[Hellas me ponas]

Agreed.
But my whole argument is that America wasn't supposed tobe the same as*whatever country*
Because the way America has become, I don't see why you mutinied from the British in first place? Was it truly because you believe in freedom equality and democracy or you just pretenders like us Europeans?

[ckaihatsu]

Agreed.
But my whole argument is that America wasn't supposed tobe the same as*whatever country*
Because the way America has become, I don't see why you mutinied from the British in first place? Was it truly because you believe in freedom equality and democracy or you just pretenders like us Europeans?

You're referring to a period in history of *bourgeois revolutions* when Europe had to formalize the change in *internal* (intra-national) power relations from the economic rise of the merchants, over the monarchies, that started around 1100. Think English Revolution, American Revolution, French Revolution, and later the Russian Revolution (February).

The widespread calls -- the political extension of European Enlightenment scientific thinking -- for *rights* were historically-progressive relative to the monarchies and aristocracies that typically ruled each country according to the 'divine right of kings', and who made their riches from the exploitation of serfs (slaves) on feudal agricultural estates.

I created a social *taxonomy*, by scale, of how impactful / deterministic various 'levels' of society are, over historical time. One can use it as a framework and just throw specifics onto the 'shelves', to identify relative factors for any given historical period.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show

History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show

[Hellas me ponas]

@ckaihatsu
Brother I'm a stupid dude and I didn't understand how all these answer my question? Explain if you have the kindness please

[ckaihatsu]

Agreed.
But my whole argument is that America wasn't supposed tobe the same as*whatever country*
Because the way America has become, I don't see why you mutinied from the British in first place? Was it truly because you believe in freedom equality and democracy or you just pretenders like us Europeans?

@ckaihatsu
Brother I'm a stupid dude and I didn't understand how all these answer my question? Explain if you have the kindness please

I've found the dimension of *scale* to be critical in any examination of history.

So you, me, any people *nearby* to you, or me, or anyone else -- this is all *small scale*. You're, unfortunately, using *interpersonal* qualities (small-scale), in an attempt to describe *historical transformations*, like that of the American Revolution, verus the British Empire.

Now if you're speaking *politically*, with the bourgeois-revolution 'rights' of freedom, equality, and democracy, then that's a *different story*. The political movement, the American Revolution, was more than just some casual interpersonal chit-chat -- it was about independence from England, and local rule instead of remaining a colony of the British Empire.

So I'd suggest keeping in mind that any period of history can be examined [1] politically, and [2] economically. There's also the term 'base and superstructure' which roughly means about the same thing.

I'd suggest starting with the following entry, and then exploring the links from that page:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_revolution

[Hellas me ponas]

Well I know these.
But this isn't about real politics and economics.
This is about small scale interpersonal ideas and beliefs.
American revolution never happened because Americans wanted "freedom and equality". But they had to sell to the masses soemthing they can fight for and because elitistic interests don't sound so good for the many, freedom and equality play this role.
So again, an average, normal American, his whole identity consists of fighting against absolutism and racism and inequality. Thus how come does his mind get to be racist and claim he is American at the same time?

[ckaihatsu]

Well I know these.
But this isn't about real politics and economics.
This is about small scale interpersonal ideas and beliefs.
American revolution never happened because Americans wanted "freedom and equality". But they had to sell to the masses soemthing they can fight for and because elitistic interests don't sound so good for the many, freedom and equality play this role.

You're missing-out on the historical *context*, though -- the American-*nationalist* sentiments of 'freedom' and 'equality' were *real*, relative to the British Empire's monarch and the feudalist social hierarchy defined by the monarch at the apex of the social pyramid.

Sure, *class* relations still existed into the new nation of the U.S., and they still exist today, meaning that 'freedom' and 'equality' aren't *absolutes*, but they *do* make sense in relation to what preceded the American bourgeois revolution, which was *feudalism*.

I'll readily agree that we *don't* have freedom or equality today, nor in 1776, due to the persistence of the class division in society. (See my diagrams.)

So again, an average, normal American, his whole identity consists of fighting against absolutism and racism and inequality. Thus how come does his mind get to be racist and claim he is American at the same time?

