Lula

[Green Dragon]

President Lula of Brazil recently blamed "white people" for the present financial problems.

Should the OIers hereabout take the failure of revlefters to unilaterally condemn those comments (or at least be willing to seriously consider the claim, as per the Politics board), as a sign that the revlefters oft made assertions as to the nature of race relations and such IMPROVING, as a result of an economic and social community as desired by revlefters, to be somewhat off the mark?

[synthesis]

I had to sit and stare at that sentence for a few minutes until I finally understood it as the straw man that it is.

[Dr Mindbender]

President Lula of Brazil recently blamed "white people" for the present financial problems.

Should the OIers hereabout take the failure of revlefters to unilaterally condemn those comments (or at least be willing to seriously consider the claim, as per the Politics board), as a sign that the revlefters oft made assertions as to the nature of race relations and such IMPROVING, as a result of an economic and social community as desired by revlefters, to be somewhat off the mark?

Its not the purpose of revleft to apologise for stupid people.

[GracchusBabeuf]

President Lula of Brazil recently blamed "white people" for the present financial problems.

Should the OIers hereabout take the failure of revlefters to unilaterally condemn those comments Lula is a reformist leftist and a typical bourgeois opportunist politician. His comments have nothing to do with the actual race relations on the ground. However his comments are not entirely off the mark, but should have mentioned rich capitalist white people instead of "white people" in general. But since he is part of the ruling class himself, he naturally wouldn't have the balls to say that. He's probably angling for the non-white vote bank.

[RGacky3]

He was making a vast generalization that in many latin American countries has a lot of truth to it, and in many countries. That white people are wealthy, and yes, the wealthy did cause the crisis.

Now is that a racial generalization? Yes, Lula is white btw, sure its a generalization, the same way people who make generalizations about black people not taking care of their kids.

WEALTHY people are responsible for the crisis, and most wealthy people are white, are their black and indian and mixed raced wealth people yes? Are their asian wealthy people? Plenty, are all whites wealthy? Not by a long long shot.

So was it an unjust racial generalization? Yes, but I'll tell you this much, most white people arn't that upset about it, because white people hav'nt really in history been attacked as a race because they are white, so naturally they are less sensative to racial generalizations, others like blacks and indiginous people have a lot of history of being attacked because of their race.

But yeah, it was an unjust generalization, and in my opinion, was probably to score political points in Brazil.

[JimmyJazz]

Should the OIers hereabout take the failure of revlefters to unilaterally condemn those comments...as a sign that the revlefters...[are] somewhat off the mark [about race]?

Assuming you mean unanimously, since unilaterally doesn't make sense...

Then the answer is no: what it proves is that socialists aren't a homogenous entity, or a backroom conspiracy, but a genuine political tendency full of subtleties and disagreements.

[FreeMan]

LOL its quite ok for any person to say bad things about white people and not be called racist. Espeically under left wing ideology. Hell you don't even have to back up your statement.

Can you imagine if this guy said something about black people or mexicans?

[FreeMan]

But yeah, it was an unjust generalization, and in my opinion, was probably to score political points in Brazil.

Are generalizations ever just? Including generalizations about race? Can they ever be? Even if they were true?

[Jazzratt]

LOL its quite ok for any person to say bad things about white people and not be called racist. Espeically under left wing ideology. Hell you don't even have to back up your statement.

Can you imagine if this guy said something about black people or mexicans?

Oh I sure wish I could be as enlightened and blind to skin colour, material conditions and global institutional racism as you. I'd love to wake up with that warm glow of knowing that I've defended the downtrodden white man from those scary brown people. It's a shame I have to develop nuances and grasp the basics of context.

The record is getting boring. Change it.

[benhur]

LOL its quite ok for any person to say bad things about white people and not be called racist. Espeically under left wing ideology. Hell you don't even have to back up your statement.

Can you imagine if this guy said something about black people or mexicans?

LOL it's quite ok for white people to slaughter millions, start world wars, gas people etc. etc., and finally go complain to mummy that someone called them names, and therefore it's racist.:rolleyes:

[FreeMan]

LOL it's quite ok for white people to slaughter millions, start world wars, gas people etc. etc., and finally go complain to mummy that someone called them names, and therefore it's racist.:rolleyes:

Whats your point? What race hasn't slaughtered people?

Have you ever heard of Native Americans Slaughtering people? Probably not huh?

Actually white people are the ones who complain least about racism.

