Eugenics: Why are "racist" white countries so much richer?

Got proof, or is this just something else you dug out of your underwear?

 

So why were the leading figures in the abolitionist movement from Christian groups not corporations?

Why do we not have slavery today?

 

mike,
Why are you attempting to lie on me? I am not the author of either article or essay that I posted so you can not claim that I am anything save one who is forthright and above the board, i.e. open. I simply posted two essays; one tying the industrial revolution trans-atlantic slave trade and one citing that the industrial revolution did get help from cotton and the cotton of India helped to fuel England rise to the top of the garbage heap. Sure I mentioned that slavery did help to fuel England's rise which is factual but I never claimed that the entirety of the Industrial Revolution was built upon slavery. It was built upon colonialism, slavery and true industriousness.

 

The industrial revolution was based on colonialism and the theft of resources from abroad. Early on, that included massive theft of labor. This is not rocket science. Without slaves, the English, Spanish, Dutch and French could never have built their plantations and mines to provide trade goods like spices, silk, gems, gold and grain.

 

Here is what wikipedia says about the cause for industrial revolution and colonialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Causes

Notice that among the many causes theoretized, there is hardly any mention of exploitation of other cultures or colonialism. Because historians agree that even tough it may have been a factor, it was marginal at best. Arguing otherwise only serves to expose your ignorance of historical realities.

 

In all likelyhood if Europeans had left Africa completely alone not many Sub-Saharan Africans would be left. If the rest of the world, today, completely washed their hands of Africa the same thing would be true in a few decades. The sub-saharan people are only around because of outside influence. They are pretty much a failed people and would have become extinct (or close to it) some time ago if left to their own devices.

 

Rubbish. You assert that any government which taxes people and performs social functions is the same as the Republican party and therefore not Marxist in intent.

This is such utter nonsense I would not reduce myself to even respond to it.

 

The facts are that:

The Republican party DOES support a system where people are taxed and it DOES support social functions such as Medicaid. DO YOU DENY THIS?

The Republican Party does not support abolishing income tax. DO YOU DENY THIS?

The Republican Party does not even support abolishing progressive income tax (which takes more from the rich than the poor) in favour of a flat tax. DO YOU DENY THIS?

The Republican Party does not propose to abolish Social Security. DO YOU DENY THIS?

The difference between the Republican Party and other parties that operate in liberal democracies are that, even though nearly all are committed to systems of taxation, social functions carried out by government, and international capitalism, they disagree on exactly how much tax should be paid, how many social functions and to what degree capitalism should be regulated. Thus are they different. But hardly any are Marxist.

This is proper nuanced political analysis. It is not shrill slogan sounding and adolescent abuse.

You have just asserted that the Labour Party is Marxist, you have done nothing to demonstrate it.

This is not surprising as the very little you have posted to explain what "Marxist" has failed in any way to give a meaningful explanation as to what Marxism is except a term of abuse like "you smell". An understanding of Marxism starts with reading Marx. Have you read any? How does it support your statement?

You refuse to answer when asked this simple question.

Did you mean Groucho Marx?

Maybe that's it.

The fact that your responses to this argument are posts of rudeness, hostility and abuse just underlines the utter garbage that your John Birchisms rest on.

When your argument is clearly demonstrated to be rubbish you just refuse to answer.

It's why the type of shrill abuse that passes for Far Right politics in the USA is ignored by most Americans.

It's exactly why the Republican Party has a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE who is both internationalist (letting capital find places where the cheapest labour gives it the best returns) and who believes in social programs paid for by taxes (I believe it is called Romneycare).

On the basis of your absurd arguments, the GOP has an "international Marxist" candidate. Of course it doesn't, but this is your tedious logic.

It's too easy....aren't you embarassed?

 

I provided a quote from Karl Marx which captures the essence of Marxism. It isn't complicated although some people like to pretend it's some esoteric "special knowledge" and that you have to read all of Marx's endless babble to understand it.

Marxism essentially operates on principles of "equality" and wealth transference to achieve equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. "Equality" was never scientifically demonstrated.

Any party which seeks to move towards this situation is Marxist in effect. It is very simple. They do not have to outright state this as their goal. If they move towards this situation they are effectively Marxist.

