- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Black people tried! A couple times to build a black community it they were very successful. Then white people people would get envious and blow it up.
Or bulldoze the middle of it for a freeway, which is what happened to MLK’s neighborhood (a.k.a. “the richest Negro street in the world”) here in Atlanta.
They did the same in Tulsa’s Greenwood district
I figured that’s what Aeao was referencing to begin with, considering that he wrote “blow it up” and I don’t think he was being figurative.
Frankly, even though we’re citing both of them as examples of black wealth being suppressed for the purpose of this discussion, I would struggle to call Tulsa and Atlanta “the same” because the tactics were so much more brutal in the former (firebombing and mass-murder vs. eminent domain).
I get them all mixed up. It’s happened a lot I different ways. But yeas they blew one the fuck up.
And yeah it’s hard to rank “bad” blown up and killed is worse. It is all bad tho, they other time they would’ve used a bomb if they needed to.
Yep :(
Segregation was illegal but building a freeway, or in many cases a railroads in-between the colored, and the white park of town was somehow legal.
People are fucked.
Seneca Village has entered the chat
I brought up Sweet Auburn because it was a particularly rich Black neighborhood and therefore an example supporting the point about what happened after “white people would get envious,” specifically.
If we’re just talking about historical Black neighborhoods that were razed for public works projects, I could cite plenty more examples just in Atlanta alone (Lightning, Butttermilk Bottom, etc.) 'cause pushing out poor Black people like that happened all the time (and in fact still does, albeit somewhat less blatantly).
That’s so fucked up
Wasn’t Central Park built on top of a black community? or mostly black or something, I think it was Seneca Village or something.
One example of an attempt that was destroyed because Racism ™️
“socialism is cancer”
car door shuts loudly
gets on public road
I get this example and I see it often when this comes up. But I bet there are people who would happily privatize the roads and charge everyone tolls for using them. Trucks transporting goods to stores would pass that cost on to consumers so you’re still paying for their road anyway but not through taxes.
Trucks transporting goods to stores would pass that cost on to consumers
but price elasticity
Even if he never said that, you can tell he’s an absolute prick with the profit chart emoji as part of his username.
“socialism is cancer”
~temporarily embarrassed millionaire
Is black capitalism like black people owning slaves with extra steps?
It is less steps.
Capitalism is cancer
How can a system that relies on scarcity and exploitation produce anything other than poverty?
Capitalists love these dumbass platitudes.
“Socialism is cancer” >>> Absurd
I sometimes ask them for their definition of socialism without looking it up. The shit they come up with is wild.
They always describe capitalism.
Securities tax, payable in shares of the security. 2% of all registered securities (stocks, bonds, other financial instruments; anything the SEC would regulate) are transferred to the IRS every year. The IRS liquidates those shares on the open market over time, such that no more than 1% of total traded volume is from the sale of liquidated shares.
Exempt the first $10 million in a portfolio held be a natural person. No exemption for corporate portfolios.
This will drive business ownership and returns away from the ultra-wealthy and toward the working class. If you’re a business seeking investor capital, you’re getting it from the general public, not the billionaires. The billionaires will be busy pulling their money out of the markets.
FD Signifier has entered the chat.
Jews had the Holocaust Black people had Jim Crow. Israeli Jews are fucking psychotic, we don’t need another group going ape shit now.
Something something Black cops.
Every time someone says a dogshit take like this, I want them to very clearly and slowly define for me, what they mean by socialism. Then I will be pulling up my phone, and we can read the Wikipedia article together.
Sadly, in many people’s minds stalinism is synonymous with socialism.
Doesn’t help that there are people who think stalinism is desirable…
It’s funny how media literate can see Stephan’s fear. Response is genius btw
“Jeffrey, go to college, man! Make something of yourself. Me and the fat man, we messed our lives up. We fucked up in the game, man. We products of the environment. Don’t be a idiot, man. Make us proud. Do shit different, baby.” - Sweet
Source - GTA SA The Introduction short film.
What’s annoying is that socialism and capitalism are not opposites. Yes, capital is needed to produce more than before, but If a community bands together to buy a factory to build clothes better and faster, that’s socialist capitalism and works well. The problem is people gaming the system and stepping on peoples faces to keep all the capital for themselves.
Edit: thank you all for the comments, you all were right, I was taking the focus of the word “capital” and conflating it with “capalism”. I was trying to say that aquiring capital is a worthy venture in general, however I see the argument is with private ownership (i.e. the definition capatilsm).
The problem is people gaming the system and stepping on peoples faces to keep all the capital for themselves.
Yeah but they’re also sociopaths that have bought into “effective altruism” and thus believe their becoming more rich and more powerful not only feels great for them, but it’s also a net good overall in a moral sense.
The problem overall IMO is sociopaths. They game every system. The only fix is legal and structural changes to eliminate — or at very least greatly lessen — their ability to do so.
Effective altruism doesn’t deserve to be slandered like this. It’s what the better billionaires were into, and few and far between. Some may have given it a bad name through some weird personal guilt trip, but it was generally the good thing on the label.
I generally agree that we need heavy socialist controls on capitalism. I’m a capitalist, yeah, but “pure” capitalism isn’t a thing and is clearly dumb. If you don’t have controls, billionaires will use money to corrupt/change the rules. THIS is the biggest thing you have to prevent. We can argue about how to do so, but there shouldn’t be argument that it needs to be done.
Effective altruism doesn’t deserve to be slandered like this.
Dude, effective altruism sucks. A movement is what it does, and what this movement does is spawn cults and give sociopaths cover for getting rich via any means possible.
That’s not capitalism that’d be market socialism I’m pretty sure. Capitalism is a very specific form of market economics that evolved out of a type of mercantilism.
We saw how “well” East India Trading company went and decided thats what we wanted for humanity lmao
Socialist capitalism does not exist, they are polar opposites. Trade does not equal capitalism.
I’ve said something along these lines before but that was when I was much newer to socialism.
Now I’d say that if a community owned the means of clothes production that is not capitalism. If they give/sell them that also does not have to be capitalistic as long as the goal is not using commodities to make money for money’s sake.
If you take that money and put it towards building other commodities thats also fine,
anymost political systems need a way to make new things. Marx called this C-M-C where you sell a commodity ©, transform it into money (M) and then use that money to get a new commodity ©. This makes sense because a commodity is only as valuable as you can use it, it’s use-value BUT if the end goal is money. Then it becomes a M-C relationship. Now the goal is money. Money is spent to buy stuff for the sole purpose of making money, there is no desire to use it only to extract the markup costsLastly the people working there must own it. If a state-like figure owns it and makes the decisions in a heavy top-down fashion and profit is not openly shared then I think that is just state capitalism.
They are diametrically oppositional and anyone who says otherwise is completely ignorant of political theory.
Capitalism is an economic system which utilizes a system private ownership over the means of production. Socialism is a system of collective ownership. You cannot have private and collective ownership simultaneously.
Do not confuse capitalism with commerce.
You cannot have private and collective ownership simultaneously.
Well, there is state capitalism like China, where production is theoretically owned publicly via representatives of the people, but in practice is more like private ownership with extra steps.
