We communists must destroy racism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Ixa
#8604
Race is a fact of nature. Racism, however, is a capitalist creation. It is profitable to the capitalist devils because it keeps the proletariat disunited, and thus conduces to keeping them in power. To unite, and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat (a sacred thing), we must eliminate racism, we must eliminate differences, we must be equals, we must be the same, we must not have diversity, rather like those most admirable creatures which I like to call "Little Jesuses", i.e. ants. But we are not the same! and, unless we do something about it, we will have this disease called diversity invariably! Consequently, there are only three options: we must mix every race together, to be equal; we must separate each race, and permit each race to have the human right of self-determination, a human right of which great comrade Stalin himself approved; or we must destroy all but once race. But who wants to do the the last option. Not many people. What, then, is the best option? What must we do to destroy racism (and the capitalist devils therewith)?
By ahab
#8615
I think racism would be destroyed before capitalism. Yes there are a few capitalists who encourage racism (Henry Ford for one) but they are few and far between, I can't name one right now. Saying that capitalism as a whole encourages it is a big step. Give it time, eventually there will be enough mixing of the races that there won't be much difference between everone's race. Might be 300 years, but it will probably happen.

actually... looking at the animal world there are examples of racism there (sheep for one) it isn't a human creation
By Ixa
#8620
ahab wrote:I think racism would be destroyed before capitalism. Yes there are a few capitalists who encourage racism (Henry Ford for one) but they are few and far between, I can't name one right now. Saying that capitalism as a whole encourages it is a big step. Give it time, eventually there will be enough mixing of the races that there won't be much difference between everone's race. Might be 300 years, but it will probably happen.

actually... looking at the animal world there are examples of racism there (sheep for one) it isn't a human creation


The thought of mixing all races together, whether intentionally or unintentionally, disgusts me more than anything else -- and I am not a racist; I am a proud Communist. However, I am also proud of the Caucasian race. I greatly respect the Jewish race and the Mongoloid race. I do not want these highly admirable races to be destroyed by mixing the races of mankind together. Such races should never be destroyed, either by force or by cross-breeding. I believe in unity AND racial self-determination, and yet at the same time I think racism is evil, worse than canibalism.
User avatar
By Boondock Saint
#8622
Yea ... racism isnt exactly a capitalist invention ... racism is simply a form of bigotry ... something that has been prevalant in humankind for as long as we have been walking around on two legs ...

BUT!

I agree with you that racism must be done away with.

You have given three options and I shall give my opinion on the three ...

Genocide (a fitting name for one of the options given) - this just flat out doesnt work, especially in this day and age. Its just not doable without a massive war ... not to mention ... logistically speaking it would be very difficult to convince the masses of each race to participate.

Segragation - Again, the logistical complication of getting all the masses to participate would cause a massive complication. Would everyone just be booted back to their original continent? And ... what do you do with mixed race subjects? And ... what about white S. Africans who were by right born there? Or white N. Americans or for that matter black N. Americans ... this just doesnt seem possible ... who would get what land?

Race mixing - OH!! For the longest time I have been saying that we should mix every single race so that in the end all we have is a mud race. Everyone would be grey. But ... logistically speaking ... we once again have a problem ...

So, in the end my opinion is ... nature will take care of it. Mankind cannot force such a move on itself. There would be too many complications and far too many objections. Eventually (long past the time we are all dead and many generations after us and if mankind is still on this rock) man will have mixed an appropriate enough amount to sway racism.

Thats my opinion.
User avatar
By Adrien
#8625
Well, i fear that racism isn't particularly a capitalist creation, it's sadly and only human, and is in man since he appeared on earth.. Racism was just revealed when the european man met the other peoples.

However i don't think we should act brutally to put an end to it: mankind must learn by itself to go beyond that silly questions of races. If we impose equality by force, we will only reinforce the racist ideals and we will not really help the problem.

