Queequeg
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,191
only pboy would know.You mean pboy's Word
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
only pboy would know.You mean pboy's Word
wasn't yours as well being a penal colony?Wasn't your nation built on free slave labour?
wasn't yours as well being a penal colony?
well that settles it then...
My point was in refutation of the 'Displacing Americans with imported slaves is not an option on the table', which seems ironic when was that was exactly the main force behing USAs early economic domination apart from abundant natural resources, native Americans were displaced with free labour they and the world could not compete with
'Lefty' source:
How Slavery Helped Build a World Economy
I was just pointing out the double irony. But I have to agree with @zztr. Many countries in the Americas had slavery and an abundance of natural resources but none developed as much as America. The North had all but abolished slavery by the Revolution and it was the North that was principally responsible for the rapid growth of the country. Slavery is similar to the Oil curse where the easy money made from oil can ruin a country because it doesn't bother to develop in any other area.well that settles it then...
My point was in refutation of the 'Displacing Americans with imported slaves is not an option on the table', which seems ironic when was that was exactly the main force behing USAs early economic domination apart from abundant natural resources, native Americans were displaced with free labour they and the world could not compete with
'Lefty' source:
How Slavery Helped Build a World Economy
Or the gold curse that ruined Spain as a world power, upended by the industry of the British. Spain relied on gold mined from colonies, and this singular focus made its status as an empire vulnerable. When the flow of gold dried up, Spain had no recourse. In its wake, it left a legacy of sloth in its colonies. The creoles and the mestizos, which form the landed class in these colonies, had no interest in industry and are the equivalent of the US' current "intellectual but idiot" class. This has retarded the development of many countries which were once colonies of Spain. To be fair, Spain was dominated by the Castilians, whose master-slave mentality is not shared by the Basques nor by the Catalans. Compare Singapore and Malaysia to the Philippines and Indonesia, the former were British colonies and the latter were Spanish and Portuguese (later Dutch) colonies. Even in the Philippines, the Chinese minority do not share the same industry as the Chinese in Thailand, nor Taiwan, much less China. This is a reflection of how the Chinese aspired to be like the Spanish, who were the society elites. The Spanish legacy of relying too much on the goose that lays the golden eggs, and killing it as a result, has such a long and lingering effect it is like a cancer that can't be cured.I was just pointing out the double irony. But I have to agree with @zztr. Many countries in the Americas had slavery and an abundance of natural resources but none developed as much as America. The North had all but abolished slavery by the Revolution and it was the North that was principally responsible for the rapid growth of the country. Slavery is similar to the Oil curse where the easy money made from oil can ruin a country because it doesn't bother to develop in any other area.
In every instance that a Marxist philosophy has been used to enforce supposedly benign economic principles on the people, the end result has always been mass killings and/or genocide. Thinking that this time would be different is what every revolutionary has claimed, until it wasn't.
Only Government has the legal power of coercion. Who else will carry out your mandates? Is it time to call out the Obama Brown Shirts?
In every single instance that the tenets of Marxism have been employed, mass murder and genocide has followed. Seems like a strange coincidence that all of these avowed Marxists somehow misread their copy of the Communist Manifesto but you know better.None of what I was talking about actually stems from Marx, so it wouldn't make sense for me to defend Marxism. But for the record the changes you regard as Marxist which were accompanied by mass killings weren't anything like what he actually envisioned. That's pretty evident from his writing.
In every single instance that the tenets of Marxism have been employed, mass murder and genocide has followed.
Seems like a strange coincidence that all of these avowed Marxists somehow misread their copy of the Communist Manifesto but you know better.
“… there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
- Karl Marx (“The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 7, 1848)
“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.” - Karl Marx (“Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849)
"You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible." Karl Marx Communist Manifesto
“All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.”
- Friedrich Engels (“The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849)
“... in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness…”
- Friedrich Engels (“Democratic Pan-Slavism,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, February 15, 1849)
The Communists As They Really Are
“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” Karl MarxWell, that's just incorrect. But the more pertinent point to making here is that everywhere capitalism has been employed, those same atrocities have followed. If you are looking to take the high ground you need a better position than simply as an opponent to the USSR and Cambodia.
Definitions change over time. The word terror didn't always have violence implicit in it, as it does these days. Mass strikes were considered a form of terror then. In that context it's a leap to suggest that revolutionary terror he writes about constitutes a call for workers to investigate the kind of violent activity that defines the term today.
yway, if you read the original text it's a response to massacres by state police and soldiers of workers so even if it was a call to violence it would be a reaction (self defence) not an initiation of violence.
The fact that he condemned individual acts of violence as 'stupid' calls the accusation into question even more.
