Should america balkanize and each community to run their ethno-state or political enclave/state? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Break up america into independent ethnostates/political states?

Yes
6
35%
No
8
47%
I don't know.
3
18%
#15105443
Julian658 wrote:
I agree, but there are differences. The NAZIS were contemporaneous.



What the hell does *this* have to do with anything?


Julian658 wrote:
BTW, I think all confederate monuments should be moved to a museum, not destroyed.



Can we agree on that being a *shitty*, *filthy*, underfunded museum?


Julian658 wrote:
As for NAZI symbols---------just go to the Holocaust museum and find the NAZI paraphernalia used on the Jews, the blue eyes charts, measurements, etc. History needs to be preserved. (even if evil).

This cannot be stated with more force. Once all confederate monuments are gone the poor uneducated black citizens will remain the same. Losing sleep over Columbus who has been dead for over five centuries solves nothing.



It solves the problem of racist personages being on public display.

Also we're not living in the *1800s* anymore -- you're using a racist stereotype here. Plenty of black people / people of color are *educated*, normal, and are a part of regular society today.


Julian658 wrote:
In fact, it requires psychiatric treatment.



Why are you attacking those who are doing the activism to *get rid of* racist statues?
#15105449
ckaihatsu wrote:
Can we agree on that being a *shitty*, *filthy*, underfunded museum?


I have no horse in this race. As a LAtin America with no southern roots the confederate statues mean nothing to me. If they need to be destroyed, that is OK with me. However, I am disappointed with the destruction of Columbus. The guy had nothing to do with slavery. If they are going after Columbus then they need to go after the entire Democratic Party. I also suspect that they will go after the Big THree in DC, they may even change the name of DC. Most normal people are fine with the demolition of statues of confederate generals. However, if they go too far all they will do is increase racism and create more racial division.



It solves the problem of racist personages being on public display.


OK, see above.

Also we're not living in the *1800s* anymore -- you're using a racist stereotype here. Plenty of black people / people of color are *educated*, normal, and are a part of regular society today.


You are correct, the black middle and upper class is gigantic and the most wealthy in the world. It is always a good idea to accentuate the positive.

Why are you attacking those who are doing the activism to *get rid of* racist statues?


I see it as a temper tantrum that avoids dealing with other more important issues. The demolition of the statues should be the LAST step in ending racism. There are plenty of bigger fish to catch. But, it is OK as long as it only involves the confederate monuments. Washington was not a perfect man, but at the end of the day he is the father of his country.
#15105452
ckaihatsu wrote:I'm also pointing out your *hypocrisy* / double-standards, because you're *fine* with a federal level of organization for *rightist* causes, like national security and monetary policy, but you want balkanization for *leftist* causes like civil rights enforcement and social services spending.

National security and the economy aren't rightwing causes. They exist under any system of government and are always necessary.

The reason to join federally for national security and economics like trade is because if states act as a large bloc they'll have more power vis a vis other states, which is in the interests of everybody. But hey if you want a socialist state for yourself go for it. The whole point of self-determination is that the people who live there make the rules. If you don't want federalized national security ok fine, you'll just get your butt whooped by China etc. Why are u making this into a right or left issue? Who cares.
#15105454
Julian658 wrote:
I have no horse in this race. As a LAtin America with no southern roots the confederate statues mean nothing to me. If they need to be destroyed, that is OK with me. However, I am disappointed with the destruction of Columbus. The guy had nothing to do with slavery. If they are going after Columbus then they need to go after the entire Democratic Party. I also suspect that they will go after the Big THree in DC, they may even change the name of DC. Most normal people are fine with the demolition of statues of confederate generals. However, if they go too far all they will do is increase racism and create more racial division.



You seem to think that racism + anti-racism = more racism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It solves the problem of racist personages being on public display.



Julian658 wrote:
OK, see above.




Julian658 wrote:
You are correct, the black middle and upper class is gigantic and the most wealthy in the world. It is always a good idea to accentuate the positive.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why are you attacking those who are doing the activism to *get rid of* racist statues?



Julian658 wrote:
I see it as a temper tantrum that avoids dealing with other more important issues. The demolition of the statues should be the LAST step in ending racism. There are plenty of bigger fish to catch.



Like what?


Julian658 wrote:
But, it is OK as long as it only involves the confederate monuments. Washington was not a perfect man, but at the end of the day he is the father of his country.