But if we can't act brutally, we can lead mankind to this true ideal of equality, by trying to destroy the groups that block this discovery: that is to say neo-nazis (that's a generalization for racist groups), prejudices in the medias, and so on. We must also show to mankind that it can live like one only big race: Mankind.
By Ixa
#8761
I hate to say this, my friends, but I think the only solution to end this problem of racism is mass liquidation. No man, no problem? Either that, or we can keep such races as the Jews, the Caucasians, and the Asiatics (which is not to say that the other races are not admirable), and separate them from the Africans and the natives of North America. Either liquidate them, or separate them from the others. Both solutions are not too good :( . I do not like either option at all. But whatever is necessary :hmm: must be done necessarily.
By Ixa
#8769
Jaakko wrote:Supernius,

You yourself have adopted a racist position when you talk about "right of races to self-determination". Stalin didn't approve such slogans, slogans that are pure racism.


No, I have not. Humans are not equal. Some races are statistically better at some things than others. To say this is not racist; it is merely a stating of facts. I do not believe that there is a superior race, but I do acknowledge the fact that there are differences which are more than skin deep: hence I believe, for the sake of efficiency and unity, in racial self-deterimation. Separate each race, and with each race thus united among themselves, each race will improve their productive efficiency ten thousand fold.

Races do exist, but they don't matter socially.


Are you saying, then, that the phenomenon of racism does not matter socially?

Races aren't some groups of people that could have some "right to self-determination".


In your (impartial) opinion.

People of different races are nothing but people looking different.

For the most part, yes, but not entirely.

When evolution led to the birth of homo sapiens, the appearing of races was nothing but the last step of evolution; superficial accommodation to different climates.


Not entirely. Different ways of hunting and surviving in different locations also resulted in different developments, both hormonal, physical -- and even psychological.

It's different than when you talk of nations. Nations are a product of society, they really have an objective social significance. Thus it is justified to defend the right of nations to self-determination. That is not nationalism, because nations have an objective historical meaning. To accept that is a prerequisite to internationalism. To say that nations are sacred or that the boundaries between nations should be conserved forever, would be nationalism.


Generally, you are correct; however, I do believe that some nations are sacred, and that this sacredness, on the contrary, is a prerequisite to internationalism -- which is merely, in my perspective, the expansionism of a superior nation.

You are saying that races had objective significance, not just that created artificially or by prejudices. You say how you "respect" this or that race, like they were some collective groups of people. That is racism.

Prove it.


Racism can be eliminated without the elimination of races.


Where is your evidence?

And it shouldn't bother us if the races eventually get mixed and disappear.


"Should"? Where are these "shoulds"? Oh yes, you are stating opinions again as facts.

Altough I must admit I like how the people on this world vary on appearance, that is just an esthetical attitude and I try not to let it affect my behavior or my attitude towards racism.


Mixing the races together would reduce the quality of the mankind. We would be less intelligent, for one. And I say this based not on "prejudices", but on sound scientific studies which indicate that there ARE significant differences -- such is the opinion of qualified people in general.

Proposing the conserving of races, ie. preventing people of different race from mixing, is a form of racism too.


Prove it! Again, this is opinion and only opinion.

[quuote]Now don't take what I said as an offense. I just want you to abandon the view you have on races.[/quote]

And abandon science and logic therewith? That would never happen, sorry.
#15060692
https://www.truthorfiction.com/martin-l ... resources/


Home >> Fact Checks >> Viral Content >> Martin Luther King, Jr.: ‘Capitalism Does Not Permit an Even Flow of Economic Resources’

Image


Martin Luther King, Jr.: ‘Capitalism Does Not Permit an Even Flow of Economic Resources’

Fact Checks, Viral Content / By Kim LaCapria / January 20, 2020


Claim

Martin Luther King, Jr. said "Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources," and that "a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience" while "almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level."