More of the same really. These are just observations of history. The Marx quote speaks nothing of extermination of people, just dis empowerment and sidelining. If you want to make a case for the communist manifesto being some kind of bible which the cretins who ran China, Vietnam, the USSR etc used to justify mass killings then you're on fairly thin ice. Marx never really went into great detail about how to institute change. It's also not the wisest thing to link to somebody who is an egregious apologist for Jewish apartheid in the middle east, if you are trying to take a moral stance against killing people in the name of ideology.
As for your dismissal of the idea that Marxism is world's apart from Maoism, Leninism and Stalinism... if you'd read anything by Marx you'd see that he never argued for a ruthless and powerful elite which could justify starving people by the millions to be ushered into power. He did the exact opposite. State power was supposed to decentralised and localised and involve a high degree of worker participation. Those things obviously didn't happen in any 'communist' state. He even argued that parliamentary democracy could be utilised as a means of workers gaining control in some countries. Maoism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and Leninism are all very different to one another, and don't fit with the ethics of Marxism.
I'm merely arguing this as a point of historical accuracy and what I see as some degree of hypocrisy, not because I care about Marxism. Which I don't.
He only thought that the one particular act of the Fennians was stupid because of its timing as it destroyed the support of the English working classes he was trying to build.Marx himself refused to condemn this kind of violence. After the assassination of Alexander II he wrote to his daughter Jenny that terror was ‘a historically inevitable means of action of which it was as useless to discuss as that of the earthquake at Chios’, and he admired the Russian terrorists as ‘excellent people through and through…simple, straightforward, heroic’. Marxism and terrorism – International Socialism
“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” Karl Marx
I think this was more of an ironic prediction than an observation as it is the neo-Marxists (and the neo-Anarchists) that don’t seem to learn anything from history.
You can parse those quotes all you want but historical facts remain, anywhere from 100 to 200 million people died as a result of the Marxist fantasy. Your false reading of what is plain as day is laughable. Despite what you claimed, Marx and Engels both called for the use of terror to implement the revolution and genocide and mass killings to secure the resulting Dictatorship.
I am sure the Anarchists would have been equally murderous if they had ever gotten in power. They engaged in far more acts of assassination and terrorism than the Marxists ever did. For a long time Anarchism had been synonymous with terrorism. Even your own Communist propaganda source says that Marx supported Terrorism.
And no the definition of terror or terrorism has not changed; terrorism to Marx meant that same as it does today, the systematic use of violence to secure a political objective.
Nothing done in the name of Capitalism comes even close to the methodological, industrialized killing of Marxism.
On the contrary free market capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty, more quickly than any other political system in history. The poorest people in the West have some of the highest living standards in the world.
China, since embracing some aspects of free market capitalism, has brought its people out of abject poverty to see the rise of the largest middle class. Marxism had only gotten them misery and mass murder.
I gather you'll be providing the proof for this? Good luck btw.
Clearly the word terror was used. But saying this was a direct call to genocide is ridiculous. Does having 'night terrors' have anything to do with actual violence? You call it false reading, but you are obviously projecting your beliefs here.
I would suggest reading what they actually argued for rather than relying on interpretations from other people. Try finding a passage where they suggest a brutal ruling party should rise to power and lord over all workers and deny them any kind of participation, even killing them if it was seen as in the greater interest. Good luck with that as well.
When Anarchists took power in Spain none of what you are 'sure' of, actually happened. Funny that.
Proof?
Carpet bombing and spreading agent orange over vast amounts of Vietnamese land is certainly methodological and industrialised. Unless you want to stick your head in the sand.
It's a strong indictment of capitalism that the only arguments people can use in favour of it's imposition is that it hasn't killed as many as some other ideology.
Capitalism is a system which has basically destroyed it's own habitat. Massive species loss, pollution related death and injury, degradation of the food supply. It's list of misdeeds isn't quite as short as you'd like me to think it is.
Sigh.Can you demonstrate where there has ever been a free market?
The poorest people in the west live on the streets. Somehow I don't think they'd agree with you that they have 'some of the highest living standards in the world'.
China's (partial) alleviation of poverty has happened under working conditions we in the west would consider slavery.
and"Of all religions, secular and otherwise," Rummel positions Marxism as "by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide."[26] He writes that in practice the Marxists saw the construction of their utopia as "a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, 'wreckers', intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths."[26]
Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century Communist regimes "have killed more people than any other regime type."[52] Other scholars in the fields of Communist studies and genocide studies, such as Steven Rosefielde, Benjamin Valentino, and R.J. Rummel, have come to similar conclusions.[2][26][53] Rosefielde states that it is possible the "Red Holocaust" killed more non-combatants than "Ha Shoah" and "Japan's Asian holocaust" combined, and "was at least as heinous, given the singularity of Hitler's genocide." Rosefielde also notes that "while it is fashionable to mitigate the Red Holocaust by observing that capitalism killed millions of colonials in the twentieth century, primarily through man-made famines, no inventory of such felonious negligent homicides comes close to the Red Holocaust total."[53]
If we can't use English properly to debate then we really can’t have a proper debate. If you want to argue that the word terror was used differently in 1850 than today then it is up to you to prove it.
