White capitalism is what made black people slaves and pushed them into poverty.
Perhaps we need new ideas that help everyone.
White capitalism
This is just called capitalism.
I mean, it gives deference to rich people, but when it was legal to discriminate against POC, they had a massive disadvantage in pretty much every aspect of their lives. Not perfect, but much improved now…
Also Black Wall Street got hate crimed off the face of the earth, so I’d say “white capitalism” is fair enough.
Capitalism is the Sociopath’s Ideology and hence it will always promote the use of any power advantages to exploit the less powerful, with no consideration for the fellings of others or harm done to them, for fairness or for morality.
Which is why it had to be something outside Capitalism to push for fairer treatment of POC and even then every single day in America it’s an uphill fight for those amongst them who remain disadvantaged: that previous exploitation of them as powerless due to their ethnicity meant that when the discriminatory treatment on the color of their skin was reduced (not eliminated, but certainly comparativelly much reduced), they ended up poor people and hence still the victims of discrimination and exploitation, because the poor too are less powerful than most and hence exploited to the max under Capitalism, and as an overexploited group it’s incredibly harder for them to pull themselves out of poverty or help their children do so, which means that situation is entrenched.
Technically Capitalism isn’t an ideology, but a state in development of the productive forces. Liberalism is the ideology of Capitalism.
Africans enslaved and sold other Africans by the millions for centuries before white people arrived on the continent. Though they certainly made it worse when they did.
People enslaved their opponents in war for essentially as long as humans have existed, until we decided slavery was an evil we should avoid. However, this was not generally chattel slavery. Usually their offspring were not slaves and they were not bread to create more slaves, like livestock.
This is a good read if you want to learn more.
I’m not sure you have enough of a historical framework on population to make the claim you’re mindlessly repeating, but I appreciate that you “people” out yourselves so readily so normal humans can avoid you. Good luck on truth social or Facebook or x I guess.
I think their point was fair, Rome had slavery unrelated to color, as did many other places.
They did not have chattel slavery.
Why does that distinction matter?
It matters a lot. Chattel slavery is what Europe brought to Africa. It’s a particularly violent and cruel form of slavery. The “Africans also had slaves” argument is a fallacious one as the systems of slavery were very different. We could say the same thing for “wage slavery” today to demonize that or to lessen the hatred of chattel slavery. The intent of the message was to dismiss the harm, which should not be done.
Ah of course, European exceptionalism.
It’s still exploiting them. I don’t think it was intended to dismiss the harm at all.
Capitalism and slavery are incompatible.
Why not? Capitalism is private control over the factors of production - it’s not “equal freedom” or anything like that. The American South was capitalist during chattel slavery.
And that’s not even getting into wage slavery.
Capitalism is private control over the factors of production
If someone is legally exercising force over someone else, they are a de facto entity of the state.
Are you just making up phrases at this point? Show us where in the definition of capitalism that human rights exist.
From DuckDuckGo:
- An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
- An economic system based on predominantly private (individual or corporate) investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and wealth; contrasted with socialism or especially communism, in which the state has the predominant role in the economy.
- A socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
- A socio-economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of privately-owned capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
- A specific variation or implementation of either such socio-economic system.
- An economic system based on private ownership of capital.
This isn’t necessary for all of them, but from Wikipedia:
A state is a political entity that regulates society and the population within a territory.
Slave masters are regulators of population, so they are an actor of the state.
If I tell you to get the fuck out of my way I also regulate population but I’m not the state. Note that even your definition says ‘a’, not ‘the’.
Also, and more importantly, enslaved people are seen as property (and thus also as means of production) instead of population. IIRC this goes back to the definition of populace back in Ancient Greece but I can’t be arsed to look it up.
If I tell you to get the fuck out of my way I also regulate population but I’m not the state.
Regulate would mean a legal basis to dictate/legislate to.
Note that even your definition says ‘a’, not ‘the’.
You’re going to have to be a bit more specific than that, there are a lot of "a"s
Also, and more importantly, enslaved people are seen as property (and thus also as means of production) instead of population.
