Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2017-07-17, 2:38 PM #3081
Originally posted by Jon`C:
You have this exactly backwards.

Sanders's main problem is that he identifies wealth and income inequality as the root cause of most social problems. Under capitalism, the people who have the most are automatically able to achieve the most. That means (certain) white males have more potential for success than anybody else does. That means, for example, there are much fewer successful and influential black women than there should be, because they originally started with less. Socialists (some more than others) believe fixing the economic issues will eventually shake out the social ones; by offering equality of opportunity, people from disparate backgrounds will act upon those opportunities, gather wealth, influence, and respect, and eventually (if nothing else) make it extremely inconvenient to be racist or sexist.

This perspective is not popular among people who believe capitalism (read: extreme inequality) could work for them "if only". If only there weren't racism. Or if only there were better jobs. Or if only someone would give me a chance. They believe their success is being obstructed by specific people who are discriminating against them, rather than it being rooted in a structural economic flaw that gives them a much lower likelihood of success in the first place.

Social democrats like Sanders don't blame specific people for their problems, they blame a broken economic system that needs to be managed better, recognizing that poor behaviours are mostly rational and cannot be corrected without active intervention. It's the latter types who blame specific people - the bankers, the racists, the job creators - and expect them to magically "behave better" and fix their problems, while never giving them any incentive for doing so.


My point was that Sanders failed to directly resonate with the self-narrative of minority groups. Pointing out that you think that minority groups should have a different narrative is neither here nor there.

So I have it exactly forwards.
2017-07-17, 2:44 PM #3082
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
My point was that Sanders failed to directly resonate with the self-narrative of minority groups. Pointing out that you think that minority groups should have a different narrative is neither here nor there.

So I have it exactly forwards.


I meant the part where you said "Sanders supporters blame people for their problems". I agree that it's incompatible with how minorities view their circumstances, as I said!
2017-07-17, 3:00 PM #3083
Originally posted by Eversor:
That's fine as a statement of the aspirations of social democracy. But there was also a populist component to Bernie's candidacy that involved demonizing the financial industry. He definitely did "blame specific people." Bernie often said the system is rigged, and he undoubtedly attributed the rigging to the people who made it that way. "Greed" motivated the financial elites to rig the system to serve their own interests at the expense of the little guy.

There's a moralistic dimension to Bernie's message, for sure.
Let's be clear here. Capitalism is an engineered economic system, and the financial sector are the architects. Criticizing the efficiency of capitalism is absolutely a repudiation of finance and vice versa.

That is different from saying "I am poor because of racism".
2017-07-17, 3:22 PM #3084
Well I guess that's where you gotta come back and point out that white people invented capitalism.

Now I don't want to misrepresent people who talk about "structural racism" in an intelligent way, but with a certain number of people, the temptation to make things personal by cheaply anthropomorphizing and hastily generalizing (especially after things in life get bad enough for them individually, or they consume too much (social) media) comes naturally in the wake of a failured educational system that leaves them without recourse in the realm of rational discussion that at least uses the same vocabulary as Western establishment outside of identity politics coming out of universities. Perhaps economics is the unified neutral language for this, but such a small chunk of it in the academic world would identity financiers as the root of our problems.

This kind of thing makes me think that stuff like Robert Sapolsky's new book Behave ought to be widely read, and that the best thing most people can do is avoid fanning the flames. In a lot of ways, Sapolsky's point of view is relevant when you accept that in certain ways we are no better than a giant troop of primates that is not completely at peace with itself.
2017-07-17, 7:37 PM #3085
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Well I guess that's where you gotta come back and point out that white people invented capitalism.
Well, maybe, but white people didn't invent capitalism to persecute minorities. We invented it to amplify the advantages of incumbent wealth. There's nothing essentially racist about capitalism, which is also why you can't improve racial inequality within capitalism.

Quote:
Now I don't want to misrepresent people who talk about "structural racism" in an intelligent way, but with a certain number of people, the temptation to make things personal by cheaply anthropomorphizing and hastily generalizing (especially after things in life get bad enough for them individually, or they consume too much (social) media) comes naturally in the wake of a failured educational system that leaves them without recourse in the realm of rational discussion that at least uses the same vocabulary as Western establishment outside of identity politics coming out of universities.
I agree.

Quote:
Perhaps economics is the unified neutral language for this, but such a small chunk of it in the academic world would identity financiers as the root of our problems.
Because they're myopic A.F.