Rating
True
Share
Share
Reddit
WhatsApp
Email
Tweet


Reporting

On January 17 2020, an Imgur post featured a screenshot of a tweet by @andrehenry quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on Capitalism, asserting that such a system did not “permit an even flow of resources”:

“Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was campaigning for UBI when he was assassinated.” – AY; This is a long fight and we cannot afford to get discouraged.

The widely viewed and shared Imgur post *(““Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was campaigning for UBI when he was assassinated.” – AY; This is a long fight and we cannot afford to get discouraged”) displayed a January 15 2020 tweet by @andrehenry:



Andre Henry
@andrehenry
Once again, it's that time of year that we pretend Dr. King never said things like this:

View image on Twitter
29.1K
11:52 AM - Jan 15, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
10.4K people are talking about this


In the tweet, @andrehenry wrote:
Once again, it’s that time of year that we pretend Dr. King never said things like this:

Image

An AZquotes.com image contained only King’s name, but not a date or specific citation for the following quote:

Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That’s the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system.

Top results on Google were from very recent sources, editorials, letters to the editor, and mentions in columns marking Dr. King’s birthday in 2020. Given that the post was shared five days prior to January 20 2020, it seemed likely the viral tweet was the source for the quote in many of those entries.

An absence of older citations is sometimes an indication that a quote is either newly rediscovered, a distant paraphrasing, or completely made up. Typically, King’s quotes had a long history on the internet, and the “Capitalism does not permit an even flow of resources” one was not nearly as well distributed as others.

It did appear on sites like BrainyQuote.com, but again without any contextual information about the quote’s origin. We restricted search results to those in or before January 2016, and only a handful of pages (many misdated) populated search results. One result was a blog post from December 2015, but it again included no information about the supposed source. Quotes attributed to King came from various sources, such as writings, letters, and speeches.

An article from May 2012 included the quote in its entirety, attributing it to singer and activist Harry Belafonte’s 2012 memoir My Song: A Memoir of Art, Race, and Defiance. In that piece, which appeared on the World Socialist Web Site (wsws.org), Belafonte’s memoir is quoted at length; the excerpted portion included the quote, which we have emphasized below:

A party was held at Belafonte’s large apartment. After the guests had left, King and some of his closest colleagues stayed and talked about the conditions in the country and the state of the civil rights movement. Among those present, in addition to King and Belafonte, were King’s lawyer, Clarence Jones, his secretary and bodyguard, Bernard Lee, and Andrew Young, who would later become a congressman, the mayor of Atlanta, and also the US ambassador to the United Nations under President Jimmy Carter.

This passage in Belafonte’s book deserves careful examination. The political establishment had reacted with fury to King’s denunciation of the Vietnam War. The ghetto rebellions had erupted in nearly every major northern US city over the previous four summers. King was intensely affected by these conditions. In the midst of the discussion, he exclaimed:

“Somehow, frustration over the war has brought forth this idea that the solution resides in violence. What I cannot get across to these young people is that I wholly embrace everything they feel! It’s just the tactics we can’t agree on. I have more in common with these young people than with anybody else in this movement. I feel their rage. I feel their pain. I feel their frustration. It’s the system that’s the problem, and it’s choking the breath out of our lives.”

Belafonte continues, “In the pause that followed, Andy [Young] replied, ‘Well, I don’t know, Martin. It’s not the entire system. It’s only part of it, and I think we can fix that.’

“Suddenly, Martin lost his temper. ‘I don’t need to hear from you, Andy,’ he said. ‘I’ve heard enough from you. You’re a capitalist, and I’m not. And so we don’t see eye to eye — on this and a lot of other stuff.’

“It was an awkward moment. Martin was really angry. But I understood the subtext. Deep down, Andy was ambivalent about the Poor People’s Campaign…

“The tension peaked. ‘The trouble,’ Martin went on, ‘is that we live in a failed system. Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level…That’s the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we’re going to have to change the system.’