Yes, that is how they were seen by some people. And those people were wrong. If I become a tyrant and declare I’m the only real person and everyone else is my property, then seize all their property- is that capitalism? Because 1 person just owns all the property? No, its because the definition of person is wrong. Enslaved people were still people, so they could not be property, even though the law claimed they could be.
Yep, capitalism is inherently statist. Ancapistan is just a bunch of little states.
Controlling yourself means you have monopoly on force on yourself, meaning you are a state consisting of just yourself? Sounds like a pretty chill state.
Capitalism is private control over the factors of production
Capitalism is private control over the factors of production
Controlling yourself
🤡
https://lemmy.world/comment/12834412
already addressed
I don’t know who stole your history book, but you should probably go look for it.
It was Marx, Marx stole it.
What on Earth does that mean?
Dumb joke because I was just responding to an insult
I’m just going to assume this is sarcastic, because I refuse to believe that anyone actually believes this, even eager capitalists, themselves.
If it’s somehow not sarcastic, you are either ridiculously ignorant about the world and it’s history, or blatantly lying.
It is not sarcastic
deleted by creator
Rest in power. Fuck the Chicago PD.
It’s so, so sad that none of them, or the FBI, has had to pay for their crimes. Not to mention all the other murders the US has committed around the globe. The people who planned and carried out these murders haven’t paid for them in the slightest.
Excuse me, may I deposses you of this image? It would be a fine addition to my collection.
Of course, memes are communal.
deleted by creator
That’s fair, but that’s all the more reason why it is the duty of Leftists to read and spread Marxist theory!
“THAT’S COMMIENISM!!! POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!!!” - average reaction to anything from the left
Different people have different levels of class awareness. Identifying the ones ripest for radicalization helps dramatically.
And, to be fair, I am advocating for Communism.
“I resent the average american, someone smarter like me should dictate their lives”
Not a criticism of you, you’re free to have your own opinion. I’m just saying the quiet part out loud.
You’re arguing against your imagination.
I’m restating what was said.
It wasn’t though
Where do you believe it differs?
Alright, I’ll bite
someone smarter like me should dictate their lives
You added that as what you imagined the original poster’s point was, yet I see no call for action in their post. They simply made an observation. This would be like me saying “I notice that wild animals can often be aggressive when they have young children to protect”, then someone else acting like my solution would therefore be to prevent them from having children.
It’s a wild and unfounded extrapolation made from your preconceived notion of how this person thinks, based solely on their distain for the ignorance they’ve observed. I’ve seen many who make the same observation but their proposed solutions were better education, not dictatorial rule.
You added that as what you imagined the original poster’s point was, yet I see no call for action in their post.
That’s true and a fair criticism. I think its a pretty probable guess though.
but their proposed solutions were better education
Education is a complicated matter in itself, that I’d rather not get involved in here, but Prussian schooling has a long history of politically motivated meddling.
I read it as pro-political education. Something that many Americans are dearly missing
Something that many Americans are dearly missing
Yeah this is what I’m talking about.
I find it confusing why you put that in quotes, then suggest it’s not necessarily their opinion, but following it up by implying that was the implied statement.
The guy just said American political literacy is embarrassingly lacking, which is far worse than what is needed for a functional democracy. Which has nothing to do with your “interpretation”
then suggest it’s not necessarily their opinion,
I believe it is their opinion, I suggested that pointing that out isn’t a criticism. Its a very common opinion.
The guy just said American political literacy is embarrassingly lacking
Because they don’t know esoteric terms nerds like us argue about on the internet. They do know what they believe is right and wrong, and what they value in their lives. They vote for people who talk about what they value. You can criticize what they value, but that’s just pitting your values against theirs. You can also criticize them for trusting, but if the last 20 years has shown anything, voters are actually not that much worse than technocratic governments at figuring out lies. And most lies that trick voters aren’t* lies to the people that tell them, or believe them.