Wealth inequality and "special" economics are major historical drivers of racism and other barriers to integration.
2017-07-17, 9:52 PM #3086
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Well, maybe, but white people didn't invent capitalism to persecute minorities. We invented it to amplify the advantages of incumbent wealth. There's nothing essentially racist about capitalism, which is also why you can't improve racial inequality within capitalism.


Yet if one looks at wages, the market is clearly, on aggregate, willing to pay more for white labor than black labor. That's racist.

And who's to say what's "essential" to capitalism?
former entrepreneur
2017-07-17, 10:15 PM #3087
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Chapter 2: "Also make sure y'all play black people less."
2017-07-17, 10:29 PM #3088
This idea that the true purpose or the "essence" of capitalism is whatever it's inventors thought it is is completely bogus. It smacks of the constitutional originalism that Jon was complaining about in another thread.
former entrepreneur
2017-07-17, 10:35 PM #3089
I highly recommend you guys at least try the essence of capitalism, before you knock it.

2017-07-17, 10:41 PM #3090
lol
former entrepreneur
2017-07-17, 11:01 PM #3091
If you really want to put your brain in a knot, check out that Nazi propaganda demonizing the United States for greed and barbarism toward blacks.

2017-07-18, 12:50 AM #3092
Originally posted by Eversor:
Yet if one looks at wages, the market is clearly, on aggregate, willing to pay more for white labor than black labor. That's racist.
The market is willing to pay more for educated, articulate, bullish people with clean records, good credit, and leadership experience. White males are more often able to develop these traits because of early childhood exposure, parents who have more free time, and superior educational opportunities (even 'white' public schools tend to be better funded). In turn, all of these things come from parental socioeconomic status.

Make no mistake - if black labor were strictly equivalent, and yet still cheaper, the "market" would exclusively hire black labor. The problem is that it isn't equivalent, on average, because most black people do not have the varied, formal and informal educational opportunities that most white men have, which makes white men more valuable to employers. That's the problem that needs to be fixed. Inequality of opportunity under capitalism is a much deeper and more pernicious problem than the identity politic people want to believe.

Quote:
And who's to say what's "essential" to capitalism?
Economists, I guess? Probably not you though.

Originally posted by Eversor:
This idea that the true purpose or the "essence" of capitalism is whatever it's inventors thought it is is completely bogus. It smacks of the constitutional originalism that Jon was complaining about in another thread.
Are you suggesting that racism is essential to capitalism, then?
2017-07-18, 1:05 AM #3093
Capitalism is contingent upon the private ownership and exchange of productive capital. Of course it was designed to amplify the advantages of incumbent wealth. Poor people don't have any friggin capital to commoditize; that's why they're poor. What the **** did you think the finance sector was set up for? Managing your 401k? lol
2017-07-18, 3:31 AM #3094
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Are you suggesting that racism is essential to capitalism, then?


Nope. But I do think your use of the term "capitalism" has been vague and maybe even contradictory. So depending on how loosely or how strictly you're using the term "capitalism", I may be skeptical of this claim that you made above:

Originally posted by Jon`C:
you can't improve racial inequality within capitalism


If, according to a narrower definition of capitalism, capitalism is distinguished from government intervention, then what you said makes sense and I wouldn't push back against it too much. However, if you're going with a broader definition of capitalism, such that the term is inclusive of government intervention (because, for example, in a capitalist society, the ruling economic class has disproportionate influence on government and is able to use it to institute rents that serve its specific interests, and this system prevents government from addressing social problems), then I'd likely disagree.

Originally posted by Jon`C:
Economists, I guess? Probably not you though.


Heh. Woah, there! I'm not claiming to define capitalism. You are, and I'm posing questions in good faith. (But, still, nice ad hominem. It's always good to know that I've tickled you enough to make you lash out.)
former entrepreneur
2017-07-18, 4:02 AM #3095
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
If you really want to put your brain in a knot, check out that Nazi propaganda demonizing the United States for greed and barbarism toward blacks.


Woah. There's a lot going on in that.