You go on about the fact that the Republican party coincide on some unnecessary conditions as if that makes them entirely the same. This is of course ridiculous.

This is like trying to claim that the Nazis were a Buddhist monarchy because they both supported animal welfare.

The rest of your post (the majority) is just irrelevant rudeness.

 

Where?

I don't say you need special knowledge to understand anything. I say that if you claim to understand Marxism, then you should have read more thabn one quote. It's a bit like physics. If you claim to understand Newtonian physics you need to know more than the fact that an apple fell on his head. If you claim to speak French, then "ooh la la, and zut alors" really isn't enough. If you claim to detest neo-conservativism, then reading some stuff written by Irving Kristol can be useful instead of basing your prejudice on a quote from George Bush.

It's simple really - ignorance, when discussing ideas, is not a good thing. You seem to be making the argument that it is. You prefer the conclusions of a mob, whipped up by demagogues using simplistic slogans, to carefully worked out arguments, which pick apart those statements they disagree with and employ reason, nuance and intelligence. The whole way that the college-jock US Right argues is indicative of their inherent authoritarianism - celebrating ignorance, a lack of education and stumbling through a discussion with a half grasp of basic logical reasoning techniques. They prefer just to talk to each other with "Hell yeah!" being the enthusiastic response they give to each other, and employing a suspicion of rigour and nuance that oozes testosterone.

Anyone with any real understanding of Marxism will not recognize this definition. Marx said one thing that could possibly be misunderstood as that: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". This certainly doesn't justify idleness. It doesn't even specify equality. If you are worried about those who are welfare dependent, capable of working but refusing to, then Marx would have agreed with you that if you were capable of work, and you refused to, then you were entitled to jack all from the State. Marx here was saying that those who worked deserved to be rewarded and those, such as capitalists, who earned from capital, rather than their own labour, should be entitled to nothing. There is no comparison between this argument and the views of the British Labour Party.

If you on the other hand think that Marx was justifying paying out benefits to old aged pensioners after a life of work, paid for from the common purse, then this would be true. It is also be something that was directly called for by Tom Paine, the person who did the most to agitate for the creation of the modern USA. Was Tom a Marxist too? Along with all the Republicans who support Social Security and all the British Conservatives that support the NHS? Marxists all? Don't dodge the question.

Of course "Marxism" can't be defined by a quote. That is feeble midedness. But there is a large swathe of thick as pig crap Americans who conduct their politics with slogans, manatras and blind beliefs, and to whom reason is anathema. They scarecely deducted anything in their lives. They just learned their opinons, like commandments. These Americans are a threat to our freedoms. They hate ideas and run away from debate, preferring "everyone knows..." deceit and bullying.

The British Labour Party does not argue for equal outcomes. This is drivel. The British Labour Party is explicitly committed to capitalism. Capitalism cannot have equal outcomes. Your argument is juvenile and absurd.

Now I don't know why the argument is eluding you but this is not what I am arguing and I said so clearly. The GOP is not the same as the Labour Party. But by your absurd definition of Marxist, the GOP is as Marxist as the Labour Party. This is because your definition of Marxist is absurd, not because the GOP or the Labour Party is Marxist. Is this logical concept too difficult to grasp?

No its like saying that if two parties support animal welfare, then they both support animal welfare. I didn't say they were the same. I said that they both support transfer of wealth from those who produce it to the indolent, which is true, and that they both believe in international capitalism, which is true. By your definition - which is utterly risable - this makes them both "international Marxists"!

That doesn't make them the same at all. It exposes your abusive use of the word "Marxist" by pointing out that if you can apply it to the Labour Party on such spurious grounds then you have to apply it to the GOP on the same grounds.

Can you really not grasp this? Or are you just being disingenuous and trying to score cheap points?

 

Clearly the simple distinction you fail to grasp is the degree to which they support wealth transfer to the indolent (actually useless is a better word which captures the Marxist spirit).

 

Whoa! Got any logical arguments for that crap?