[FreeMan]

Oh I sure wish I could be as enlightened and blind to skin colour, material conditions and global institutional racism as you. I'd love to wake up with that warm glow of knowing that I've defended the downtrodden white man from those scary brown people. It's a shame I have to develop nuances and grasp the basics of context.

The record is getting boring. Change it.

I am sorry, I had forgotten that poor people are automatically victims and rich people are automatically evil. LOL I bet you hate seeing the sight of pretty women huh?

[RGacky3]

Are generalizations ever just? Including generalizations about race? Can they ever be? Even if they were true?

Nope, but so what, whats your point. He said something for a cheap political point, and made a vast generalization, it happens all the time. Is it racist? Yeah its racist, but its not really as severe as say being racist against a black person.

As Louis CK once said "Should'nt have called me cracker, brings me back to owning land and people."

But its obviously wrong, being white does'nt make you priviledged the same way being brown or black does'nt make you oppressed. Being priviledged makes you privildedged and being oppressed makes you oppressed, race does'nt come into it.


LOL it's quite ok for white people to slaughter millions, start world wars, gas people etc. etc., and finally go complain to mummy that someone called them names, and therefore it's racist.

Thats Bull, it was'nt WHITE PEOPLE, it was a very select ruling class of certain white people, and historically asian people as well. The same way not every black and Hispanic guy in the city is a gang member. And yes, it is racist to generalize based on race, thats the definition of racism.


I am sorry, I had forgotten that poor people are automatically victims and rich people are automatically evil.

No one said anything about evil. Rich people are automatically unjustly priviledged, and have unwarrented wealth and power, and poor people are automaticall unjustly oppressed and in poverty with very little say in their enviroment.


Whats your point? What race hasn't slaughtered people?

Have you ever heard of Native Americans Slaughtering people? Probably not huh?

Actually white people are the ones who complain least about racism.

White people complain the least about racism because they were never victoms of it as a race, at least institutionally. The only times they were that I can think of is some places in Africa, but thats only after DECADES AND DECADES of brutal racism against native africans.

[Jazzratt]

I am sorry, I had forgotten that poor people are automatically victims and rich people are automatically evil.

Yes that's exactly what I said.


LOL I bet you hate seeing the sight of pretty women huh?

Uh, why?

[FreeMan]

Nope, but so what, whats your point. He said something for a cheap political point, and made a vast generalization, it happens all the time. Is it racist? Yeah its racist, but its not really as severe as say being racist against a black person.

You just made a generalization about a race "White people complain little abot racism because they are hardly ever victims of"



Thats Bull, it was'nt WHITE PEOPLE, it was a very select ruling class of certain white people, and historically asian people as well. The same way not every black and Hispanic guy in the city is a gang member. And yes, it is racist to generalize based on race, thats the definition of racism.Ruling people of every race have oppressed lower class people



White people complain the least about racism because they were never victoms of it as a race, at least institutionally. The only times they were that I can think of is some places in Africa, but thats only after DECADES AND DECADES of brutal racism against native africans.

This is because many minorities have moved to countries where the majority are white people. While very few white people have move to countries where the majority are colored people.

Takin revenge on a certain race is never excusable.

[#FF0000]

You just made a generalization about a race "White people complain little abot racism because they are hardly ever victims of"

You actually said the same fucking thing.


Actually white people are the ones who complain least about racism.

[FreeMan]

Yes that's exactly what I said.

Uh, why?

I just get the feeling that you guys just feel sorry for the weak, ugly and the poor and resent the strong, beautiful and the successful.

You guys believe in sort of this slave morality (nietzsche).

Many of my beliefs the opposite, I kinda find that interesting and repulsive at the same time.

[FreeMan]

You actually said the same fucking thing.

Gacky claimed its never ok to make a generalization about a race no mater if its true or not.

I simply pointed out that he did make one. (it was a generalization against white people but that is considered ok in today's society)

[Conquer or Die]

I just get the feeling that you guys just feel sorry for the weak, ugly and the poor and resent the strong, beautiful and the successful.

You guys believe in sort of this slave morality (nietzsche).

Many of my beliefs are just opposite, I kinda find that interesting and bad at the same time.

Good points. I now believe in what you believe.

[#FF0000]

Gacky claimed its never ok to make a generalization about a race no mater if its true or not.

I simply pointed out that he did make one. (it was a generalization against white people but that is considered ok in today's society)

But that isn't even a generalization about a race. He stated that white people suffer from less institutional racism than any other group.


I just get the feeling that you guys just feel sorry for the weak, ugly and the poor and resent the strong, beautiful and the successful.