Gotcha. It’s very effective if you want to make up stuff, and then argue that. But, in that case, don’t you have better things to do?
It’s very effective if you want to make up stuff, and then argue that.
Thanks for the insight.
But, in that case, don’t you have better things to do?
Procrastinating is fun.
I think you’re doing yourself a disservice here by calling these terms esoterica. Political ideologies being clearly defined and understood on a wide scale is not a negative thing. Most of the terms here in this dude’s post are talked about as solutions (or status quo) in the current era, all of it should be fresh unless you willfully ignore every single political post on every social media you use.
Way more importantly: You really think the last 20 years were a shining example of public intelligence? Truly? With the denialism, the outright lies that have been signal boosted, the public outrage over hypothetical people and made-up organizations who never existed? How can you justify saying “these terms are esoteric” when they are literally modern? How can you justify this position you’re taking where low/no information being the norm needs to be enforced for things to be “normal” for you? You’re flippantly dismissing the idea that people could have opinions or motivations you aren’t instantly aware of, which is stupid beyond belief.
The entirety of democratic politics is conflicting opinion/value/ideology being weighed by the many. What the hell is the problem with letting people who are informed talk about it in a public space?
Political ideologies being clearly defined and understood on a wide scale is not a negative thing.
I think the concept of a political ideology needs to die. People not identifying with them and instead listening to peoples actual ideas is a good thing. Essentially everyone has a unique set of values shaped by their experience, they should listen to and interpret the ideas of others based on those values- instead of trying to categorize them and build an identity off them. Its a similar problem to the DSM, and leads to tribalism.
You really think the last 20 years were a shining example of public intelligence?
I think way more people are questioning authority figures, though that might be recency bias.
the outright lies that have been signal boosted
When before the lies were the narrative.
How can you justify saying “these terms are esoteric” when they are literally modern?
They exist to categorize ideas and people into neat little boxes, rather than actually evaluate individual ideas. They are also totally ineffective for communication, when each boxer disagrees where and what the boxes are.
How can you justify this position you’re taking where low/no information being the norm needs to be enforced for things to be “normal” for you?
Where did I say that?
You’re flippantly dismissing the idea that people could have opinions or motivations you aren’t instantly aware of
When did I do that? Instead I’m stating my own opinions, and I’m happy to hear yours.
What the hell is the problem with letting people who are informed talk about it in a public space?
When did I try to stop that, I’m one of the nerds I was talking about.
“I believe it is their opinion,”, genius. The irony is frankly uncomfortable.
Great response
Capitalism can’t help anyone out of poverty at least not without exploiting masses.
Just exploit the whites? Big brain
In 1800, 80% of the world lived in extreme poverty. Now it’s under 10%.
Fact is, the vast majority of the so-called “exploit[ed]masses” rose out of poverty over the same period of time that capitalism established itself as the primary economic system the world over.
So who were they all exploiting, to get out of poverty? Each other?
Funnily enough, it was the USSR and PRC that had the largest impact on poverty elimination in the 20th century.
I think it’s fucking bullshit they murdered Fred Hampton and got away with it.
I would imagine that anyone familiar with his story, that happens to have any semblance of critical thinking skills, feels the same way.
Anyone who has both characteristics above, and still dismisses Fred Hampton’s assassination as justified, is an enemy.
And then people wonder where the modern-day civil rights leaders are. The U.S. government will murder anyone who gains the ability to upset the status quo. The best we’re going to get is social media personalities like Dr. Umar and comedians like Charlamagne Tha God.
Capitalism has race now? Or are they suggesting to use race as a product?
“Black capitalism” is historically the approach of some African American* communities and individuals to resist racial oppression by embracing capitalism and out-competing whites in it, essentially. This met its most famous manifestation in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which developed a wealthy black capitalist class, but neighboring white towns got mad at this and basically leveled a good portion of the town and killed many people. For reasons beyond me, some liberals hold up Tulsa as some wonderful thing and proof that black people should just be more engaged in capitalism, and they ignore how the experiment ended.