 

Just more ignorance. One of the very ugly things about Marxists in the early days was how they sought to justify exterminating the "useless". I expect you might have some sympathy with them there. They were so focused on the essential Marxist tenet that those who add value should receive the value, and that surplus value, being the profit that accrued to capital, should be eliminated. This led them to eugenics, arguments that sections of the population (the indolent) should be sterilized, and other barbaric things. Thus Marxism started to cross over with Nazism, to this extent. Welfarism is simply not Marxist. Communist countries did not offer welfare. In communist countries you were expected to work to receive money. The indolent have been much better off under capitalism than any Marxist regime.

Unfortunate facts that you continue to ignore because they don't suit your luidicrous sloganizing.

But I noticed you changed to talk about degree. Well finally we get a hint of nuance from your absurd and bombastic nonsense. I suppose that's progress. Pray tell though. Does that mean that - as we are talking about "degree", the Labour Party is MORE MARXIST than the GOP? Is that what you are saying?

This is an hilarious conversation mike!

I know...aren't words, arguments and ideas awkward things? It would be much nicer if we could just stick with slogans and all grunt along together now, wouldn't it?

 

Marxists exterminate the talented and productive as well you know.

I didn't change to talking about degree. I was all along.

It was you that constructed a ridiculous black and white strawman that any parties that involve any taxes and welfare are "the same".

It's so ridiculous I think it can be considered as hilarious "self-pwnage".

 

But you won't be able to find a single quote from Marx that would support this. This is just opinion, based on ignorance, masquerading as fact.

But that's not what the words said now. And if you were talking about degree then you were saying that the Labour Party is MORE MARXIST than the GOP, which is equally absurd.

That's not what I argued. You know it. Why do you post such obvious and crude falsehood? I constructed nothing of the sort and made it clear that the two parties were different. My whole rejection of your ludicrous description of the Labour Party is based on the fact that the two parties are alike in one way but clearly different and therefore your position is absurd.

It's logic.

If you say a = b therefore a = c,

then I am perfectly entitled to refute your argument by saying:

well d = b and on your argument therefore d = c,

and as that is ridiculous as clearly d does not = c

therefore you have failed to demonstrate that a = c

The argument you have put forward is illogical and fails.

You know this. You are cornered. So you are making things up now about what I said.

What on earth does that garbage mean?

 

Yeah, the Labour party is "MORE MARXIST" than the GOP. What's not to understand?
I'm not sure what your little lecture on "logic" is referring to and I'm going to just put it down as more hilarious "self-pwnage".

 

So the GOP is Marxist. Thank-you.

Your position is nonsense. But at least it is now clear!

We're all Marxists, but some people are more Marxist than others!

Spoken by someone who is proud not to have read any more Marx than a quote.

 

No. If I am more tall than person A, does that mean person A is tall?

Maybe you need to dig out that book of logic buddy.

And try this, maybe you skipped that class:



The GOP do not seek to move in the direction of a Marxist state. Labour do.

I think I've had enough illogical sophistry.

Thanks.

 

again, you demonstrate a complete lack of familiarity with marxist theory.

you need to educate yourself about political theory as well as human biology.

 

actually, the labour movement is not marxist at all - at least not in the english speaking world. in general, it would be more accurate to describe it as "social democratic"

 

LOL.

Can you be more specific about what it is I do not understand.

I'm particularly eager to have you educate me on human biology.

 

I think Heroclitus adequately demonstrated that you know nothing about Marxism, and you previous ststement re labour also confirms that you understand very little of the range of political movements of the left.

in another thread you indicated confusion between estrus in animals and menstruation.

 

The defining characteristic of Marxism is supposed "equality". Labour push in this direction and thus can be considered a Marxist party.

This is as simple and obvious as 1 + 1 = 2.

I can understand that those who support Labour do not wish to be associated with Pol Pot and the likes, but sadly this is inescapable.

 

This is a lame argument. After losing you simply say "you know nothing" and fail to back that up.

Spare yourself the self-pwnage.

What I actually said about menstrual cycles was was:

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-mated-unknown-species-20.html#post1061526306

Which is correct. Estrus is of course part of the menstrual cycle.

 

So much for the grandstanding and melodramatic exit from the site. I guess nobody cared enough to follow someone to the other site, so he came back. Pathetic.