Well, yeah. That's because you're immature and don't know what you're talking about, like we've been telling you.

[FreeMan]

But that isn't even a generalization about a race. He stated that white people suffer from less institutional racism than any other group.

SO saying that the white race suffers less racism is not a generalization about a race? right....

(like I said, saying things about the white race is not considered generalization or racist in todays society)



Well, yeah. That's because you're immature and don't know what you're talking about, like we've been telling you.Going back to name calling are we.

So you don't feel sorry for the poor and resent the rich?

[#FF0000]

SO saying that the white race suffers less racism is not a generalization about a race? right....


No, it isn't.

[Jazzratt]

I just get the feeling that you guys just feel sorry for the weak, ugly and the poor and resent the strong, beautiful and the successful.

I think you couldn't tell your arse from a hole in the ground.


You guys believe in sort of this slave morality (nietzsche).You've never read Nietzsche, you've learned the buzzwords. No one as thick as you could possibly begin to understand his writings.

[synthesis]

SO saying that the white race suffers less racism is not a generalization about a race? right....

White people aren't denied jobs on the basis of their names. White people aren't beaten by police or unfairly detained because of the color of their skin. White people suffer less racism - that's a fact, not a generalization. There's no such thing as "driving while white."

[Green Dragon]

]Lula is a reformist leftist and a typical bourgeois opportunist politician. His comments have nothing to do with the actual race relations on the ground. However his comments are not entirely off the mark, but should have mentioned rich capitalist white people instead of "white people" in general. But since he is part of the ruling class himself, he naturally wouldn't have the balls to say that.

Lula has been a life long "proleteriat" and union activist.



He's probably angling for the non-white vote bank.


Maybe so. But why would he think the proleteriat of Brazil would be receptive to such bigoted commentary?

[Green Dragon]

So after a few days opportunity, only ONE revlefter (and a restricted Revlefter at that) could muster the strength to condemn the comments of Lula. The rest were of the "wrong but..." variation.

My other question remained unanswered:

Should the willingness to excuse and to try to justify the comments of Lula by the Revlefters hereabouts be considered a negative against the revlefters by the OIers?

[#FF0000]

So after a few days opportunity, only ONE revlefter (and a restricted Revlefter at that) could muster the strength to condemn the comments of Lula. The rest were of the "wrong but..." variation.

My other question remained unanswered:

Should the willingness to excuse and to try to justify the comments of Lula by the Revlefters hereabouts be considered a negative against the revlefters by the OIers?

We aren't trying to justify anything. No one here feels Lula is representative of us or any of our ideas. We don't care.

But, you know what? I can be diplomatic. How about this. All OIers apologize for Silvio Berlusconi, and we'll apologize for Lula. Deal?

[GracchusBabeuf]

Lula has been a life long "proleteriat" and union activist.Wow. So one can remain proletariat after becoming the President of a bourgeois democracy. Thats news to me.


Maybe so. But why would he think the proleteriat of Brazil would be receptive to such bigoted commentary?Why do you think the Brazilian working class are receptive to such bigotry? Why do you think the German proletariat were receptive to bigotry? Its all about votes. Lula cannot solve the people's problems while remaining head of a bourgeois democracy. He probably knows this. Thats why he is stirring up racial issues in order to get the votes. Bourgeois democracy is not democracy. Simple as that. Its all imposed from the top bosses onto the working classes.

[RGacky3]

You just made a generalization about a race "White people complain little abot racism because they are hardly ever victims of"

Yeah, but the connotations of that generalizatoin is absolutely true, very very very very few white people suffer from racism. Whereas the connotations that white people caused the economic meltdown are not true, because the fact is, it was a very very very small precentage of white people.

Also, my generalization has no negative associations, its simply the truth, white people generalyl don't suffer from institutional racism, ever.


Ruling people of every race have oppressed lower class people

Yes your right, I 100% agree, however, historically, due to imperialism and europes conquering of large sections of the world, the ruling classes of europe many times became the ruling classes of other countries too, especailly in latin America.

Now does that make a real difference now? No, the ruling class is the ruling class no matter what race. But due to history, most of the ruling classes tend to be white people in parts of the world.


This is because many minorities have moved to countries where the majority are white people. While very few white people have move to countries where the majority are colored people.

Takin revenge on a certain race is never excusable.