Well, there's a whole line about this from the WSWS:


Hands off the monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant!

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... s-j22.html


And I happened to have just addressed this topic, at another thread:


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



ckaihatsu wrote:
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/



viewtopic.php?p=15104750#p15104750



---


I agree that the American Revolution was in-line with European Enlightenment ideals, even if the founders themselves were using slaves.
#15105481
ckaihatsu wrote:You seem to think that racism + anti-racism = more racism.


Anti-racism is just and should be applied when possible. However, post racism PTSD may not be beneficial in that the PTSD causes people to see racism where there is none or they may use racism to explain away everything negative about where they are. Furthermore, yelling racism where there is none is detrimental to the cause of ending racism. I am fully aware that some may say it is racist to question excessive anti-racism as detrimental, but in a sense they are making my point by the critique.

I don't expect you to see the video, but just know that some black folks are starting to see anti-racism as a religion.



Well, there's a whole line about this from the WSWS:


Hands off the monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant!

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... s-j22.html


And I happened to have just addressed this topic, at another thread:



Thanks for the URL.
The problem I see with the anti-racist movement is another 'ISM".

Pres·ent·ism
An uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

An attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experiences.

Presentism | Definition of Presentism by Merriam-Websterwww.merriam-webster.com

A large component of the anti-racist movement is to constantly relive the past. It is OK to explain the effects of the past event into the present. However, it is not Ok to beat up white people or to embrace the noble victim status. The past should be analyzed academically so we can learn from it.

Aristotle thought women were only good for sex and procreation. That does not negate the greatness of Aristotle. Jefferson and Washington were creatures of another era and made errors, however they are the pillars of America. I would assume a well educated person would accept that and move on------unless the amygdala in the limbic system takes over due to racial PTSD.

As for Lincoln: His intentions were likely to be much more complex than compassion for slaves. I suspect that he was a man of that era even if he did not own slaves. Nevertheless, he ended slavery.

I do not like the emancipation statue with the slave kneeling. I understand the statue was solely paid funds from ex-slaves. This brings another subject of racism: The concept of insecurity. I can see why that statue would bother someone that is a bit insecure. OTOH, a person with great self esteem would acknowledge the statue without suffering any anguish. With regards to that statue I would simply remodel it to show the slave standing up next to Lincoln.


I agree that the American Revolution was in-line with European Enlightenment ideals, even if the founders themselves were using slaves.


America was founded by Englishmen and the English at one time owned 33% of the world. BTW, the English also looked down on the Scotts and the Irish. They made fun of their culture and accent.
#15105487
Julian658 wrote:
Anti-racism is just and should be applied when possible. However, post racism PTSD may not be beneficial in that the PTSD causes people to see racism where there is none or they may use racism to explain away everything negative about where they are. Furthermore, yelling racism where there is none is detrimental to the cause of ending racism. I am fully aware that some may say it is racist to question excessive anti-racism as detrimental, but in a sense they are making my point by the critique.

I don't expect you to see the video, but just know that some black folks are starting to see anti-racism as a religion.
hGJbrLs_8_0&t=1s



I *really* don't see any need for a purported 'even-handedness' on the issue of (institutional) racism, because the racism demonstrably *exists* -- it's *killer cops*, foremostly.

How about let's *get rid* of racism *first*, and then we can do all that other philosophizing stuff and touchy-feely stuff *after*.


Julian658 wrote:
Thanks for the URL.
The problem I see with the anti-racist movement is another 'ISM".



What does that *mean*? What do *you* mean? I've heard that phrase before, and it just sounds too casually *dismissive*.


Julian658 wrote:
Pres·ent·ism
An uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

An attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experiences.

Presentism | Definition of Presentism by Merriam-Websterwww.merriam-webster.com


Julian658 wrote:
A large component of the anti-racist movement is to constantly relive the past. It is OK to explain the effects of the past event into the present. However, it is not Ok to beat up white people or to embrace the noble victim status. The past should be analyzed academically so we can learn from it.



You may choose to be critical of the *social scene* around the politics of anti-racism, but then that's no longer really being *political* -- you're then a *social critic* of some kind, and maybe you want to sell your written observations to the New Yorker, or something.