Here is a nice summary of what Marxism has cost in order to secure their workers’ paradise. Mass killings under Communist regimes - Wikipedia
Some quotes stand out:
As for Anarchists, they practically invented modern day Terrorism Propaganda of the deed - Wikipedia
I guess you are backing away from your unsubstantiated claim that terror meant something different to Marx 150 years ago since you didn't provide any proof. This second attempt at redefining terror is unfortunately just as untrue. All the above meanings of terror still carry the implication of violence or threat of violence. What do you think is the most likely reason for someone to feel terror?noun
1.intense, sharp, overmastering fear:
to be frantic with terror.
2.an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causingterror:
to be a terror to evildoers.
3.any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.
The dictionary says not every definition of the word involves violence. So, if you want to prove that the use of the word terror in that newsletter constituted a call to violent action then you're obviously going to need more information than that to provide context.
I'm not white (very brown heh), voted for Trump twice (primary and general) and Id vote for him forever and every time he runs. I didnt bother reading the 15 pages of posts here because I, and I guess most people, dont analyze politics to such an infantiscimle level. Heard him many times, got a feeling, liked his message, got my vote.
I guess you are backing away from your unsubstantiated claim that terror meant something different to Marx 150 years ago since you didn't provide any proof. This second attempt at redefining terror is unfortunately just as untrue. All the above meanings of terror still carry the implication of violence or threat of violence. What do you think is the most likely reason for someone to feel terror?
But before we completely lose track of what we were discussing, the point I was trying to make is not that Marxism or Leninism or whatever was the only dangerous political idea but that all man-made Utopias, including the one you were proposing, are dangerous and will always carry with it the dangers of immense state violence.
Once you try to restrict people’s economic freedom in one way or another you will need some form of coercion to enforce it. Your idea of forcing people to pay more for workers who work the riskiest jobs will not only result in all jobs becoming more and more risky but will require some form of coercion to enforce that. The more arbitrary rules you can come up with the more coercion will be required.
Anarchy at the other extreme can never work on any meaningful scale or for any meaningful length of time because of the complete absence of coercion. A system without government requires men to be fair in their dealings with one another and to respect each-others rights. Since this is not always the case, Anarchism will eventually devolve into tyranny as people seek protection from one another through whatever form of government that they can get. Its interesting that both communism and anarchism both lead to dictatorships.
Free market capitalism in contrast is not an ideology or a man made utopian theory; it is a description of real world human trade that has evolved for thousands of years.
The excesses and abuses in capitalism come about because we have moved farther and farther away from the free market, allowing companies and governments to become too big of a force in people’s lives. The answer is not to try and come up with a new unnatural system to replace it but rather to get back to what is required of a free market.
One of the most important requirements is that no company should be so large that they can exert an unfair influence on the market or power over the individual. Breaking up the big companies and banks and forcing them to actually compete would be a good start. Removing many of the crazy Government regulations on business and people would be another.
This is as big a bunch of gobbledy-gook from *anyone* as I've read in a long time. Really disappointing from someone as discerning as Peat can be.
There was NO ELECTORAL SHOCK. Almost 100% of Hilary's "popular vote" came from the huge population centers on the coast, that are geographically in the huge minority. Trump won something like over 2000 counties nationwide...Hilary won like 481. Is that a "minority" of the country? I think not.
The electoral college was designed to prevent large population centers that are geographically compact from tyrannizing and forcing their views on the rest of the country. Large population centers being particularly tone deaf when it comes to the needs and concerns of those who actually produce the things that are parasitized by the city dwellers. Also, large population centers are particularly vulnerable to the machinations of demogogues. Take a look at the history of ancient Rome for examples.
Bottom line: electoral college worked *perfectly*. It's a check and a balance against tyranny.
And just cuz you don't like the outcome this time, be very, very wary of changing it. It may work in your favor some day. Electoral college as a construct is an objective balance, not a tool for any given ideology.
Someone as ostensibly smart as Peat should know that.
But I guess that's his Marxist leanings showing. I mostly overlook them because of his other valuable contributions, but dumb remarks and thinking like this should not be given a pass without commenting on them.