That is rediculous, white people moved into Africa, all of South America, all of North America, and in much of Latin America, they are the minority, however, due to historical circumstances, they make up most of the rulign class. Look at most of Africa's history, at least parts of Africa, its been the white minority, that for the msot part held most if not all of the power

Black people in America, were taken here. Hispanics were in a sense forced to more here as well due to economic conditions, and the racism they had to endure is also never excusable. Institutional racism is'nt just about minority majority.

But I agree revenge is not excusable, but the little suffering that some white farmers in Africa have to suffer is NOTHING, not even close, to what Africa suffered under European imperialism.


I just get the feeling that you guys just feel sorry for the weak, ugly and the poor and resent the strong, beautiful and the successful.

You guys believe in sort of this slave morality (nietzsche).

Many of my beliefs the opposite, I kinda find that interesting and repulsive at the same time.

What the hell are you talking about, it has nothign to do with feeling sorry for the weak and ugly, or the strong and beautiful. Where are you getting this. We are against a tyrranical unjust system which is essencially a slave system. It has nothing to do with weak and ugly.

Also, I hope you are not insinuating that somehow white people are the strong and beautiful. Because thats a little racist.

But freeMan, its clear, you have no idea what communism is about, so read up a bit, that is if you actually care to know what your or we are talking about, which I doubt.

[Jazzratt]

So after a few days opportunity, only ONE revlefter (and a restricted Revlefter at that) could muster the strength to condemn the comments of Lula. The rest were of the "wrong but..." variation.

Mindless black and white assertions about complicated politics are not strength. You aren't strong or intellectually more robust if all you ever deal in is mindless, almost pavlovian responses to statements that rub you up the wrong way.


Should the willingness to excuse and to try to justify the comments of Lula by the Revlefters hereabouts be considered a negative against the revlefters by the OIers?

Only the particularly dim ones.

[FreeMan]

I think you couldn't tell your arse from a hole in the ground.

You've never read Nietzsche, you've learned the buzzwords. No one as thick as you could possibly begin to understand his writings.

You believe in the slave morality. You are trying to insult me and stating empty claims without backing them up. You are wrong and I am right.

[FreeMan]

Yeah, but the connotations of that generalizatoin is absolutely true, very very very very few white people suffer from racism. Whereas the connotations that white people caused the economic meltdown are not true, because the fact is, it was a very very very small precentage of white people.

You missed the point I was trying to make. You stated that its wrong to make generalizations about any race even if it was true.

Yet now you made and even admitting to making a generalization about the white race.

No one here, or me are denying the fact the white people experience less racism. And I already explained why that is so.




Also, my generalization has no negative associations, its simply the truth, white people generalyl don't suffer from institutional racism, ever.
Like I said, generalizations done against white people aren't considered negative in todays society. Where as Generalizations against colored are considered wrong



Yes your right, I 100% agree, however, historically, due to imperialism and europes conquering of large sections of the world, the ruling classes of europe many times became the ruling classes of other countries too, especailly in latin America.Any country or empire would've conquered if they had the means to. One reason Europe succeeded was because they had superior technology.

And where would the Americas be if there was never any colonization?



Now does that make a real difference now? No, the ruling class is the ruling class no matter what race. But due to history, most of the ruling classes tend to be white people in parts of the world.Well why do you think that is? Is nature racist in choosing on what race is able to rule and what race will be stuck int eh stoneage 3rd world country conditions forever? Why is that?



That is rediculous, white people moved into Africa, all of South America, all of North America, and in much of Latin America, they are the minority, however, due to historical circumstances, they make up most of the rulign class. Look at most of Africa's history, at least parts of Africa, its been the white minority, that for the msot part held most if not all of the power
I am talking about now and the reason why colored people experience more racism then whites. No its true, colored people tend to move in more into countries that are predominantly white a lot more then whites moving into countries that are predominantly colored.



Black people in America, were taken here. Hispanics were in a sense forced to more here as well due to economic conditions, and the racism they had to endure is also never excusable. Institutional racism is'nt just about minority majority.Yes and black people are doing a lot better here then they would be in Africa. (I am not saying that its ok if the means satisfy the end I am just stating the obvious) You would claim that Africa is poor because of America/Europe/Capitlism but if that was true there would have to be a time when Africa was not poor. The poor aren't poor because the rich take away from them. The poor have nothing to offer and they probably never ever did so there is nothing to take away from them.



But I agree revenge is not excusable, but the little suffering that some white farmers in Africa have to suffer is NOTHING, not even close, to what Africa suffered under European imperialism.Most of the suffering in Africa is cause and has been caused by Africans. 9 out 10 black murders are cause by blacks.