Quote:
One fine night, they leave the pool hall,
Headin' for the dance at the Arm'ry!
Libertine men and Scarlet women!
And Rag-time, shameless music
That'll grab your son and your daughter
With the arms of a jungle animal instinct!
Mass-steria!
former entrepreneur
2017-07-18, 6:49 AM #3096
I wonder what Reid thinks about this: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/887290791793655809
former entrepreneur
2017-07-18, 8:43 AM #3097
Originally posted by Eversor:
Nope. But depending on how loosely or how strictly you're using the term "capitalism", I may be skeptical of this claim that you made above:

If, according to a narrower definition of capitalism, capitalism is distinguished from government intervention, then what you said makes sense and I wouldn't push back against it too much. However, if you're going with a broader definition of capitalism, such that the term is inclusive of government intervention (because, for example, in a capitalist society, the ruling economic class has disproportionate influence on government and is able to use it to institute rents that serve its specific interests, and this system prevents government from addressing social problems), then I'd likely disagree.
So, basically, you built a straw man and knocked it down. Nice job.

Capitalism returns a surplus to the owners of capital. Capitalists use that surplus to buy or build more capital, and this cycle repeats ad infinitum. Capital ownership or formation is the only way to become rich under capitalism. If you do not have existing capital it is almost impossible to acquire capital. Thus, the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. This is very much an essential property of capitalism, stemming purely from the private ownership of capital and the commoditization of capital, and does not require government corruption.

The reason you think capitalism maybe works is because your parents grew up during highly unusual circumstances, in the wake of massive destruction and expropriation of capital following decolonization and WW2. The last century had historically low wealth inequality, so it was possible for average people to acquire small amounts of capital and live decently. Under those conditions it is possible for a poor person to acquire capital and gain ground.

The reason things kinda suck right now and keep seeming suckier is just because things are getting back to normal.

Quote:
Heh. Woah, there! I'm not claiming to define capitalism. You are, and I'm posing questions in good faith. (But, still, nice ad hominem. It's always good to know that I've tickled you enough to make you lash out.)
- Someone who doesn't understand that capitalism concentrates wealth
2017-07-18, 9:00 AM #3098
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Capitalism returns a surplus to the owners of capital. Capitalists use that surplus to buy or build more capital, and this cycle repeats ad infinitum. Capital ownership or formation is the only way to become rich under capitalism. If you do not have existing capital it is almost impossible to acquire capital. Thus, the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. This is very much an essential property of capitalism, stemming purely from the private ownership of capital and the commoditization of capital, and does not require government corruption.

The reason you think capitalism maybe works is because your parents grew up during highly unusual circumstances, in the wake of massive destruction and expropriation of capital following decolonization and WW2. The last century had historically low wealth inequality, so it was possible for average people to acquire small amounts of capital and live decently. Under those conditions it is possible for a poor person to acquire capital and gain ground.

The reason things kinda suck right now and keep seeming suckier is just because things are getting back to normal.


That's a cool theory, Mr. Piketty.

But, woah. Talk about a straw man. That wasn't remotely a response to what I said. You didn't answer my question about the relation between capitalism and government intervention in the economy vis-a-vis racism.

And I don't think that capitalism "works". Heh. Maybe you read that into my post because you're anxious again? And it's an especially stupid accusation; a few posts ago you were attributing to me (falsely!) the view that capitalism was inherently racist.
former entrepreneur
2017-07-18, 9:19 AM #3099
I was asking a "good faith" question.

And yes, I've actually read Capital in the Twenty First Century. I talk about it a lot.
2017-07-18, 9:20 AM #3100
Originally posted by Jon`C:
So, basically, you built a straw man and knocked it down. Nice job.


No I didn't?
former entrepreneur
2017-07-18, 9:20 AM #3101
Originally posted by Jon`C:
I was asking a "good faith" question.


Without a question mark?
former entrepreneur
2017-07-18, 11:16 AM #3102
The reason capitalism isn't essentially racist is because you can imagine a capitalist society bootstrapped with an equitable distribution of capital (including human capital) across all people, regardless of other factors. In the long term, capital will be concentrated among a few people, but we would generally expect those few capitalists to be representative of the original group of capital owners (whether your ideal capitalism includes regulatory capture or not).

The only way you won't have the same representation in the end that you had in the beginning is if you allege there are meaningful differences between the races that genetically predispose some of them to capital concentration. This would mean capitalism is "essentially" racist, i.e. thst capitalism as a system is designed to amplify the advantage of being white specifically, but I do not think this is the case, and I don't think you are racist enough to think this, either.

So no, I do not think capitalism is essentially racist.
2017-07-18, 2:42 PM #3103
So anyway, who has seen Hypernormalisation? The section on Trump is a surreal watch. The best part was the montage of American landmarks being destroyed in 90s movies though.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-07-18, 3:04 PM #3104
Well I have, I've leaned on it at least a couple different times in this thread many pages back in order to bolster some point I was trying to invent I'm lieu of actually knowing something about history.

