libera te tutemet ex machina, and shitpost~~
I am not angry about anything, and I didn’t look them up now, tbh. The issue I find is that well-meaning and useful policies are painted as something they’re not, or used by others to create polarization. So, my pov is that leftists and progressives are better off focusing on poverty alleviation. If minorities face generational wealth issues (they do) then poverty alleviation policies that don’t single them out in particular will be harder to attack by political opponents.
Okay, so about immigration I’ll just make this point, from another thread:
So, let’s say a democratic country favors pro-choice policies, but then has an influx of immigrants who are anti-abortion, and now that population is greater. That’s a change of values because the population shifted to a majority opinion which favors a different view point. If a country has an idealized view of how it wants to be, then I think it’s fair to expect immigrants to integrate and assimilate. I don’t think that has anything to do with xenophobia or not excluding different cultures, as long as the core values of a country are maintained. For example, if a country wants to maintain a democratic socialist society, and a greater population of capitalists immigrate to it, then I think that socialist society would want to restrict immigration as well.
The above point is to demonstrate how democracies are fragile, and that not all immigration policies are necessarily xenophobic or racist.
Okay, I’ll add those.
It’s in the OP.
It’s a little silly equating one (albeit learned and genius) guy’s opinion as something which will work across the board for everyone, everywhere. There’s nothing democratic about socialism, just as there’s nothing democratic about the unregulated and oligarchic capitalism we have today.
At a very simple and human level, there are a number of explanations for why some elites and intellectuals gravitate towards socialism, this has been discussed to death in many places, but here’s an accessible article.
https://iea.org.uk/why-intellectuals-are-so-upset-by-the-injustices-of-capitalism/
To add some economist perspectives, here’s another article
What I find interesting from the above article is that China currently does very efficient market socialism, which tbh if the U.S. was to implement would make the U.S. a more powerful economic force to contend with. The caveat will be that U.S. citizens will no longer have the right to means to production, or land ownership. Such systems have no respect for individual liberties. The relative rate of poverty and inequality in the U.S. does not merit this kind of shift versus what it sacrifices.
The only countries which have issues with capitalism are the economic loser countries. Here’s the problem though, there are so many examples of countries which could have been economic losers, but instead turned it around for them because those countries had good sense and controlled their levels of corruption. The only people in countries who have problems with capitalism are the economic losers. The best way to correct those woes is through taxation and social programs, not a forced or authoritarian formula of break-shit-and-take-shit.
Edit I won’t respond to any comments to my post, I just don’t have the time to poke at this today lol, but don’t take my no response as a signal of agreement, just saying
/lazyposting
I think he and his ilk would also be partial to Jeeps
The common thread in successful countries is not overthrowing of “imperialists”, it’s nationalism.
Okay, here’s someone else then, basically there’s no ownership on land by anyone in China.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/vychg7/how_does_home_ownership_work_in_china/
The 90% figure also excludes rural residents, so it’s probably inflated.
Many countries used other people as slaves, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
The U.S. or western nations were hardly the first to do it, but the way things came together at that point in history certainly helped.
Regardless, many countries which exploited the trans-Atlantic slave trade aren’t even that successful now, relative to the U.S. so it’s not just slavery which made America what it is.
https://www.statista.com/chart/22057/countries-most-active-trans-atlantic-slave-trade/
Now days slavery is not just a west only problem though. But the west is more honest about its history than most in this regard.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-still-have-slavery
I think oppression politics exist solely in the hopes of redistributing wealth to a new cadre of ghouls who won’t be any better than the first. That’s not social justice, it’s revenge.
Oh please, forget it. You think they didn’t do that in countries which succeeded?
And you’ve shown time and time again that you choose to misrepresent things. No one owns anything in China lol, the government leases the land.
If you don’t want to admit that some of these countries are wholly disinterested in their own people, then don’t. Countries like those in BRIC, minus S, and only including the name-only ones are great examples of the kind of countries which overcame possible exploitation.