What the hell are you talking about, it has nothign to do with feeling sorry for the weak and ugly, or the strong and beautiful. Where are you getting this. We are against a tyrranical unjust system which is essencially a slave system. It has nothing to do with weak and ugly.Its my opinion. Though this post you've being defending weak conqoured societies and critizing successful societies.



Also, I hope you are not insinuating that somehow white people are the strong and beautiful. Because thats a little racist.No, I am not. Such charateristics I hold true on an indiviual bases. (which is why I think we are not equal)



But freeMan, its clear, you have no idea what communism is about, so read up a bit, that is if you actually care to know what your or we are talking about, which I doubt.In my own words.

Communism workers under the priciple of brotherly love and altruim. Its about having everyone work collectively in order to satisfying the needs of the common good. Communist believes no one should be poor or in need especally if there are rich people. Communism offers a lot less choice for to the indivilual. Under communism you work in accordance to your ability and the product of you labor will be spent depending on what the needs of the common good are. Communism tries and make everything equal for everyone.

Capitlism workers under the priciple of selfish interest and egoism. Its about everyone being on their own and work is done in order to satisfy ones selfish desires. Capitlism offers a lot of choices in life (provided you have the means to pick them). Under capitlism you are not obligated to help your fellow neighbor nor do you have to care for him.

There i proved you wrong yet again. And if you're going to say that i no nothign abotu nothing try explaining why next time instead of just throwing empty claims at me.

[#FF0000]

You missed the point I was trying to make. You stated that its wrong to make generalizations about any race even if it was true.

Yet now you made and even admitting to making a generalization about the white race.

It wasn't a generalization about the white race you thick fuck. It was a general statement about institutional racism in society targeted against white people, specifically that there is none.


No one here, or me are denying the fact the white people experience less racism. And I already explained why that is so.

Oh what the fuck.



Any country or empire would've conquered if they had the means to. One reason Europe succeeded was because they had superior technology.

They had superior technology because they had a superior environment. There's a book called "Guns, Steel, and Germs" or something to that effect. Read it.


And where would the Americas be if there was never any colonization?

Well, maybe the Native Americans could have made some advances on their own? Nobody knows, and neither do you.


Well why do you think that is? Is nature racist in choosing on what race is able to rule and what race will be stuck int eh stoneage 3rd world country conditions forever? Why is that?

What are you implying? That certain races are naturally inferior?


I am talking about now and the reason why colored people experience more racism then whites. No its true, colored people tend to move in more into countries that are predominantly white a lot more then whites moving into countries that are predominantly colored.

Well, I don't know about that. White people head over to 3rd world countries a lot to plunder resources and catch cheap labor. Also, every time you say "colored", I cringe. I don't think you've ever met a non-white person in your life, but that's neither here nor there.


You would claim that Africa is poor because of America/Europe/Capitlism but if that was true there would have to be a time when Africa was not poor. The poor aren't poor because the rich take away from them. The poor have nothing to offer and they probably never ever did so there is nothing to take away from them.

So Europe just colonized Africa for no reason? That is what you're implying. That Africa had nothing to offer so no one would ever want anything there, yet Europeans have been flocking to the place for hundreds of years.


Most of the suffering in Africa is cause and has been caused by Africans. 9 out 10 black murders are cause by blacks.

In Africa? No kidding.

And you're also completely ignoring how foreign government regularly fuck shit up for Africans. For example, Darfur. The UN would have dealt with that right quick, but Russia and China, two countries on the security council, have been holding them off that, because they're selling arms to the Janjaweed.

You are so fucking dumb it's astounding.


Its my opinion. Though this post you've being defending weak conqoured societies and critizing successful societies.

Yeah, because conquered societies are conquered and weak, and it's because successful societies forced themselves on them. What, are you going to tell me I'm wrong for criticizing a rapist and defending their victim?


No, I am not. Such charateristics I hold true on an indiviual bases. (which is why I think we are not equal)

Know who else acknowledged individuals are not the same and do not have equal ability? Karl Marx. It's called Critique Of The Gotha Programme. Read up, boyo.


Communism workers under the priciple of brotherly love and altruim.

That's funny. I've used self-interest to defend collective ownership for years now. P.S. You are wrong.


Its about having everyone work collectively in order to satisfying the needs of the common good. Communist believes no one should be poor or in need especally if there are rich people.

Eh not quite. People who don't produce or do anything should not expect to be able to leech off of society's labor. However, society today is organized in a way that it necessarily denies people not only work but the product of their labor if they do have a job.