The parts about the origin of suicide bombing were interesting to me for this purpose, and I linked to some timestamped locations back when we were talking about American foreign policy, and again to show Eversor the montage of disaster scenes that "predicted" 9/11 in some philosophical way.
2017-07-18, 3:34 PM #3105
Originally posted by Eversor:
I wonder what Reid thinks about this: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/887290791793655809


I love Glen Greenwald for triggering the liberal media whenever he can which is cool. Not sure how to make sense of that poll result though. I think it might be partially due to Hillary basically dropping off the face of the Earth, she made like one statement blaming everything else for her loss and then has basically just gone to gala events. Which is like the least admirable way to lose.
2017-07-18, 3:36 PM #3106
The thing that sucks about the Russia thing, besides, you know, it's direct influence on the politics of the country, it it gives Democrats a blanket excuse to avoid any self-criticism. My biggest fear is that the Democrats will rebrand a moderate Republican and become a center right party fully while holding hostage the progressive vote.
2017-07-18, 3:37 PM #3107
Basically, run Hillary again and say "this time Russia won't screw it up".
2017-07-18, 4:07 PM #3108
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Well I have, I've learned on it at least a couple different times in this thread many pages back in order to bolster some point I was trying to invent I'm lieu of actually knowing something about history.

The parts about the origin of suicide bombing were interesting to me for this purpose, and I linked to some timestamped locations back when we were talking about American foreign policy, and again to show Eversor the montage of disaster scenes that "predicted" 9/11 in some philosophical way.


ooooh haha I think that post is what prompted me to watch it. Well, I've seen it now!
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-07-18, 4:22 PM #3109
Reminds me of the last Canadian federal election. The NDP (Social Democrats) shifted their platform toward the center to attract Conservative defectors. Meanwhile, the Liberals (Neoliberals) in a surprise move shifted their platform left, and swept the election. The NDP almost got wiped out, and the Liberals went from "almost not even a party anymore" to a majority government.

I'm sure there's a lesson here, if politicians ever bothered learning any.
2017-07-18, 5:29 PM #3110
"I have come with an offer for the federation"



Originally posted by The New York Times:
WASHINGTON — President Trump had a second, previously undisclosed, private conversation with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia this month, the White House acknowledged on Tuesday, raising new questions about their relationship as the cloud of Russia investigations continues to shadow the Trump administration.

The hourlong conversation in Hamburg, Germany, took place at a private dinner among world leaders at a concert hall on the banks of the Elbe River during the Group of 20 economic summit meeting, with only a Kremlin interpreter present to listen to the exchange. It followed a formal meeting between the two presidents that lasted more than two hours earlier in the day, and included their foreign ministers for a fraught discussion about Moscow’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 American elections.

In the earlier meeting, Mr. Trump questioned the Russian president about his role in the American vote. Mr. Putin denied his involvement, and the two men agreed to move beyond the dispute in the interest of finding common ground on other matters, including a limited cease-fire in Syria.

But the intimate dinner conversation, of which there is no official United States government record, because no American official other than the president was involved, is the latest to raise eyebrows. Foreign leaders who witnessed it later commented privately on the oddity of an American president flaunting such a close rapport with his Russian counterpart.

“Pretty much everyone at the dinner thought this was really weird, that here is the president of the United States, who clearly wants to display that he has a better relationship personally with President Putin than any of us, or simply doesn’t care,” said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a New York-based research and consulting firm, who said he heard directly from attendees. “They were flummoxed, they were confused and they were startled.”

The encounter occurred more than midway through the lengthy dinner, when Mr. Trump left his seat and approached Mr. Putin, who had been seated next to his wife, first lady Melania Trump.

In a statement, a White House official on Tuesday described the meeting as routine and brief, and explained the lack of an American translator by noting that the president was accompanied by a Japanese interpreter who did not speak Russian. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that any insinuation that the White House has tried to hide the encounter was false.

A second White House official confirmed that the meeting had occurred but did not offer any details, and insisted on anonymity because the discussion was private.


Russia specialists said such an encounter — even on an informal basis at a social event — raised red flags because of its length, which suggests a substantive exchange, and the fact that there was no American interpreter, note taker or national security or foreign policy aide present.

“We’re all going to be wondering what was said, and that’s where it’s unfortunate that there was no U.S. interpreter, because there is no independent American account of what happened,” Stephen Pifer, a former ambassador to Ukraine who also specializes Russia and nuclear arms control.