The most famous “black capitalism” proponent is the Jamaican-born American Marcus Garvey, who some Rastafarians worship as a prophet. To poison the well immediately, he was supported by the KKK in his projects to send African Americans “back to” Africa, because their ideologies and aims of ethnonationalism broadly aligned.
*It’s mostly an American thing, but it’s not exclusively an American thing by any means
For reasons beyond me, some liberals hold up Tulsa as some wonderful thing and proof that black people should just be more engaged in capitalism, and they ignore how the experiment ended.
The easy answer is that racism destroyed Tulsa, not capitalism. Were it not for racist fucks, that experiment would have worked wonderfully. But that’s a tale as old as time, unfortunately.
If racism just sprang from the ground or from defects in people’s souls, that would make sense. Racism is a superstructural tool of capitalism. It’s a little more obvious how the two are in union when you look at things like the Transatlantic slave trade, but keeping black people as an underclass serves in capital’s interest to this day.
Racism is a superstructural tool of capitalism.
That’s ridiculous. So many explicitly racist movements have also been explicitly capitalist. Racism is a tool of tribalism and collectivism. Capitalism is an individualistic system.
So many explicitly racist movements have also been explicitly capitalist.
Probably forgot an ‘anti’ in there, judging by the rest of your comment, but your typo is very right.
Probably forgot an ‘anti’ in there
Yep
but your typo is very right.
xd
So many explicitly racist movements have also been explicitly [anti-]capitalist
Name some, including the substance of them being anti-capitalist. The KKK aren’t anti-capitalist. The Nazis aren’t anti-capitalist. The Confederates weren’t anti-capitalist. Mind you, all of these groups and other racist movements oppose some version of “globalization,” something the developed capitalist forces push, but they are not thereby rejecting all of capitalism, because the system that they call for is still capitalist, just degenerated to earlier forms, the national or local depending on which movement it is.
Racism is a tool of tribalism and collectivism. Capitalism is an individualistic system.
I think individualist/collectivist is a much less helpful way of analyzing ideologies than a lot of liberals think it is, but that’s partly because it question-begs the supremacy of liberal ideology, which means I don’t think we’ll come to an agreement.
Anyway, pretending they were useful terms, I still think this is a bad argument. When you live within a capitalist society and aren’t looking to overthrow it, it is a coherent idea to create collectives within a system that is philosophically oriented around the individual power of property-owners, that’s what labor unions are. Most fascist movements are theoretically a racial version of this, white people (or whoever) collaborating to fuck over minorities to save themselves that much competition. That’s what Krystalnacht was, for instance, a white-German community effort to drive out the competition represented to them by Jews.
The unavoidable fact of capitalism is that it relies on pushing most of society into the same general social class (workers, as contrasted with owners; employees vs employers) and likewise makes production a massive group effort, though that group effort is dictated by an individual or an oligarchy who own the instruments used in that production. You can try to appeal to these workers who make up most of society on an atomized, liberal basis, sure, but it’s no less coherent to draw lines of common interest between them, most often something like race or religion that is convenient to capitalists, because the capitalists can say “look, I’m white (or whatever) too, I’m on your side!” even if they truly aren’t because they are only seeking their own profits.
This is about a third of an explanation of the material basis for fascism. Probably the most critical element is that capitalist expansion hits some limitation, be it international competition or just all of the market already being claimed. The reason, the real motivation, for the racial terrorism I described above despite merely deflecting worker ire, is that by “clear cutting” more space open for your market share by slaughtering competitors, people sitting on land you want, etc., you can gain more room to grow, although this too only lets you grow temporarily until you bump into your new limits, so you need to keep killing inconvenient people to keep growing, and that’s more or less how the Nazis worked, both internally by picking out minority after minority, and externally with their continuous invasions and “lebensraum” and so on.
The KKK aren’t anti-capitalist. The Nazis aren’t anti-capitalist. The Confederates weren’t anti-capitalist.