Communism offers a lot less choice for to the indivilual

Oh another statement with no argument.


Under communism you work in accordance to your ability and the product of you labor will be spent depending on what the needs of the common good are. Communism tries and make everything equal for everyone

Wrong.


Capitlism workers under the priciple of selfish interest and egoism. Its about everyone being on their own and work is done in order to satisfy ones selfish desires. Capitlism offers a lot of choices in life (provided you have the means to pick them). Under capitlism you are not obligated to help your fellow neighbor nor do you have to care for him.

Sure I guess so.


There i proved you wrong yet again. And if you're going to say that i no nothign abotu nothing try explaining why next time instead of just throwing empty claims at me.

You don't know shit about communism, and I explained this shit to you already. Let me go copy and paste it again.

Why am I responsible for gaps in your education?

You don't understand anything about Marxism, so we have to start from the beginning, BUT you're belligerent, and you're more interested in trying to "stump the commies" than actually learn anything, so you're on your own until you change that attitude.

So, if you want to actually learn shit, actually try being receptive of these ideas. Explore them a bit, instead of just shooting them down as soon as you hear them. Also, trying doing a bit more than leafing over a couple pages of the simple English version of the Communist Manifesto before claiming to know communism.

[FreeMan]

It wasn't a generalization about the white race you thick fuck. It was a general statement about institutional racism in society targeted against white people, specifically that there is none.

Gacky already admitted that it was general statement made about the white race.

This is the why I hear it:
"ITS NOT FAIR!!!!! WHITE PEOPLE DON"T EXPERIENCE AS MUCH RACISM AS COLORED DO!! ITS NOT FAIR!!!"



They had superior technology because they had a superior environment. There's a book called "Guns, Steel, and Germs" or something to that effect. Read it.

God you commies are just full of excuses. "WAAHHHH!!!! The cappies own all the good stuff and us poor proletarians have nothing!! Wahhhh!!!!!"

The truth of the mater is that most US Native Americans never even bothered to move out of the stone age. This wasn't because they didn't have enough natural resources on there land, but because they never even bothered to develop their current technology by for example mining metals. I mean not even one fucking Iron weapon did they ever develop on their own. Had they TRIED but weren't able to make enough then I would fuckign understanding.

I want to say that this people probably spent thousands of years traveling to the Americas and didn't really get that much of a chance to develop any technology.



Well, maybe the Native Americans could have made some advances on their own? Nobody knows, and neither do you.

Not nearly as close to the technological level of where we are today, which by the way mostly came from capitalism.

It should be pointed out that the ones that developed a market, a currency and were practicing some form of capitalism had a pretty advance society.



What are you implying? That certain races are naturally inferior?

I was simply asking.



Well, I don't know about that. White people head over to 3rd world countries a lot to plunder resources and catch cheap labor. Also, every time you say "colored", I cringe. I don't think you've ever met a non-white person in your life, but that's neither here nor there.

You made another failed assumption about me.

HAHA you'd probably be very surprise at what i am then.



So Europe just colonized Africa for no reason? That is what you're implying. That Africa had nothing to offer so no one would ever want anything there, yet Europeans have been flocking to the place for hundreds of years.

No Africa has a lot of resources to offer but the Africans never really took advantage of them on their own.

South Africa is one of the richest countries in Africa. It also has a high percentage of whites and people from india compared to the other African countries.




And you're also completely ignoring how foreign government regularly fuck shit up for Africans. For example, Darfur. The UN would have dealt with that right quick, but Russia and China, two countries on the security council, have been holding them off that, because they're selling arms to the Janjaweed.

Again Africans are the ones fuckign themselves up.


You are so fucking dumb it's astounding.




Yeah, because conquered societies are conquered and weak, and it's because successful societies forced themselves on them. What, are you going to tell me I'm wrong for criticizing a rapist and defending their victim?

What I amsaying is that they shouldn't hold a grudge nor should we make it excusable for them to do things to us. "Well we did screw them other some hindreds of years ago so maybe we do deserve it"



That's funny. I've used self-interest to defend collective ownership for years now. P.S. You are wrong.


If this is true then why are you commies always crying about the little guy?



Eh not quite. People who don't produce or do anything should not expect to be able to leech off of society's labor. However, society today is organized in a way that it necessarily denies people not only work but the product of their labor if they do have a job.

Wrong, people will still be able to get help (leech of) without working if they are disable.

And you would say a socialist or commie society wouldn't deny people the product of their labor? Really which one?

