6 ms·

> When the same happens in liberal, capitalist countries, or due to those countries imperialism, the deaths don't seem to be attributed to liberalism or capital

> When the same happens in liberal, capitalist countries, or due to those countries imperialism, the deaths don't seem to be attributed to liberalism or capitalism. Probably because it wouldn’t make sense to attribute the effects of imperialism or anti-liberal, anti-capitalist policies to liberal capialism; whereas the Marxists took over specifically in the basis that they claimed to be able to have better living conditions and fewer deaths and less suffering than capitalism. Surely you can understand that we are interested in how poorly they have failed to live up to this promise.

Miner49er 6y ago
> effects of imperialism or anti-liberal, anti-capitalist policies to liberal capialism; I don't what you're saying. Are you saying that imperialism is anti-capitalist?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Yes, imperialism is where a government exerts political and economic control over another different country. Capitalism is a system of private ownership of the means of production. Clearly, these systems are in opposition.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    Imperialism is often done for capitalism. Look at Hawaii for imperialism done for basically purely capitalist reasons.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      It seems like in Hawaii they expropriated lots of people, which is a violation of private property. Private property is a necessary prerequisite for capitalism so I’m sure that it’s not correct to say that “imperialism is often done for capitalism” as its an oxymoron. “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
      - jimmyvalmer 6y ago
        You're right, American incursions against native peoples and Mexico exhibit utter disregard for the sanctity of property rights. It's an egregious mischaracterization to call the U.S. a bastion of capitalism.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > American incursions against native peoples and Mexico exhibit utter disregard for the sanctity of property rights. I would express this as “human rights” and I agree. > It's an egregious mischaracterization to call the U.S. a bastion of capitalism Agreed.
  - jimmyvalmer 6y ago
    New one! Many denigrate Marxism because it aligns so well with fascism (state above all). Similarly, many vilify capitalism because it aligns so well with imperialism (let's get rich from Africa, Arabia, India, etc.).
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      What’s odd is calling it capitalism when its the same as the communism: you see something you want and you take it.
      - jimmyvalmer 6y ago
        > You see something you want and you take it Mantra of every bleeding heart capitalist since Adam Smith.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > > You see something you want and you take it > Mantra of every bleeding heart capitalist since Adam Smith. >>> When the happiness or misery of others depends in any respect upon our conduct, we dare not, as self–love might suggest to us, prefer the interest of one to that of many. >>> Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice. >>> In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for. >>> The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. >>> Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. >>> Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. >>> Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
  - approxim8ion 6y ago
    That only happens if there is a meaningful separation between government and private owners or oligarchs. When one is actively involved in lobbying and introducing candidates whose agenda is favourable to them into government, the lines are blurred. Your definition is reductive.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > When one is actively involved in lobbying and introducing candidates whose agenda is favourable to them into government, the lines are blurred. Capitalism requires private property. If you come up with a system “capitalism except we relax private property norms” then you’ve blurred the line right out of “capitalism” into fascism, communism, centrism, some other “-ism.” > That only happens if there is a meaningful separation between government and private owners or oligarchs. Yes, exactly. When the government expropriates property and gives it to friends of the people in government, its imperialist but not capitalist. > Your definition is reductive. Indeed.
      - whydoibother 6y ago
        Capitalism fuels imperialism, and fascism.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Capitalism fuels everything because capitalism is the system where people consistently generate a surplus. The problem is social norms that permit fascist / imperialist /socialist systems to expropriate the value produced by capitalism.
        whydoibother 6y ago
        Capitalism doesn't fuel everything. People do things for lots of reasons outside of money or generating surplus. The problem isn't social norms. The problem is untethered capitalism allows concentrations of wealth and power with no check on it. Those capitalists then stoke fascism to retain power once material conditions have decayed enough due to that concentration of wealth.

Miner49er 6y ago

> effects of imperialism or anti-liberal, anti-capitalist policies to liberal capialism; I don't what you're saying. Are you saying that imperialism is anti-capitalist?

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Yes, imperialism is where a government exerts political and economic control over another different country. Capitalism is a system of private ownership of the means of production. Clearly, these systems are in opposition.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  Imperialism is often done for capitalism. Look at Hawaii for imperialism done for basically purely capitalist reasons.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    It seems like in Hawaii they expropriated lots of people, which is a violation of private property. Private property is a necessary prerequisite for capitalism so I’m sure that it’s not correct to say that “imperialism is often done for capitalism” as its an oxymoron. “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
    - jimmyvalmer 6y ago
      You're right, American incursions against native peoples and Mexico exhibit utter disregard for the sanctity of property rights. It's an egregious mischaracterization to call the U.S. a bastion of capitalism.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > American incursions against native peoples and Mexico exhibit utter disregard for the sanctity of property rights. I would express this as “human rights” and I agree. > It's an egregious mischaracterization to call the U.S. a bastion of capitalism Agreed.
- jimmyvalmer 6y ago
  New one! Many denigrate Marxism because it aligns so well with fascism (state above all). Similarly, many vilify capitalism because it aligns so well with imperialism (let's get rich from Africa, Arabia, India, etc.).
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    What’s odd is calling it capitalism when its the same as the communism: you see something you want and you take it.
    - jimmyvalmer 6y ago
      > You see something you want and you take it Mantra of every bleeding heart capitalist since Adam Smith.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > > You see something you want and you take it > Mantra of every bleeding heart capitalist since Adam Smith. >>> When the happiness or misery of others depends in any respect upon our conduct, we dare not, as self–love might suggest to us, prefer the interest of one to that of many. >>> Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice. >>> In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for. >>> The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. >>> Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. >>> Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. >>> Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
- approxim8ion 6y ago
  That only happens if there is a meaningful separation between government and private owners or oligarchs. When one is actively involved in lobbying and introducing candidates whose agenda is favourable to them into government, the lines are blurred. Your definition is reductive.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > When one is actively involved in lobbying and introducing candidates whose agenda is favourable to them into government, the lines are blurred. Capitalism requires private property. If you come up with a system “capitalism except we relax private property norms” then you’ve blurred the line right out of “capitalism” into fascism, communism, centrism, some other “-ism.” > That only happens if there is a meaningful separation between government and private owners or oligarchs. Yes, exactly. When the government expropriates property and gives it to friends of the people in government, its imperialist but not capitalist. > Your definition is reductive. Indeed.
    - whydoibother 6y ago
      Capitalism fuels imperialism, and fascism.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Capitalism fuels everything because capitalism is the system where people consistently generate a surplus. The problem is social norms that permit fascist / imperialist /socialist systems to expropriate the value produced by capitalism.
        whydoibother 6y ago
        Capitalism doesn't fuel everything. People do things for lots of reasons outside of money or generating surplus. The problem isn't social norms. The problem is untethered capitalism allows concentrations of wealth and power with no check on it. Those capitalists then stoke fascism to retain power once material conditions have decayed enough due to that concentration of wealth.