Except all of these groups were, although the Nazis were much more explicit about it- that is indisputable so I’ll focus on the others. The Confederacy was simply a plantocracy near oligarchy, not to mention slavery which is incompatible with capitalism(already explained in another comment, but a brief breeze over it- slave masters act as entities of the state by the very nature of them having a monopoly on regulation of other humans). As for the KKK, much of what it and other racist organizations of its era did was try to “protect white jobs”, and lobbied heavily for state intervention to that effect- such as targeting immigrant and black “scabs” and pushing for minimum wages aimed at driving them out- though the KKK also explicitly opposed a lot of unions and other organized labor activities(often because they weren’t white enough or included Catholics). Fundamentally though, the KKK viewed their goals of white-protestant supremacy as greater than an economic system, and were more than happy to destroy private property and private individuals- or use private property when it benefited them. Similar to what the Nazi’s believed- its private profits are okay as long as they are working in the interest of the greater goal, but the second its not they’re more than happy to steal it and kill you. Capitalism doesn’t require private profit from the means of production, it requires private control of it- and if it can be seized if not following exactly what the state wants, that’s not private control.
it is a coherent idea to create collectives within a system that is philosophically oriented around the individual power of property-owners, that’s what labor unions are.
That’s what unions are to some people. To other people unions are a convenient organization of people with similar and/or parallel goals on a specific matter(and not necessarily others) so that by collaborating they can achieve their individual goals.
The unavoidable fact of capitalism is that it relies on pushing most of society into the same general social class (workers, as contrasted with owners; employees vs employers)
No, that’s not true. Capitalism doesn’t ascribe the distribution or organization of labor, just that it is privately controlled. A society of independent agrarian farmers could still be capitalist, or a commune of people who voluntarily donate their labor to each other.
but it’s no less coherent to draw lines of common interest between them, most often something like race or religion that is convenient to capitalists, because the capitalists can say “look, I’m white (or whatever) too, I’m on your side!” even if they truly aren’t because they are only seeking their own profits.
Yeah no doubt, though I think it is a little perverse to use “capitalist” to refer to owners/employers when they themselves are often not ideological capitalists, although it is still a correct use of the word I think it leads to intentional confusion(though not by you, just in general).
The reason, the real motivation, for the racial terrorism I described above despite merely deflecting worker ire, is that by “clear cutting” more space open for your market share by slaughtering competitors, people sitting on land you want, etc., you can gain more room to grow, although this too only lets you grow temporarily until you bump into your new limits, so you need to keep killing inconvenient people to keep growing, and that’s more or less how the Nazis worked, both internally by picking out minority after minority, and externally with their continuous invasions and “lebensraum” and so on.
I don’t think business owners are that generally competent to have orchestrated the total destruction of black and jewish owned businesses, I think the Nazis and KKK were both more than motivated enough to do that themselves, but I agree there definitely were some to supported it when they saw it happening and benefited from it.
The Confederacy was simply a plantocracy near oligarchy, not to mention slavery which is incompatible with capitalism(already explained in another comment, but a brief breeze over it- slave masters act as entities of the state by the very nature of them having a monopoly on regulation of other humans)
This is extremely “wasn’t real capitalism,” and I could use this argument to say that the United States still isn’t capitalist, as slave labor remains a cornerstone of multiple state economies and present in most of them, to say nothing of international trade.
No, the Confederacy was not some maximalist libertarian fantasy land (check the company towns of the Gilded Age for something closer to that), but that is not all that capitalism is, for a slew of reasons not the least of which being that capitalism is not a philosophical framework, it’s an objective mode of production, and secondly capitalism is what invented and executed the establishment of chattel slavery to begin with!
As for the KKK, much of what it and other racist organizations of its era did was try to “protect white jobs”, and lobbied heavily for state intervention to that effect-
Again, you’re appealing to a maximalist libertarian fantasy, not looking at it from the standpoint of private ownership and commodity production. I’m not trying to pin the KKK on libertarianism, obviously their approaches to fucking over minorities are pretty different.