“At heart, Martin was a socialist and a revolutionary thinker. He spoke not just in anger, but in anguish. His voice dropped to a more reflective tone as he continued. ‘We fought hard and long, and I have never doubted that we would prevail in this struggle. Already our rewards have begun to reveal themselves. Desegregation…the Voting Rights Act…’ He paused. ‘But what deeply troubles me now is that for all the steps we’ve taken toward integration, I’ve come to believe that we are integrating into a burning house.’

“We had not heard Martin quite this way before. I felt as if our moorings were unhinging. ‘Damn, Martin! If that’s what you think, what would you have us do?’ I asked.

“He gave me a look. ‘I guess we’re just going to have to become firemen.'”

King was a pacifist and a reformist. If he had been a revolutionary thinker, it is likely that his tone would have been one of determination, not anguish, as Belafonte describes it. Nevertheless, his sincerity as a fighter for the interests of the exploited and the poor comes through quite clearly in this passage, and it is significant but not surprising that this side of his political views is rarely presented as he has been transformed into a public icon.

The passage appeared on page 328 of Belafonte’s My Song memoir, pinning down the source as a conversation between Young and King after a party at Belafonte’s apartment. King’s complete comment was as follows:

The trouble is that we live in a failed system. Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level … That’s the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we’re going to have to change the system.

Martin Luther King, Jr. did say “capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources,” but the quote was not as well substantiated due to its source — Belafonte’s memoir. The comment was not made publicly during a speech or published in a letter, but was spoken in a moment of frustrated debate between King and another guest — Andrew Young — as they debated the “failed system” that King sought to change, work that Young has spent his life and career continuing.

Article Sources +
“Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was campaigning for UBI when he was assassinated.” - AY; This is a long fight and we cannot afford to get discouraged.
Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That's the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system.
Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That's the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system.
A few quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. to keep in mind the next time you praise Mark Zuckerberg for his selfless generosity
Harry Belafonte provides an historical insight into the civil rights movement’s decay
My Song: A Memoir of Art, Race, and Defiance
Sharing as survival, capitalism as public purpose: Ambassador Andrew Young on a lifetime of giving back

Copyright © 2020 What's True Incorporated
HomeSearchPrivacy PolicyContact UsAboutDisclosures
#15060744
Ixa wrote:Race is a fact of nature. Racism, however, is a capitalist creation. It is profitable to the capitalist devils because it keeps the proletariat disunited, and thus conduces to keeping them in power. To unite, and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat (a sacred thing), we must eliminate racism, we must eliminate differences, we must be equals, we must be the same, we must not have diversity, rather like those most admirable creatures which I like to call "Little Jesuses", i.e. ants. But we are not the same! and, unless we do something about it, we will have this disease called diversity invariably! Consequently, there are only three options: we must mix every race together, to be equal; we must separate each race, and permit each race to have the human right of self-determination, a human right of which great comrade Stalin himself approved; or we must destroy all but once race. But who wants to do the the last option. Not many people. What, then, is the best option? What must we do to destroy racism (and the capitalist devils therewith)?



If you are a true capitalist and own a sports team you hire the best players regardless of color. Capitalism is color blind. That is why the NBA is 90% black and the NFL 70%.
#15060877
Julian658 wrote:
If you are a true capitalist and own a sports team you hire the best players regardless of color. Capitalism is color blind. That is why the NBA is 90% black and the NFL 70%.



And yet capitalism was around during the last century and there were segregationist Jim Crow laws enforced by the capitalist state.
#15060897
Julian658 wrote:If you are a true capitalist and own a sports team you hire the best players regardless of color. Capitalism is color blind. That is why the NBA is 90% black and the NFL 70%.

Oh good grief not again!

For the last hundred years we've had to endure a cacophony of Anarchists, Trotskyists and other assorted leftists complaining that they are not true Communists. Its a bit like we have to endure, they are not true Christians or they are not true Muslims. I'm quite market orientated. I oppose minimum wage and a lot of employment and other regulations. But making a profit is not enough. We need our business people and managers to have some ethical concern, beyond the profit line and their now and future pay packets. the system only works, if people try and act ethically beyond getting convicted of a crime, or being fined. We need people to act ethically even beyond the bare requirements of the law.

