740
SolarCross wrote:You did not give any facts only your incorrect personal beliefs.


Nope. All of this is a matter of historical record.

That claim apparently is controversial and literally only one tribe allegedly lacks this.. Moreover the absence of an ability in only one tribe in no way refutes the reality of an innate facility for language because humans are not clones of each other. Genetic variation allows for variation in phenotypic behaviour since the latter follows the former. Your claim is as ridiculous as claiming that humans do not have on innate capacity for processing visual information because of that one guy who was born with no eyes. Once again humans are not clones of each other unlike your ant friends.

The specific forms of money are: gold, silver, bitcoin, tobacco, favours, IOUs, paper bills decorated with national symbols, paper bills not decorated with national symbols, etc. Different people value them differently according to their circumstances but excepting the profoundly autistic everyone understands innately the mechanism of trading of value for value and tracking value which is the function that money fulfils.

So "re-education" will not work, sorry. Better learn genetic engineering instead.


And you cannot refute any if the historical facts I mentioned.

Let me know if you actually want to discuss them.

Also, do you know when paper money first was used in the Anglosphere? And how did they get it to work?

When was the king no longer allowed to seize property arbitrarily?
#15067781
Donna wrote:So at what point did the US become post-racial? The Civil War? Civil Rights? Eddie Murphy? :lol:

It's amazing how religiously fanatical white Americans are about denying what they did to the blacks and natives. Again, America isn't exempt from history.



Another example of communal strife was the Wars of the Reformation. Catholic and Protestant factions waged war on each other until everyone lived in poverty and fear together. From this miserable situation, the idea of tolerance was born. It isn’t necessary to like one’s neighbours, but it is necessary to be able to cooperate with them.


See, you need to understand that it is not white Americans who are the problem. It is you who are the problem. What do you want white Americans to do? Die under the heal of your jackboot? You are creating tomorrow’s history and your attitudes, being the same as the worst who you blame, will be tomorrow’s historical wrongs.
#15067794
Pants-of-dog wrote:Nope. All of this is a matter of historical record.

No it is not. If you want to find people with no concept of money, private property or debt then you have to go back to hunter-gatherers. Even then you are mostly relying on a lack of information about how they lived rather than proof of how they lived because for Europeans that was more than thousands of years ago and hunter gatherer lifestyle does not leave much for archaeologists and nothing for historians (farming first appeared in Europe in neolithic times about 9500 years ago).

The hunter gatherers alive today like the Papua New Guinea Highlanders still understand trading objects of value (money), private property because although they do not build they are at least territorial (this land is ours, that land is yours) and they track reciprocity in favour exchanges (the basis for the concept of debt and lending).

Honestly I think your problem with us humans (apparently all of us) is that we are not ants. You are suffering from species dysphoria. The good news is though that genetic engineering is coming on in leaps and bounds so maybe (human) technology can one day help you transition to your true identity. I will cross my fingers for you (humans have fingers, I know its weird to you).
Last edited by SolarCross on 17 Feb 2020 15:38, edited 1 time in total.
#15067815
Pants-of-dog wrote:
When was the king no longer allowed to seize property arbitrarily?



Do you mean the Magna Carta?

I've been thinking about talking about the history of law, but if I can avoid it, I'd prefer it.

People that are aware of the importance of the Rule of Law don't need persuading, and the Right doesn't give a shit.
#15067823
late wrote:Do you mean the Magna Carta?

I've been thinking about talking about the history of law, but if I can avoid it, I'd prefer it.

People that are aware of the importance of the Rule of Law don't need persuading, and the Right doesn't give a shit.

No, he means Stalin. All governors steal / tax. That simple fact hardly means we are all secretly communist though, which is what POD believes.
#15067825
SolarCross wrote:No it is not. If want to find people with no concept of money, private property or debt then you have to go back to hunter-gatherers. Even then you are mostly relying on a lack of information about how they lived rather than proof of how they lived because for Europeans that was more than thousands of years ago and hunter gatherer lifestyle does not leave much for archaeologists and nothing for historians (farming first appeared in Europe in neolithic times about 9500 years ago).