“If I was in the Kremlin, my recommendation to Putin would be, ‘See if you can get this guy alone,’ and that’s what it sounds like he was able to do,” added Mr. Pifer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

[...]
2017-07-19, 4:57 AM #3111
Originally posted by Jon`C:
The reason capitalism isn't essentially racist is because you can imagine a capitalist society bootstrapped with an equitable distribution of capital (including human capital) across all people, regardless of other factors. In the long term, capital will be concentrated among a few people, but we would generally expect those few capitalists to be representative of the original group of capital owners (whether your ideal capitalism includes regulatory capture or not).

The only way you won't have the same representation in the end that you had in the beginning is if you allege there are meaningful differences between the races that genetically predispose some of them to capital concentration. This would mean capitalism is "essentially" racist, i.e. thst capitalism as a system is designed to amplify the advantage of being white specifically, but I do not think this is the case, and I don't think you are racist enough to think this, either.

So no, I do not think capitalism is essentially racist.


Yeah, ok. Alright, as I said, I don't want to claim that capitalism is essentially racist. And you've given a convincing argument for why capitalism isn't essentially racist. But is it de facto racist? So here's the ambiguity I read in what you said. On the one hand, you have provided a definition of capitalism -- let's say it's a formal definition of capitalism -- that goes something like this: capitalism is a system where those with capital seek to increase their wealth through the exchange of capital for productive labor. That's an abstract definition of capitalism that would apply to a capitalist society in the United States (if one says that capitalist societies exist), or on the one capitalist society that exists on Earth (if it's incorrect to speak of different capitalists societies, because there's only one capitalism and it's a transnational system), but the definition would apply to every instance of capitalism that exists. I totally agree -- as far as this definition is concerned, capitalism is not racist.

But then there's another way in which you've characterized capitalism. You've also defined it in terms of the economic ruling class, whose interests the economic system serves. While the formal definition of capitalism still applies, in this way of thinking, capitalism is incapable of being disassociated from the specific historical context in which it arises, and from its specific historical manifestation. According to this definition, whatever the capitalists do to increase the return of investment on their capital is also capitalism. (What "capitalism" is according to that definition is probably even more comprehensive than that, but let's put a pin in it for now.) In the past, you've described rent-seeking as an essential feature of capitalism, and rent-seeking often has a political component to it (e.g., achieving regulatory capture by manipulating the political process and undermining governmental agencies that regulate industries). So capitalism isn't simply apolitical. It's not neutral to politics.

So, here's another thought experiment. There are socioeconomic reasons why African Americans, on average, have lower wages: their labor, again, on average, is worth less, because, on average, they have weaker skills, due to worse access to decent schools, living in poorer neighborhoods, being raised by parents who are strained financially, etc. But, there is action that the government can take to reverse these trans-generational problems. The government could provide financial and social assistance, and so on and so on. What if, because, let's just say hypothetically, capitalists are racists (i.e., prejudiced, or even just ignorant), and they want to pay lower taxes, they actively oppose social programs that would improve the conditions of black Americans, by paying for lobbyists, or through other means? Wouldn't that mean that capitalism would be, de facto, racist? Wouldn't those activities be direct manifestations of capitalism, to the extent they are examples of capitalists seeking to maximize their wealth by rigging the economic system?
former entrepreneur
2017-07-19, 4:58 AM #3112
And then another thing. You said: "you can't improve racial inequality within capitalism". But what if tomorrow a new technology is invented that is potentially a massive engine of economic growth, and it becomes an imperative within the private sector for all Americans to become highly educated so that they can work for companies that develop this technology. It's also high-paying, because demand for workers so far exceeds supply. Simultaneously, there's also a war going on, so we're suspicious of immigrants, and we can only get highly trained workers by training them ourselves. Now, the capitalist class is lobbying the government to improve the socioeconomic of all Americans, so that the American economy will be competitive globally. As a byproduct, the welfare and social economic status of racial minorities increases, and some sort of parity is reached.

Would that not be an instance of capitalism improving racial inequality?
former entrepreneur
2017-07-19, 5:01 AM #3113
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
The parts about the origin of suicide bombing were interesting to me for this purpose, and I linked to some timestamped locations back when we were talking about American foreign policy, and again to show Eversor the montage of disaster scenes that "predicted" 9/11 in some philosophical way.