Again I'd say that you're ignoring *class relations* -- society is not homogenous and 'pure', as you're assuming it to be. There are *wealthy* Americans, and there are *lower status* Americans, due to having to work, family responsibilities, financial stresses, uncertainty, ill health, lack of social connections, bad habits, out-group identities, etc.

Sure, bourgeois-type social sentiments like anti-absolutism, anti-racism, anti-inequality are fine and valid today, but they're also *old* and outdated. Since the development of *industrial implements* the question in society is that of *who controls production*, and not-so-much *social politics*, though that continues to fester due to the *production* question (class) remaining unresolved, similar to the period of 1100-1776 (approximately) for the merchants, against feudalism.

The U.S. has a *history* of racism from the very beginning, with slavery, so I don't see how you can blithely *dichotomize* the nation and the social ill of racism, in any way.

[Hellas me ponas]

@ckaihatsu Dude, you're making so many assumption out of just few of my words

No I am not ignoring anything. If you want to talk about this historically I'm in, if you want to discuss the economical effects and changes this Brough to the new world, then again I'm in!

But this question I possed first of all doesn't have historical or political or socioeconomical answer its about the spirit and notion of America.
All I said is, the spirit and idea of American existence is freedom, equality and liberty. The current events, show nothing more about America than that people there have forgotten their origins and their history.
It can't be that racism, xenophobia and absolutism define the words American patriot nowadays. It's just absurd!

[ckaihatsu]

Dude, you're making so many assumption out of just few of my words

No I am not ignoring anything. If you want to talk about this historically I'm in, if you want to discuss the economical effects and changes this Brough to the new world, then again I'm in!

But this question I possed first of all doesn't have historical or political or socioeconomical answer its about the spirit and notion of America.
All I said is, the spirit and idea of American existence is freedom, equality and liberty. The current events, show nothing more about America than that people there have forgotten their origins and their history.
It can't be that racism, xenophobia and absolutism define the words American patriot nowadays. It's just absurd!

You're sounding exactly like a libertarian.

I don't see how you can ignore the *historical context* around any given historical event, like 1776.

The American Revolution was one of at least *four* distinct bourgeois revolutions, in the same general era, and for the same material / developmental reasons.

Sure, you can point to some socio-political founding *ideas*, but they *weren't unique* to the U.S. -- 'freedom, equality, and liberty' were common to the English, American, French, and Russian (February) Revolutions.

Your insistence on a *positivist* approach to U.S. history ignores how the nation was actually built, on the slave labor of forcibly seized Africans, over the Middle Passage, and treated as mere *items*, like any commodity-object. You're ignoring *a lot*.

If you happen to personally feel *inspired* by the ideals of the country's founding, great, I have no quarrel with you, but you're allowing this personal sentiment to make you *gloss over* many important historical aspects / factors / dynamics of the last few centuries -- if you want to approach *history* seriously, you have some ways to go for that.

[Hellas me ponas]

@ckaihatsu

Hey bro. First of all, why do you use terms like libertarian, social classes, bourgeoisie revolution etc while I have made clear more than two times that I'm talking philosophically on this matter and not scientifically.
Second, I've told you again more than two times, I'm well aware of the history, better than you may believe apparently, but right now I'm not focusing on the historical aspect of the matter,im just focusing on the ethics of it.
It is a fact, that American militias marched to battle fighting for the ideas of liberty equality and democracy.
While nowadays, half of America votes for a president who stands for nothing of these, moreover stands for against such ideals and values.
Again brother, I'm tlaking about the spiritual/philosophical aspect of this not anything else.
I know you want to talk about and share all these nice and good information you own, but they are kind of irrelevant with what I'm saying this whole time.
I relaly appreciate your time and effort to answer though

[Hellas me ponas]

And yes of course it's just a pretending because while writing the declaration Thomas had around 50 slaves in his owning.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu

Hey bro. First of all, why do you use terms like libertarian, social classes, bourgeoisie revolution etc while I have made clear more than two times that I'm talking philosophically on this matter and not scientifically.

These two approaches are *not* mutually antagonistic, as you're positing.

You may want to use the term 'political philosophy' here -- which itself has overarching *historical* causes and is not particular to any one specific person.