The hunter gatherers alive today like the Papua New Guinea Highlanders still understand trading objects of value (money), private property because although they do not build they are at least territorial (this land is ours, that land is yours) and they track reciprocity in favour exchanges (the basis for the concept of debt and lending).


And now you are shifting the goalposts.

The modern concept of money started in the 1600s or 1700s. Early forms of paper money were private bills of credit that could be exchanged for gold. After a while, the papers themselves were treated as currency.

The modern concept of private property occurred around the same time. Before that, there was no legal method of keeping the royalty from arbitrary seizure of assets.

The history of money is actually quite interesting.

But if you want to pretend that all these things are the same, please note that Cuba has money and private property and debt. By your definition, they are also capitalist?

——————-


Back on topic:

The white working class in the USA has always benefited from the racism directed at the black, indigenous, and Hispanic working class. This is still true today. And it is this perceived benefit that divides the working class and keeps it from developing a class consciousness.
#15067833
Pants-of-dog wrote:And now you are shifting the goalposts.

The modern concept of money started in the 1600s or 1700s. Early forms of paper money were private bills of credit that could be exchanged for gold. After a while, the papers themselves were treated as currency.

No, there is no "modern concept of money" there is just money and we were talking about money so it is you who is moving the goal posts. Take a break from lying will you?
Pants-of-dog wrote:The modern concept of private property occurred around the same time. Before that, there was no legal method of keeping the royalty from arbitrary seizure of assets.

This is also completely ahistorical.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The history of money is actually quite interesting.

Commie history is not real history. You are pretending be fascinated with a narrative that is 100% fake.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But if you want to pretend that all these things are the same, please note that Cuba has money and private property and debt. By your definition, they are also capitalist?

We were not defining capitalism. We were talking about whether money, private property and debt was intrinsic to human nature (my claim) or an arbitrary fad cooked up by the (((capitalists))) to defile the natural communist purity of the gentiles (your claim).

Cuba has a government that is plagued by an ideology which is absolutely hostile to normal human practices such as money, private property and debt. If in practice they still endure such practices (your claim) despite being a full blown terror state then that rather supports my claim that such practices are intrinsic to human nature. The Cuba government has had nearly 70 years to re-educate all that (((capitalism))) out of people and yet they have, by your own admission, completely failed to do so. So that point is my win. 8)
#15067835
SolarCross wrote:No, there is no "modern concept of money" there is just money and we were talking about money so it is you who is moving the goal posts. Take a break from lying will you?

This is also completely ahistorical.

Commie history is not real history. You are pretending be fascinated with a narrative that is 100% fake.

We were not defining capitalism. We were talking about whether money, private property and debt was intrinsic to human nature (my claim) or an arbitrary fad cooked up by the (((capitalists))) to defile the natural communist purity of the gentiles (your claim).


Money, private property, and debt as you know them are not intrinsic to human nature.

I have provided historical facts. You can keep ignoring them, or not.

Cuba has a government that is plagued by an ideology which is absolutely hostile to normal human practices such as money, private property and debt. If in practice they still endure such practices (your claim) despite being a full blown terror state then that rather supports my claim that such practices are intrinsic to human nature. The Cuba government has had nearly 70 years to re-educate all that (((capitalism))) out of people and yet they have, by your own admission, completely failed to do so. So that point is my win. 8)


No. The way money, private property and debt work in Cuba is different from how you know it.

These differences show that the way money, private property and debt exist are different from culture to culture. And so, they cannot be intrinsic.

—————————

I gyess you agree that the white working class benefits from racism.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

So the WP data shows 14 unarmed black people sho[…]

My positive thing is about North African culture[…]

So when an actor playing a mom on TV says, "[…]

Election 2020

Even if Biden "copies" Trump's policies[…]