So no, it’s not just an outside baddie exploitation problem. Do those countries have their own issues, yes. Do they have the best systems, no. Does any country? Not necessarily.
Let’s be honest, a lot of political games make fools of us all, and it’s hard to judiciously determine the optimal system for economic development or social development outside of the context of history. Nothing has happened in a vacuum, and everything is tainted by history. The only thing we can hope for is fairness, justice and equity for everyone as best as we can provide, while not sacrificing the self-actualization of others. What really triggers me though is how people say disingenuous things about their ideology of choice, and that just makes me want to say the counterpoint, even if I agree on some aspects.
Yeah, I’ve never liked the oligarchic and kleptocratic side of capitalism, that’s exactly what I said in my first post.
Exactly thanks, and that’s exactly what I’ve been saying! The exploitation comes from within the countries first, the outsiders help instigate it because it makes sense from a game theory pov. However, many nation states stand as counter examples of how they escaped that.
It’s not okay to take others peoples stuff just because you want it. That’s barbaric and uncivil.
It’s better to implement taxes and democratically decide how those revenues should be used.
Edit I am not going to bother responding to the rest of your post, it’s clear that you’re willing to paint a rosy picture on any pile of bodies and call it day.
I think that’s a fair point, to a degree. But again to my point, that’s a huge generalization and ignores many, many successful countries which overcame incredible odds. It’s important to understand why their success happened so similar models can be used in other countries. And no, their problems aren’t just “exploitation”, that’s just wishful and simplistic thinking. Is there exploitation, yes. Is it because of “western nations”, not necessarily. The corruption and greed is an inherent problem in many of these countries, it existed without the help of outsiders.
Some of those countries don’t even have plumbing.
Second, the best way to understand your weak spots is through your ideological opponents. I don’t care for capitalism or socialism per se, I just hate disingenuous propaganda.
The so-called right wing platforms are simply stating historical facts from primary sources.
I can’t take anything you’re saying seriously because it’s just delusional, I am sorry.
Why do I say what you’re saying is delusional. Look, you’re opining about some made up thing I said (btw, I said 50% as a rough figure looking at the color bar, it’s 45.8%), but you’re neglecting that the many, many capitalists nations have MUCH LESS POOR PEOPLE PER CAPITA than China. So what exactly am I supposed to do, take their way of governance as something to aspire to? No, thank you. I am not anti-social and I hope better for others.
Stalin’s USSR proved that elitism and greed infects all economic tools and social ideologies. We also see this in China because no one is effectively allowed to own their home, the land is leased by the government. So consider this, if socialists like Stalin care so much about people, and the CPP is the modern equivalent of an anti-capitalist (not pure socialist) state, then what do you do with the 45.8% people making $10 per day (the US is at a hellish 2.2%). Why hasn’t China fixed their poverty by now?
In Stalins USSR, why were there bread lines for the common folk while their leaders had caviar and chocolate.** I am sure that’s because they weren’t “real” socialists, and I am sure you’ll do better!
Let’s also remember, that Stalin stole properties from the gentry, and made them mixed housing, but he and his family still lived in mansions. These are historical facts, just because you don’t like the people who say them doesn’t erase them from existence or history.
https://hum54-15.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/exhibits/show/russian_dacha/joseph-stalin-s-dacha--the-ric
I also find it hilarious that communists will preach socialism to those who reside in capitalist countries, completely neglecting that converting to Stalin or China type socialism will make the average American poorer because at least 60% of Americans actually own their own property, the land is not leased. So power to the minority 40% or 2.2% making less than $10 per day? The revolution surely will be great for the majority!
I am not saying there aren’t things to fix, I just find the communists and socialists arguing with such passion and zeal and sophistry to be inherently disingenuous because the facts show that they’re only interested in enriching themselves, so they mobilize people instead of armies to achieve that goal.
Wealth per citizen by country, fyi: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
You’re right, but one thing I’d like to point out about nature of voting in a democracy (and this isn’t about immigration itself): voter turnout is never 100% for anything, and winners are often decided by a handful (local elections) or couple of thousands of votes (state, federal).