Second, I've told you again more than two times, I'm well aware of the history, better than you may believe apparently, but right now I'm not focusing on the historical aspect of the matter,im just focusing on the ethics of it.
It is a fact, that American militias marched to battle fighting for the ideas of liberty equality and democracy.
While nowadays, half of America votes for a president who stands for nothing of these, moreover stands for against such ideals and values.

Well, there's a historical-material *reason* for this, but you sound like you'd rather not hear it.


Spoiler:

Spoiler: show

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall

---

Again brother, I'm tlaking about the spiritual/philosophical aspect of this not anything else.
I know you want to talk about and share all these nice and good information you own, but they are kind of irrelevant with what I'm saying this whole time.
I relaly appreciate your time and effort to answer though

Okay, well, you're only *mentioning* a category here, that of 'spiritual/philosophical aspect', but you're not putting forth any kind of *position*, or *thesis*, within that category.

And yes of course it's just a pretending because while writing the declaration Thomas had around 50 slaves in his owning.

From this it sounds like you're trying to reconcile specific individuals with the *political philosophies* that they espouse, as with Thomas Jefferson.

I'll take this opportunity to point out that these factors of slave-ownership ('economics'), and Enlightenment ideals ('politics'), take place at *different scales*. I don't think we should generally expect *anyone* to perfectly *embody* the political ideals that they espouse, because that would be 'lifestylism', which is *irrelevant* to politics (a person's own personal lifestyle typically has zero political impact). In Jefferson's case in particular, that's simply how civilization *worked* -- on the basis of slave labor, in the same way that we use *electricity* today.

That's not to apologize for slavery or defend it in any way, of course, but that's how things were then for the gentry. Oscar Wilde speaks to this dynamic in an essay of his:

The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends. And when scientific men are no longer called upon to go down to a depressing East End and distribute bad cocoa and worse blankets to starving people, they will have delightful leisure in which to devise wonderful and marvellous things for their own joy and the joy of everyone else. There will be great storages of force for every city, and for every house if required, and this force man will convert into heat, light, or motion, according to his needs. Is this Utopian? A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/

[Hindsite]

There are still some dipshits kluxxing around at retard rallies.

However, the KKK are racists against Blacks and not racists against Jews as were the Nazis.

[Donna]

However, the KKK are racists against Blacks and not racists against Jews as were the Nazis.

[ckaihatsu]

What if we treated Confederate symbols the way we treated the defeated Nazis?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ated-nazis

[Dimetrodon]

Reform is a must, but abolition of the police is an insane position, change my mind.

[Godstud]

For the people out there who mistakenly, on a regular basis make the mistake of thinking 'Defund the police" means "Abolish the police".

Defund the police means:
“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality. That’s it. It’s that simple. Defund does not mean abolish policing. And, even some who say abolish, do not necessarily mean to do away with law enforcement altogether. Rather, they want to see the rotten trees of policing chopped down and fresh roots replanted anew."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 ... ave-merit/

[Dimetrodon]

For the people out there who mistakenly, on a regular basis make the mistake of thinking 'Defund the police" means "Abolish the police".

Defund the police means:
“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality. That’s it. It’s that simple. Defund does not mean abolish policing. And, even some who say abolish, do not necessarily mean to do away with law enforcement altogether. Rather, they want to see the rotten trees of policing chopped down and fresh roots replanted anew."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 ... ave-merit/

I've read things like this before, but I recall reading that in the Minneapolis situation, they wanted to disband the entire department.

[Godstud]

Of course, there are going to be some whacko extremists who think like that, but the vast majority of people realize that you cannot abolish the police, and realize that defunding the police doesn't mean that.

Calgary police, in Canada, are already taking steps:

Calgary Police Service to begin anti-racism work, reallocate funds
“It’s time to stand in solidarity with our Black, Indigenous and people of color — colleagues, families and citizens, to acknowledge and condemn systemic racism in all our institutions and to back up these statements to go beyond mere words with meaningful action and reforms,” Croft told council Thursday.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7327070/calg ... ing-funds/

[Dimetrodon]

:roll: Of course, there are going to be some whacko extremists who think like that...

And those were the only people I was going after in my initial post. People who define "defunding" as complete abolition or complete disbanding of the departments.

[Godstud]

@Random American As long as we understand that the vast amjority of people don't consider it abolition, then we are probably in agreement.


Police have a role. We just need to limit that role, greatly, and make sure they are trained for it.