Fundamentally though, the KKK viewed their goals of white-protestant supremacy as greater than an economic system, and were more than happy to destroy private property and private individuals- or use private property when it benefited them.
“They killed people, which isn’t part of capitalism” and “They destroyed other people’s stuff, which isn’t part of capitalism” are just silly statements. See what I already said.
The KKK weren’t trying to go back to feudalism, to classical slavery, to ancient agrarianism, or to hunter-gatherer society, and they weren’t trying to invent some new mode of production like, say, utopian socialists liked to write about. They were quite happy with the existing mode of production and (as you narrated) smashed labor organization against the capitalists. The fact that that they didn’t follow John Locke’s writings like the Holy Bible and indeed the fact that they insisted on the domination of white capitalists do not contradict that.
Capitalism doesn’t require private profit from the means of production, it requires private control of it- and if it can be seized if not following exactly what the state wants, that’s not private control.
Then capitalism has never existed. In all liberal-inspired (what a normal person would call “liberal”) societies, asset forfeiture has existed as one of the penalties of breaking the laws that everyone lives under. In some cases, that law is even that you can’t own something, the classic joke example being a nuclear bomb, but much lower-grade military equipment is another set of easy examples. Turns out if what you own doesn’t fall exactly within what the state permits, it can be taken from you and more besides for the state’s trouble.
From a Marxist perspective (if you’ll allow me), a capitalist society is a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, that is to say the capitalist class collectively steers the state, which means outliers even among the capitalist class can be punished if the majority want that to pass. That doesn’t change the essential nature of society as operating practically along the lines of private ownership – even if capitalists are not individually gods of their domain – and commodity production.
That’s what unions are to some people. To other people unions are a convenient organization of people with similar and/or parallel goals on a specific matter(and not necessarily others) so that by collaborating they can achieve their individual goals.
I don’t care what’s in your heart, what I care about is what actually transpires, and what actually transpires in a union is collective bargaining. You might be surprised to find that the Marxist position is one of supporting what some people refer to as “enlightened self-interest,” i.e. “what is best for me is collaboration for these specific reasons” rather than psychically subsuming yourself to the collective at your own expense and with no benefit. That’s part of why I think the “individualist/collectivist” framework is silly, and probably the product of liberals who were so atomized that they didn’t have the right tools in their mind to conceptualize of something other than atomization except as some monstrosity of being enslaved to society itself. Just my personal theory, though.
No, that’s not true. Capitalism doesn’t ascribe the distribution or organization of labor, just that it is privately controlled. A society of independent agrarian farmers could still be capitalist,
You know that capitalism is named after capital, right? Yeoman subsistence is not capitalism, there is no commodity production, no vector for capital.
or a commune of people who voluntarily donate their labor to each other.
It’s not something that Locke wrote down as a necessary element, but beyond whatever libertarian utopia you might imagine, what capitalism has actually done all over the world is create those classes and make production increasingly centralized and socialized (!! in the sense of involving many hands to make a single commodity !!). This gravity towards monopoly through the couple of centuries capitalism has existed is undeniable. We might imagine it otherwise, but we have no reason to believe that it is particularly capable of behaving differently, much less ever will.
Yeah no doubt, though I think it is a little perverse to use “capitalist” to refer to owners/employers when they themselves are often not ideological capitalists, although it is still a correct use of the word I think it leads to intentional confusion(though not by you, just in general).
“Ideological capitalist” is some bizarre joke invented by economists and their ilk. I only care for what the capitalist does, and if he pursues making money through commodity production, reinvests some of that money into developing or broadening his production, and begins again, that’s capital and he’s the one manipulating it. I personally think that has about as much of a claim to the title of “ideological capitalist” too, as compared to someone who just wants the world to run on private ownership, because we call those “libertarians” already (or, if you insist, “ancaps”).
Anyway, I don’t want to quibble over words, I can use the ones you prefer, just my two cents.
I don’t think business owners are that generally competent to have orchestrated the total destruction of black and jewish owned businesses, I think the Nazis and KKK were both more than motivated enough to do that themselves, but I agree there definitely were some to supported it when they saw it happening and benefited from it.
