06-15-2011, 11:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2011, 12:10 AM by FireIceTalon.)
You would have to be illiterate to not understand my posts, grammatical errors or not. That excuse wont wash with me. The fact you try to use my posts here to try and undermine my credibility both in my ideas and how I write is just a desperate "Red Herring" attempt to try and steer the argument away from the original point.
Well then, if you acknowledge that not everyone has an equal starting position, then how can there be equality of opportunity, as you guys keep claiming there is? Saying there is equal opportunity but then admitting not everyone has an equal starting position in life is a contradiction.
I never said capitalism was the CAUSE of inequalities for minorities and women. Indeed, women and minorities problems are socially constructed rather than economically. But social and political structures ALLOW for the economic difficulties of many minorities and women to be PERPETUATED. So the cause may be political or social, but the manifestation is also economical, as well as social and political. Capitalism divides people not so much by race or gender as by the broader category of class. But capitalism can (and has been) used as a justification to keep certain groups of people marginalized in society, even if it is not the direct cause, based on America's embracing of social darwinism,;which is probably the most evil and destructive ideology to ever be contrived. It just so happens that many of the poor are minorities. It is really interesting to note how we dont acknowledge the economy is in the tank until the middle class gets hit, even though the poor and working class struggle regardless of how well the current economy may be doing (relatively speaking), on a daily basis. But even if all the sudden, overnight, women and minorities were no longer marginalized, this still does not address the larger context of inequality: class. And THIS IS caused, at least in part, by economics (though political and social factors play a role too).
In capitalism, we want to privatize everything, so only those who can pay are entitled. There is now even talk of privatizing community colleges in some states, which is just another assault on the working class and poor. Privatize is a dirty word in my view but nonetheless it is what is occurring.
As for human nature preventing Marxism from being practical, Ive seen this argument many times, but I dont really buy it, for two reasons. First, who is to say what our nature truly is? This is getting into bigger more philosophical questions now, where no definite answer can be found. And just what determines our nature? Are we born a certain way, or is our nature more influenced by external factors such as environment, economic conditions, geography, etc (basically the whole nature vs nurture debate). I tend to believe the latter is a bigger factor, but that is just my opinion. Also, if we truly want to achieve our self interests first, why would we implement a system like capitalism that will only fan the flames of our nature instead of trying to contain them? This is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. This survival of the fittest mentality is bad because those who are less fortunate get left behind, and in many cases, it is the majority. This is the central theme of which Marxism was developed from. When you oppress a group of people, be it socially, economically, or otherwise, they are going to fight back, and possibly violently if necessary.
Also, I wouldn't say Sweden, Denmark, or even France are capitalistic. Their economic and political systems are still very highly based on and around socialism, even if there is elements of the free market that do exist. At the end of the day there, profits are not nearly as stressed as they are here.
Well then, if you acknowledge that not everyone has an equal starting position, then how can there be equality of opportunity, as you guys keep claiming there is? Saying there is equal opportunity but then admitting not everyone has an equal starting position in life is a contradiction.
I never said capitalism was the CAUSE of inequalities for minorities and women. Indeed, women and minorities problems are socially constructed rather than economically. But social and political structures ALLOW for the economic difficulties of many minorities and women to be PERPETUATED. So the cause may be political or social, but the manifestation is also economical, as well as social and political. Capitalism divides people not so much by race or gender as by the broader category of class. But capitalism can (and has been) used as a justification to keep certain groups of people marginalized in society, even if it is not the direct cause, based on America's embracing of social darwinism,;which is probably the most evil and destructive ideology to ever be contrived. It just so happens that many of the poor are minorities. It is really interesting to note how we dont acknowledge the economy is in the tank until the middle class gets hit, even though the poor and working class struggle regardless of how well the current economy may be doing (relatively speaking), on a daily basis. But even if all the sudden, overnight, women and minorities were no longer marginalized, this still does not address the larger context of inequality: class. And THIS IS caused, at least in part, by economics (though political and social factors play a role too).
In capitalism, we want to privatize everything, so only those who can pay are entitled. There is now even talk of privatizing community colleges in some states, which is just another assault on the working class and poor. Privatize is a dirty word in my view but nonetheless it is what is occurring.
As for human nature preventing Marxism from being practical, Ive seen this argument many times, but I dont really buy it, for two reasons. First, who is to say what our nature truly is? This is getting into bigger more philosophical questions now, where no definite answer can be found. And just what determines our nature? Are we born a certain way, or is our nature more influenced by external factors such as environment, economic conditions, geography, etc (basically the whole nature vs nurture debate). I tend to believe the latter is a bigger factor, but that is just my opinion. Also, if we truly want to achieve our self interests first, why would we implement a system like capitalism that will only fan the flames of our nature instead of trying to contain them? This is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. This survival of the fittest mentality is bad because those who are less fortunate get left behind, and in many cases, it is the majority. This is the central theme of which Marxism was developed from. When you oppress a group of people, be it socially, economically, or otherwise, they are going to fight back, and possibly violently if necessary.
Also, I wouldn't say Sweden, Denmark, or even France are capitalistic. Their economic and political systems are still very highly based on and around socialism, even if there is elements of the free market that do exist. At the end of the day there, profits are not nearly as stressed as they are here.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)