If you stick to the *politics* of the matter then you won't be blurring any lines, and you won't have any confusion over your social-scene role -- this, incidentally, is how I do my own participation. I tend to *compartmentalize* according to these three categories, by scale:


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

Spoiler: show
Image



By the same reasoning you're *correct* -- that 'lifestyle', or, more broadly, the context of on-the-ground interpersonal *civil society*, is not usually explicitly political, so beating up a random white person wouldn't typically be commonly seen as 'political', and so it's not, and shouldn't be done, because it would more normally be seen as *criminal*, especially to the victim. (At a fascist rally, it's a different story, due to the explicitly *political* context.)

I'll just add, as a sidenote, that an 'academic' analysis isn't necessarily the *correct* one, because it tends to be somewhat *privileged* in nature, and *liberal* / reformist on the political spectrum. As a revolutionary I'd say that the *class* analysis matters most since it's the most deterministic social dynamic throughout all of human social history, and is at the very *top* of my 'history' taxonomy graphic above.


Julian658 wrote:
Aristotle thought women were only good for sex and procreation. That does not negate the greatness of Aristotle. Jefferson and Washington were creatures of another era and made errors, however they are the pillars of America. I would assume a well educated person would accept that and move on------unless the amygdala in the limbic system takes over due to racial PTSD.

As for Lincoln: His intentions were likely to be much more complex than compassion for slaves. I suspect that he was a man of that era even if he did not own slaves. Nevertheless, he ended slavery.

I do not like the emancipation statue with the slave kneeling. I understand the statue was solely paid funds from ex-slaves. This brings another subject of racism: The concept of insecurity. I can see why that statue would bother someone that is a bit insecure. OTOH, a person with great self esteem would acknowledge the statue without suffering any anguish. With regards to that statue I would simply remodel it to show the slave standing up next to Lincoln.



Or maybe a statue of a full-blast *slave rebellion* of several people....


Julian658 wrote:
America was founded by Englishmen and the English at one time owned 33% of the world. BTW, the English also looked down on the Scotts and the Irish. They made fun of their culture and accent.



Yup.
#15105489
ckaihatsu wrote:I don't think you understand that so-called 'free trade' pacts actually favor the *developed*, hegemonic, *imperialist* national power -- smaller, newer, develop-*ing* countries have typically used protectionist trade *tariffs* as economic insulation to prevent the larger powers from dumping cheap foreign goods into their economy while they're still trying to develop and grow domestically.


Sure, I didn't expect an ML to agree with free trade, I was just explaining the rationale behind my ideology.
#15105491
Local Localist wrote:
Sure, I didn't expect an ML to agree with free trade, I was just explaining the rationale behind my ideology.



I'm actually *not* a Stalinist, I'm for workers-of-the-world socialism, and then communism.

But aren't you concerned at all about the *veracity* of your statements? You just acknowledged that your previous statement is in error -- that it's the *hegemonic*, imperialist countries that benefit most from 'free trade' pacts, by exploiting unprotected markets in lesser, *developing* countries.



Summary

In his Prefaces, Lenin states that the First World War (1914–1918) was "an annexationist, predatory, plunderous war"[2] among empires, whose historical and economic background must be studied "to understand and appraise modern war and modern politics".[3]

In order for capitalism to generate greater profits than the home market can yield, the merging of banks and industrial cartels produces finance capitalism and the exportation and investment of capital to countries with underdeveloped economies is required. In turn, such financial behaviour leads to the division of the world among monopolist business companies and the great powers. Moreover, in the course of colonizing undeveloped countries, business and government eventually will engage in geopolitical conflict over the economic exploitation of large portions of the geographic world and its populaces. Therefore, imperialism is the highest (advanced) stage of capitalism, requiring monopolies (of labour and natural-resource exploitation) and the exportation of finance capital (rather than goods) to sustain colonialism, which is an integral function of said economic model.[4][5] Furthermore, in the capitalist homeland, the super-profits yielded by the colonial exploitation of a people and their economy permit businessmen to bribe native politicians, labour leaders and the labour aristocracy (upper stratum of the working class) to politically thwart worker revolt (labour strike).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperiali ... Capitalism



---


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image
#15105494
ckaihatsu wrote:I'm actually *not* a Stalinist, I'm for workers-of-the-world socialism, and then communism.

But aren't you concerned at all about the *veracity* of your statements? You just acknowledged that your previous statement is in error -- that it's the *hegemonic*, imperialist countries that benefit most from 'free trade' pacts, by exploiting unprotected markets in lesser, *developing* countries.


Did I indeed? I think I was more just trying to curb a new argument about trade. I don't believe that taxing your country's imports generates more wealth, and hence I am in favour of free trade deals between developed and developing countries.
#15105496
Local Localist wrote:
Did I indeed?