As far as I’m concerned, business owners across the west supporting Nazi Germany financially (often for deliberate ideological reasons, hi Ford!, though not always) means they can take credit for what the Nazis did with that benefit. Business owners typically don’t directly manage the execution of serious violence (except Coca Cola), but they’ve been paying, for example, the American government to go and topple this government or that for a very long time (“Banana republic”). When I look at Hitler running on a platform of eradicating the Jews and the Bolsheviks and capitalists give him money, and then he does what he said he would, how should I interpret that? Should I say those companies were anything less than deliberate benefactors to what he perpetrated?
So… corporate collusion between black businesses owners? I suppose that would equalize the market a bit if they do manage to kick down corps like amazon
Capitalism has always had a form of race, but it’s a social hierarchy.
Class.
It has always been class. The lie that gets sold to middle America is that one day, they too will be of a higher class.
You know that’s really a brilliant rebuttal.
Or maybe race doesn’t really exist outside our dumb little brains and capitalism was the real problem all along
Not to imply that ethnic/cultural tensions never existed before in history, but capitalism created racism as a tool of oppression, and of pitting working class people against each other.
capitalism created racism as a tool of oppression
Except that is simply not true. Capitalism is far more recent that racism, unless of course you define capitalism as just “everything bad”. Racism exist because of tribalism and collectivism, capitalism is a recent individualist system- and individualism amongst governments is fairly recent.
I am not defining capitalism as just everything bad, and capitalism is not as recent as you think. You may be thinking of industrial capitalism, which is a more recent development.
Historical Foundations of Race
American society developed the notion of race early in its formation to justify its new economic system of capitalism, which depended on the institution of forced labor, especially the enslavement of African peoples.
I am not defining capitalism as just everything bad, and capitalism is not as recent as you think.
No that’s pretty recent, racism is millennia old. Furthermore, yes mixed economies exist, actually now they’re basically the only thing that exists.
American society developed the notion of race early in its formation to justify its new economic system of capitalism, which depended on the institution of forced labor, especially the enslavement of African peoples.
I disagree that it was capitalism that needed racism to be justified, since slavery is anti-capitalistic. But yes, fake “racial science” was used to justify slavery, that however was not the origin of racism. Roman and Greek and many other empires used ethnic/racial division to justify their oppression. Even the Mongols whose empire was “cool and accepting” by ancient empire standards still had strong sentiments of a Mongol race being different from others.
Brains are part of the world, and so are human behaviors. So long as racism exists, race as a sociological category is undeniably real.
Indeed brains are real and we are really fucking good at making the consequences of said brain’s beliefs just as real. But, recognizing that things such as race have absolutely no scientific, empirical basis whatsoever is kinda a really important step in repairing the racist damage that we’ve done. Race is only useful in sociology as long as we continue to pretend it exists, otherwise it serves no purpose other than as an excuse to hate each other.
Capitalism or socialism or anything else is irrelevant when most people are dumb, easy to manipulate and ready to harm others. There will always be someone willing to be a leader of these people, harming others to gain something.
“I am 14 and this is deep” material here. No analysis of anything, no thoughts, just an edgy nothingburger.
What about Socialism is “irrelevant” if most people are “dumb?”
That they still fall for the same manipulation as anyone else.
That’s not an answer, lmao
How is the answer no? Socialism killed just as many innocence people as Nazis did. Capitalism likely more than both, but spread out over time and the world instead of localized events. They are thinking they somehow do the right thing while begin monsters, because that is how they were manipulated. Some their whole life without ever knowing any different. The same way Russians think they need to destroy Ukraine, Trump voters, North Koreans that Americans are baby eating monsters only stopped by their god-leaders good haircut, Hamas that killing Israeli civilians is great, etc.
How is the answer no? Socialism killed just as many innocence people as Nazis did.
No. Read Blackshirts and Reds. Socialism doubled life expectancied in Russia and China, it saved millions of lives.