The market determines the product of a person's labor. IE if there are to many ditch diggers around and the demand for ditch diggers is low then their labor wouldn't be worth much. And it there is a high demand for brain surgeons but there aren't to many around they labor would be worth a lot more.




Oh another statement with no argument.


No, you will work in accordance to your ability and you will get paid in accordance to you need. And You don't get to choose what your ability will be, what you needs are. This are just some of the ways communism offers less choices and this is a fact.



Wrong.


Ohh you don't beleive me well here let me fill you in on a little slogan about communism.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

This isn't said just to sound pretty, its the fuckign law under communism you dipshit.



You don't know shit about communism, and I explained this shit to you already. Let me go copy and paste it again.







Why am I responsible for gaps in your education?

You don't understand anything about Marxism, so we have to start from the beginning, BUT you're belligerent, and you're more interested in trying to "stump the commies" than actually learn anything, so you're on your own until you change that attitude.

So, if you want to actually learn shit, actually try being receptive of these ideas. Explore them a bit, instead of just shooting them down as soon as you hear them. Also, trying doing a bit more than leafing over a couple pages of the simple English version of the Communist Manifesto before claiming to know communism.

Here's another thing you should knwo about communism.

IT ONLY SOUNDS GOOD ON PAPER!

Your stupid system has never even succeeded and you commies come up with nothign but excuses on why it hasn't succeeded. You can't even provide not one shred of evidence that would sho that communism would actually work.

"In order for communism to work the whole world has to pratice it"

"In order for communism to work the revolution has to start at the capital of the strongest country."

"In order for communism to work we must never question it and summit to the idea liek little fuckign slaves because we are too stupid to know whats good for us"

[RGacky3]

You missed the point I was trying to make. You stated that its wrong to make generalizations about any race even if it was true.

Yet now you made and even admitting to making a generalization about the white race.

No one here, or me are denying the fact the white people experience less racism. And I already explained why that is so.

Your over simplifying it compleatly, the generalization that "white people caused the ecomic crisis" is wrong, in the sense that only a very select few of the ruling class did, but most of them are white, so true in that sense. So that generalization is wrong because it gives out wrong connotations.

Its like saying Mexicans and central americans are cholos, while its true most cholos are latino, the conotation is that most latinos are cholos, which is a wrong connotation. So that genralization is wrong.

My generalization was that white people generally don't suffer from racism, which is true no matter how you look at it, theres no wrong connotation here, you explained why "that is so" but its a not historically true explination.

My generalization is akin to saying most Latinos speak spanish, which is true, obviously not 100% (there are many indiginous speakers in latin american countries), but there is no untrue connotations to that generalization, because most latinos DO speak spanish.

See the difference?


Like I said, generalizations done against white people aren't considered negative in todays society. Where as Generalizations against colored are considered wrong

Its not "todays society" first of all, second of all in America at least white people are the majority and generally speaking the ruling class, also theres no bad history or racism against white people in American history, so white people don't take offense to it. Whereas colored people have suffered racism, so it makes sense they would take offense to it ... You know this too, whats your point?


Any country or empire would've conquered if they had the means to. One reason Europe succeeded was because they had superior technology.

And where would the Americas be if there was never any colonization?

Yeah, so what? Whats your point, thats what happend and thats why things are the way they are. No ones saying that europeans are inherently more evil.


Well why do you think that is? Is nature racist in choosing on what race is able to rule and what race will be stuck int eh stoneage 3rd world country conditions forever? Why is that?


Seriously man, it seams you ahve a problem understanding things in contexdt.

WHY I THINK THAT IS, IS BECAUSE, I HAVE STATED BEFORE, HISTORICAL IMPERIALISM, EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM, that is why in many countries, the ruling class tends to be made up of white people. If Africa had become the imperialist super power it probably would be the other way around, but it did'nt, so whats the point.

ITs not about race really, its about power, and historically, white people have had the power, why? Because european countries for centuries had the upper hand globally, and took over vast amounts of land, and european people tend to be white. So theres your answer, its really not that hard.


No its true, colored people tend to move in more into countries that are predominantly white a lot more then whites moving into countries that are predominantly colored.


Ok you compleatly ignored my point, and I'll repeat it. Africa .... Latin America, are not predominately white, but white people came in and took over. So, your theory is bull. The difference is when white people came, they came with guns and money.

The discussion here about race, really should'nt be about race, it should be about, power and money, because thats what it is, in many european countries, poor eastern europeans (last time I checked white too) moved to the west for work and suffer discrimination. Ultimately its not a race issue, but a historically power issue.