Now one can argue as to how well nineteenth century and early twentieth century Britain and America worked. But most certainly in as much as it did work it was based on a highly laissez-faire economics. It was based on a a highly liberal economic legal / regulatory framework. But it was also based on an extremely illiberal culture.
#15061115
Rich wrote:
Oh good grief not again!

For the last hundred years we've had to endure a cacophony of Anarchists, Trotskyists and other assorted leftists complaining that they are not true Communists. Its a bit like we have to endure, they are not true Christians or they are not true Muslims. I'm quite market orientated. I oppose minimum wage and a lot of employment and other regulations. But making a profit is not enough. We need our business people and managers to have some ethical concern,



Maybe this "ethical" concern, if it's to be more than just empty rhetoric and feelgood hand-waving, could manifest itself in the form of a higher minimum wage for workers.


Rich wrote:
beyond the profit line and their now and future pay packets. the system only works, if people try and act ethically beyond getting convicted of a crime, or being fined. We need people to act ethically even beyond the bare requirements of the law.

Now one can argue as to how well nineteenth century and early twentieth century Britain and America worked. But most certainly in as much as it did work it was based on a highly laissez-faire economics. It was based on a a highly liberal economic legal / regulatory framework. But it was also based on an extremely illiberal culture.



So freedom of movement for capital, but not the same for workers. Check. Did Trump plagiarize you, or did you plagiarize Trump?
#15061140
ckaihatsu wrote:Maybe this "ethical" concern, if it's to be more than just empty rhetoric and feelgood hand-waving, could manifest itself in the form of a higher minimum wage for workers.

I want to see higher wages through the market, strengthening the bargaining power of labour in relation to capital. Hence Reduce world population growth and immigration. I do not believe in the absolute moral basis of private capital. I support private capital ownership as a pragmatic choice. I support income redistribution to mitigate inequality. Andrew Yang would be my preferred choice for American President.

So freedom of movement for capital, but not the same for workers. Check. Did Trump plagiarize you, or did you plagiarize Trump?

That's an interesting question. I used to think what I said on PoFo didn't matter. I first became suspicious that, that might not be the case when I heard this UKIP politician talking about the effects of the Black Death and population reduction that it caused. I'm pretty certain this argument came from me. It was just too specific in its echoes of what I had said on Pofo. Then more recently I heard this American Senator (might have been a House member) talking about how we are all the result of countless rapes in our biological lineage. Again this was just to similar to things i had said on Pofo, that I had never heard or read anyone else saying.

Now this probably was coincidence, but it was strange how Trump recognised the annexation of the Golan, shortly after I started pushing for recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan heights on PoFo. I doubt Trump reads PoFo and as I said it was probably just coincidence, but it surely must be possible that someone who has influence with Trump reads Pofo and put the idea into Trump's head.

As to economics though, Trump is a long standing mercantilist, while I have been a long standing free trader. So there are many differences in outlook between me and Trump.
#15061141
Rich wrote:
I want to see higher wages through the market, strengthening the bargaining power of labour in relation to capital.



So this means that you're all for rank-and-file workers and labor unions being able to organize, correct -- ?


Rich wrote:
Hence Reduce world population growth and immigration. I do not believe in the absolute moral basis of private capital. I support private capital ownership as a pragmatic choice. I support income redistribution to mitigate inequality. Andrew Yang would be my preferred choice for American President.



How would 'income redistribution' be done, exactly? As things are now income redistribution happens with 'quantitative easing', supplying public funds to the markets (banks), for the sake of keeping capitalism alive.

There's nothing currently 'wrong' with the world's human population. You're sounding like a Malthusian.