Capitalism likely more than both, but spread out over time and the world instead of localized events.
Fascism is Capitalism in decay.
They are thinking they somehow do the right thing while begin monsters, because that is how they were manipulated.
Your fanfiction isn’t reality.
The same way Russians think they need to destroy Ukraine, Trump voters, North Koreans that Americans are baby eating monsters only stopped by their god-leaders good haircut, Hamas that killing Israeli civilians is great, etc.
You do realize that you are more propagandized, right?
Mate, live expectancy went up because of general improvements due to better tech. Everywhere, just a little sooner or later depending on how quick they went from the classic farmers to more modern agriculture, medicine etc.
My fanfiction is what happened and happens all over the world. Why do you think the Japanese thought they are so much better and committed atrocities? Because of their genes? What about the Nazis? What about the Americans genociding Indians? Australians the aboriginals? Etc. etc. all over the world throughout history.
How am I “more propagandized” when I point out that these things exist? Explain.
I had to read the second post twice to understand what it’s saying due to the non-standard grammar. But I’m a foreign speaker.
I’m asking an honest question out of curiosity: Was this easily legible to you?
I’m a native English speaker and had no issue… but I come across (or hear) contractions like “ain’t” often enough that it barely registers as being non-standard… just much less formal, really. Some punctuation might’ve helped you here.
At least like one comma could have done a lot…
Yes, it was very clear (native speaker here). Something like this is more commonly spoken than written, so I can see why it might be confusing. If your experiencing with English is more formal (via education, reading, etc) vs talking to a whole bunch of different people, that would explain it.
Was this easily legible to you?
Yes, very easily.
English doesn’t have one standard grammar, but yeah this was pretty easy to understand for me.
“Ain’t” can be kind of difficult. It can mean “are not,” “am not,” “is not,” “has not,” or “have not.” Aside from that, the statements should be separated with a period, and “it’s” was used instead of “is it.” Also, they use “the fuck” instead of “what the fuck.”
“Ain’t” is pretty common in casual speech now, and the rest is relatively common in internet speech, so it was pretty easy to read for me.
“Capitalism hasn’t solve white people’s poverty. What the fuck is it going to do for us?”
I think the linguists call it African American Vernacular English. It’s completely reasonable for you to not understand it from the outside looking in.
ain’t
aave
Yeah, exactly
The main disconnect is they contracted “is it” into “it’s” when “it’s” is normal a posessive like that is mine, e.g. it’s mine. Aka “the fuck is it going to do” or “the fuck’s it going to do” would have been correct. At least I think so as a native speaker but someone with more knowledge on grammar might have more insight.
I mean, it helped bolster rationale for enslaving black people. It’s fair to say that capitalism tips the scales, steals your car, and then runs over your neighbor before disappearing with your spouse and your dog/cat.
It didn’t just bolster the rationale for enslaving black people, it largely executed the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Those boats weren’t publicaly owned, and neither were the captured slaves, the slavers were entrepreneurs and their employees doing business.
Thank fuck.
White people get pegged for rich people bullshit too much.
I agree, white capitalism is so last year, get with the latest fashion and use black capitalism.
It is past September.
True? Yes.
Funny? Not really.
/c/depressing would be a better fit
agitprop does tend to get miscategorized, but “capitalism didn’t solve white poverty,” as-rendered there, registers to me as a grim punchline.
Except it’s done more to solve it since anything that preceded it, so it’s not only not funny, it’s a misleading/disingenuous talking point.
it’s done more to solve it since anything that preceded it
Maybe, but the guys in OP aren’t talking about going back to feudalism or bringing back the roman empire or anything else that preceded capitalism. It’s misleading to restrict yourself to systems that came before capitalism, and not the one that lifted a billion dirt poor farmers out of poverty and created a space-faring civilization within a single lifetime.
Socialism is a cancer and Capitalism is, uh what cures cancer?
Your first (and only) premise is highly vulnerable. Socialism and cancer are two different things.