No, sorry about that, you didn't. I misread things.


Local Localist wrote:
I think I was more just trying to curb a new argument about trade. I don't believe that taxing your country's imports generates more wealth, and hence I am in favour of free trade deals between developed and developing countries.



But do you really think that such 'free trade' deals are so even-handed? You previously said:


Local Localist wrote:
Developing nations must not be stripped of their natural and human capital by developed ones, so free trade is necessary with these to ensure that their economies can develop while developed economies undergo the process of automation, have their people retrained, reduce the cost of manual labour and so on and so on.



Yet Lenin says that the *advanced*, imperialist countries enjoy *super-profits* from colonialist exploitation of developing countries and their labor markets. Stripping developing nations of their natural and human capital is *exactly* what imperialism does, through 'free trade' agreements. This colonialist exploitation *prevents* undeveloped economies *from* developing, by subjugating them economically through the use of finance capital.
#15105499
ckaihatsu wrote:Yet Lenin says that the *advanced*, imperialist countries enjoy *super-profits* from colonialist exploitation of developing countries and their labor markets. Stripping developing nations of their natural and human capital is *exactly* what imperialism does, through 'free trade' agreements. This colonialist exploitation *prevents* undeveloped economies *from* developing, by subjugating them economically through the use of finance capital.


My view is just as I said:
Local Localist wrote:free trade is necessary with these to ensure that their economies can develop while developed economies undergo the process of automation, have their people retrained, reduce the cost of manual labour and so on and so on.


The reason I am opposed to the trade policy of Donald Trump, other than the fact that I view tariffs as an unnecessary tax that don't actually do as they are purported to do, is that he's trying to reverse the process of offshoring. Why on earth should the workers of a developed society be expected to continue to produce clothes and toys and other such items, rather than allowing workers of developing countries take up the task in order to progress their economies just as the workers of developed countries did themselves, and as the workers of various Asian countries are currently doing?
#15105500
To be clear, I *do* support minimising the export of unrefined resources, however this can be done using various non-tariff barriers which are more effective than outright protectionism.
#15105506
Local Localist wrote:
My view is just as I said:


Local Localist wrote:
free trade is necessary with these to ensure that their economies can develop while developed economies undergo the process of automation, have their people retrained, reduce the cost of manual labour and so on and so on.



But you're characterizing 'free trade' as being *beneficial* to the developing country, when history has shown us quite the opposite, and you're also contradicting Lenin.

In other words why have there been modern Western *empires*, with vast wealth disparities to the countries they've colonized, if 'free trade' is so allegedly even-handed and allegedly mutually beneficial?


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

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

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


And:



The researchers Eric Toussaint and Damien Millet argue that the IMF's policies amount to a new form of colonization that does not need a military presence:

"Following the exigencies of the governments of the richest companies, the IMF, permitted countries in crisis to borrow in order to avoid default on their repayments. Caught in the debt's downward spiral, developing countries soon had no other recourse than to take on new debt in order to repay the old debt. Before providing them with new loans, at higher interest rates, future leaders asked the IMF, to intervene with the guarantee of ulterior reimbursement, asking for a signed agreement with the said countries. The IMF thus agreed to restart the flow of the 'finance pump' on condition that the concerned countries first use this money to reimburse banks and other private lenders, while restructuring their economy at the IMF's discretion: these were the famous conditionalities, detailed in the Structural Adjustment Programs. The IMF and its ultra-liberal experts took control of the borrowing countries' economic policies. A new form of colonization was thus instituted. It was not even necessary to establish an administrative or military presence; the debt alone maintained this new form of submission."[125]

International politics play an important role in IMF decision making. The clout of member states is roughly proportional to its contribution to IMF finances. The United States has the greatest number of votes and therefore wields the most influence. Domestic politics often come into play, with politicians in developing countries using conditionality to gain leverage over the opposition to influence policy.[126]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... itionality



---


Local Localist wrote:
The reason I am opposed to the trade policy of Donald Trump, other than the fact that I view tariffs as an unnecessary tax that don't actually do as they are purported to do, is that he's trying to reverse the process of offshoring. Why on earth should the workers of a developed society be expected to continue to produce clothes and toys and other such items, rather than allowing workers of developing countries take up the task in order to progress their economies just as the workers of developed countries did themselves, and as the workers of various Asian countries are currently doing?