Rich wrote:
That's an interesting question. I used to think what I said on PoFo didn't matter. I first became suspicious that, that might not be the case when I heard this UKIP politician talking about the effects of the Black Death and population reduction that it caused. I'm pretty certain this argument came from me. It was just too specific in its echoes of what I had said on Pofo. Then more recently I heard this American Senator (might have been a House member) talking about how we are all the result of countless rapes in our biological lineage. Again this was just to similar to things i had said on Pofo, that I had never heard or read anyone else saying.

Now this probably was coincidence, but it was strange how Trump recognised the annexation of the Golan, shortly after I started pushing for recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan heights on PoFo. I doubt Trump reads PoFo and as I said it was probably just coincidence, but it surely must be possible that someone who has influence with Trump reads Pofo and put the idea into Trump's head.

As to economics though, Trump is a long standing mercantilist, while I have been a long standing free trader. So there are many differences in outlook between me and Trump.



You're showing a preference for political Zionism, which is contrary to your repeated 'laissez faire' pronouncements.
#15067611
did you know that white terror has risen 320% in the last four years? it's true. it went from 20 deaths a year worldwide to 77 deaths worldwide. If it continues at this rate it will overtake bee stings as the largest cause of freak occurrence fluke deaths in less than a century.

now I'm not saying we should panic but it is pretty terrifying and I am starting to panic a little. I hope the government saves us, the prog woketards think we should massively expand the police state to meet this terrifying threat and I'm inclined to agree. I did get a little confused as to why those who purport to be leftists would be so eager to give more power to reactionary law enforcement entities but there's no time for that because the threat is real and we have to act!
#15067623
ckaihatsu wrote:So this means that you're all for rank-and-file workers and labor unions being able to organize, correct -- ?

I do not think that labour Unions overall help the general good, but professional associations also operate monopolies, so I think they should be allowed.

How would 'income redistribution' be done, exactly? As things are now income redistribution happens with 'quantitative easing', supplying public funds to the markets (banks), for the sake of keeping capitalism alive.

Pretty much as now. I'd like to see higher Capital gains, Corporation, inheritance and Mansion taxes. we need to combat the race to the bottom on rich people's taxes. Lets start by wiping, Morocco, San Marino, the channel islands and the like off the map as political entities. I'd also like to see a United British and Irish Republic.

There's nothing currently 'wrong' with the world's human population. You're sounding like a Malthusian.

I am a Malthusian. The last 200 years are just a blip in a Malthusian world. The environmental damage we're doing to (non -human) nature is just displaced Malthusianism.

You're showing a preference for political Zionism, which is contrary to your repeated 'laissez faire' pronouncements.

I'm fairly pro market. I'm not a (right) Libertarian. I don't believe in absolute property rights. Consistent with this I don't believe in absolute self ownership. I also don't believe in absolute national sovereignty. I am happy to use Good and Evil rhetorically, but I don't believe at least intellectually in absolute morality. I believe however that we have evolved to emotionally believe in absolute morality, although its pretty easy to punch holes in any absolute morality system.
#15067629
Sivad wrote:did you know that white terror has risen 320% in the last four years? it's true. it went from 20 deaths a year worldwide to 77 deaths worldwide. If it continues at this rate it will overtake bee stings as the largest cause of freak occurrence fluke deaths in less than a century.

now I'm not saying we should panic but it is pretty terrifying and I am starting to panic a little. I hope the government saves us, the prog woketards think we should massively expand the police state to meet this terrifying threat and I'm inclined to agree. I did get a little confused as to why those who purport to be leftists would be so eager to give more power to reactionary law enforcement entities but there's no time for that because the threat is real and we have to act!


lol I don't think you realize that this is the exact same argument that Richard Spencer and Eric Striker have been using since Christchurch.

Got it, you believe that Article V of the Consti[…]

Donald's Plan B

Personally I support in person non electronic secr[…]

Julian Assange arrested in London

Your own "support" sounds disingenuous […]

He may have his allies in the Republican party,[…]