That clip threw me into a spell of depression for two or three days and made me freak out about my own personal teenage trauma with 9/11. It was worth it? (not sarcasm)
former entrepreneur
2017-07-19, 7:29 AM #3114
Originally posted by Jon`C:
The market is willing to pay more for educated, articulate, bullish people with clean records, good credit, and leadership experience. White males are more often able to develop these traits because of early childhood exposure, parents who have more free time, and superior educational opportunities (even 'white' public schools tend to be better funded). In turn, all of these things come from parental socioeconomic status.


In addition to this, past racism, and exaggerated expectation of racism leads a lot of blacks to be very suspicious toward many of the social mechanisms for advancement.
2017-07-19, 8:06 AM #3115
Quote:
exaggerated expectation of racism


:thinking:
2017-07-19, 11:17 AM #3116
Regarding the larger post above: Yes, it is certainly possible for a racist capitalist to use their capital in order to execute a racist plot. I don't really agree with your example, though; refusing to pay taxes is what we might call a "dick move", but it's not exactly a pogrom either. A better example would be blockbusting, which intentionally exploited racial tensions between whites and blacks. I brought it up earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by Eversor:
And then another thing. You said: "you can't improve racial inequality within capitalism". But what if tomorrow a new technology is invented that is potentially a massive engine of economic growth, and it becomes an imperative within the private sector for all Americans to become highly educated so that they can work for companies that develop this technology. It's also high-paying, because demand for workers so far exceeds supply. Simultaneously, there's also a war going on, so we're suspicious of immigrants, and we can only get highly trained workers by training them ourselves. Now, the capitalist class is lobbying the government to improve the socioeconomic of all Americans, so that the American economy will be competitive globally. As a byproduct, the welfare and social economic status of racial minorities increases, and some sort of parity is reached.

Would that not be an instance of capitalism improving racial inequality?
If capitalists want socialism, is it still considered capitalism? How zen.

Maybe let's just call it what it is: an instance of capital trying to flood the labor market to drive down their costs, by using their ownership of a strategically important sector to force the public to train their workers for free. Assuming the plan even worked, and that black men actually had equal access to opportunity and pay in this new industry, the people exploiting their labor and taking their surplus are still gonna be the same old white dudes.
2017-07-19, 12:08 PM #3117
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
In addition to this, past racism, and exaggerated expectation of racism leads a lot of blacks to be very suspicious toward many of the social mechanisms for advancement.


When you don't have any control over the mechanisms for advancement then you are absolutely correct to be suspicious. Forcing people to beg for scraps will always be met with resistance. All people should own the means of production.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2017-07-19, 12:35 PM #3118
Originally posted by Eversor:
That clip threw me into a spell of depression for two or three days and made me freak out about my own personal teenage trauma with 9/11. It was worth it? (not sarcasm)


.(

For whatever reason, I didn't have an emotional connection to the attacks when they happened (I was in middle school). I was a teenager but just barely and New York was a far away place.
2017-07-19, 12:39 PM #3119
I recently took the Meyers-Briggs personality test, and that sent me into a fit of depression. Well not really, but sort of. It's the sort of thing where you get tricked into thinking something is more insightful than it really is. Of course I should know better than to let a horoscope trick me into overthinking what is basically just unfalisifiable confirmation bias, but I couldn't help but be curious, and in the end I was just disgusted with myself for having cared. My only conclusion is that people who take the results seriously enough to split hairs between anything but the most divergent types are morons (on the bright side, my result was basically the opposite of Hitler). Also, the lettering scheme they use is incredibly opaque, and has some super dubious internal logic built into it.

TL;DR: Not Even Wrong / intellectual prions for curious people vulnerable due to perhaps temporary low self esteem
2017-07-19, 12:41 PM #3120
Originally posted by Eversor:
And then another thing. You said: "you can't improve racial inequality within capitalism". But what if tomorrow a new technology is invented that is potentially a massive engine of economic growth, and it becomes an imperative within the private sector for all Americans to become highly educated so that they can work for companies that develop this technology. It's also high-paying, because demand for workers so far exceeds supply. Simultaneously, there's also a war going on, so we're suspicious of immigrants, and we can only get highly trained workers by training them ourselves. Now, the capitalist class is lobbying the government to improve the socioeconomic of all Americans, so that the American economy will be competitive globally. As a byproduct, the welfare and social economic status of racial minorities increases, and some sort of parity is reached.

Would that not be an instance of capitalism improving racial inequality?


Guess which races could take advantages of education and new job markets easier.

Also I don't think the advent of absolute 100% employment for all races in some advanced field is a realistic thing to worry about.
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!