Okay, so you're *for* international relations for trade, as between the U.S. and China, which is continuing anyway, since the respective economies are so joined-at-the-hip, regardless.


Local Localist wrote:
To be clear, I *do* support minimising the export of unrefined resources, however this can be done using various non-tariff barriers which are more effective than outright protectionism.



Can you be more specific here -- what 'non-tariff barriers', and have these measures really prevented imperialist resource-stripping to any significant degree? What about the mountains of Appalachia that have been readily strip-mined for so long?
#15105548
Black Consequense wrote:The american experiment has failed, it's clear that the races can't live together without one oppressing the other. In fact one can argue the entire american experiment was based on white supremacy(of which at that time was small club consisting of English, French.) With Kanye running for office, a dementa democrat calling Black people who see through his lies "not Black" and a /pol/tard who's IQ the same as his age in the flesh running for second term. I think it's time we should call a experiment quits.

I believe we Blacks should have the right to separate and form our own society, one that is Christian, Reactionary, Populist and Race first. Those minorities(whites or otherwise) have the right to stay and live under our rules or repatriate to their country/nation state of choice. If we're to say every ethnicity or race or nationality have the right for self-determination one that's liberty and justice for all, it's better Afro-Americans to police their own neighborhoods to leave us to our own devices.


@Black Consequense ;

By the way, are you a Marcus Garvey fan? I've always had a soft spot for him and his thought. It's a little more complex for me personally, in reaction to what you're suggesting, perhaps you could comment on what i've written in a thread in the ''Spirituality'' sub-section?
#15105554
Unthinking Majority wrote:Seems like for most people nationalism is ok, unless it's nationalism for ie: whites or jews. Which seems like it's more about power dynamics than race or nationalism.


Historically that's been the point of white nationalism and Jewish nationalism, more of power preserving of status quo supremacy over Blacks, than actual separatism. Which is why people say "it's ok to be white, or white power, white lives matter" is racist cause it's expressing white control and Black genocide.
#15105558
annatar1914 wrote:By the way, are you a Marcus Garvey fan? I've always had a soft spot for him and his thought. It's a little more complex for me personally, in reaction to what you're suggesting, perhaps you could comment on what i've written in a thread in the ''Spirituality'' sub-section?


I am a Graveyist and Black Imperialist in a way. But by all means post the link to the thread.
#15105573
ckaihatsu wrote:But you're characterizing 'free trade' as being *beneficial* to the developing country, when history has shown us quite the opposite, and you're also contradicting Lenin.

In other words why have there been modern Western *empires*, with vast wealth disparities to the countries they've colonized, if 'free trade' is so allegedly even-handed and allegedly mutually beneficial?


Well, clearly we have fundamentally different positions on this, so I don't think it's useful going any further. I don't see how you could honestly make the argument that free trade has led to the wealth disparities between the West and other parts of the world, because it has not been truly practiced until quite recently. Outsourcing jobs from developed countries to poorer countries allows those poorer countries to generate money to reinvest into its standard of living. This happened in the United States, this happened in South Korea and Taiwan, this is happening in underdeveloped areas of China and the rest of Asia now. Yes, it will take a very long time in certain places, such as the entirety of Subsaharan Africa, however I don't see how depriving workers of their ability to sell goods in wealthier markets which are beyond the point of needing to produce those goods is a better alternative.

ckaihatsu wrote:Can you be more specific here -- what 'non-tariff barriers', and have these measures really prevented imperialist resource-stripping to any significant degree? What about the mountains of Appalachia that have been readily strip-mined for so long?


Well, I might propose export quotas, or reverse tariffs, if you will, which would tax exports of particular unrefined resources to disincentivise this.
#15105587
Black Consequense wrote:
Are you @ckaihatsu a Tankie or one of those western academia succ dems, like breadtubers?



I do not tube my bread, no. (heh)

I'm not with academia, and I don't know what a 'succ dem' is, but I'm not a Democrat or Republican.

I just mentioned earlier that, no, I'm not a tankie:


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm actually *not* a Stalinist, I'm for workers-of-the-world socialism, and then communism.



viewtopic.php?p=15105491#p15105491

Thank you Crantag for replying. Not in order. As I[…]

Trump digs his political grave

Worse people? Sure. Worse people that are this in[…]

We are getting rid of the name Redskins now anyway[…]

Turnout data also suggests that Trump will win thi[…]