Yes and black people are doing a lot better here then they would be in Africa. (I am not saying that its ok if the means satisfy the end I am just stating the obvious) You would claim that Africa is poor because of America/Europe/Capitlism but if that was true there would have to be a time when Africa was not poor. The poor aren't poor because the rich take away from them. The poor have nothing to offer and they probably never ever did so there is nothing to take away from them.

Before Africa was conolized they ahd their own kingdoms, their own way of doing things, and their own systems, your implying that europes was innately better, if that were the case, the europeans woul'nt have had to conquer africa, they could have just convinced them that being in subjection to them was better.

Your not stating the obvious, your talking crap based out of ignorance. The poor are poor, beause they don't have anything, and they don't have anything because the rich ahve it and control it with threat of force.

The Americas were doing just fine, if not better than europe was doing before the europeans came, Native Americans did'nt do better from european imperialism, no one did. Africans that came to America would have done bad no matter where the came from, becaue european elites controlled AFrica and America, it just so happens that in America, they now are not slaves, but part of the system, whereas in Africa, they are still suffering hte effects of Imperialism.

Our of all the OIers here, you are one of the most ignorant and arrogant, which is saying alot considering we have trivias here.


Most of the suffering in Africa is cause and has been caused by Africans. 9 out 10 black murders are cause by blacks.

Thats because they are in a desperate situation, put there, by european elites, who took everything, now they have to fight each other for whats left over. Ultimately, Africa is the way it is now, because of imperialism. The same in America, most poor people commit crimes, because they are the desperate ones, but poverty in America is caused by Capitalist exploitation.


Its my opinion. Though this post you've being defending weak conqoured societies and critizing successful societies.

Yeah, but your opinion is wrong. I'm defending humanity, against tyrranny, which ever society does it. The conquered have less to critisize because they arnt the ones wielding unjust power. Its power I'm critisizing.


No, I am not. Such charateristics I hold true on an indiviual bases.

I agree, and that has nothing to do with Capitalism, Communism, Imperialism or Anarchism. Nothing to do with what we are talking about


In my own words.

Communism workers under the priciple of brotherly love and altruim. Its about having everyone work collectively in order to satisfying the needs of the common good. Communist believes no one should be poor or in need especally if there are rich people. Communism offers a lot less choice for to the indivilual. Under communism you work in accordance to your ability and the product of you labor will be spent depending on what the needs of the common good are. Communism tries and make everything equal for everyone.

Capitlism workers under the priciple of selfish interest and egoism. Its about everyone being on their own and work is done in order to satisfy ones selfish desires. Capitlism offers a lot of choices in life (provided you have the means to pick them). Under capitlism you are not obligated to help your fellow neighbor nor do you have to care for him.

There i proved you wrong yet again. And if you're going to say that i no nothign abotu nothing try explaining why next time instead of just throwing empty claims at me.

No your wrong, you obviously have no idea what commumisn is.

Communism, is the idea, that people have a right to their own bodies and that private property (meaning capitalist property) is unjustified. It has nothing to do with brotherly love or whatever. Communism is the idea that everyone is his own boss, and that ultimately cooperation in society should be compleatly free and equal, without the boss worker relationsihp which is unjust and based on private property. When I say equal, we mean equal rights, equal rights to resources and the means of production, thats what we mean by equal.

Capitalism is based on the pricniple of private property, which means, ultiamtely a few will own everything, which makes slaves out of everyone else. Ownership is not based on work, innovation, or anything, its simply your ability to take it, either monitarily, or whatever, oritionally it was by force. Capitalism also means tyranny, because money is power, and the ones with power, control what is produced, when it is produced and the rest of the world must work for their profit, not their own. Captialism is ultimately dictatorship, whereas communism is democracy.

(The ussr and its types, never were communist, and real communists, like emma goldberg abandoned them long ago).

So no, you did'nt prove anyone wrong, you just showed my suspicions to be true, my suspicions being, that your talking a lot, without know what your talking about.

[MikeSC]

I think the crux of it is- white people made race an issue in the first place, and people are still picking up the pieces. It's white people (individuals and institutions, not all white people) that have tended to use race as a weapon to batter everyone else down.

The ideal, of course, would be a situation where there is no more racial discrimination against anyone- no aggressive racism and no defensive racism. But until such a time I don't think you can put defensive racism on a par with aggressive- neither are to be celebrated though, defensive racism against the dominant may just be a symptom of the problem rather than the problem its self, but it's still not a pleasant one.

EDIT: Also, what's with this new trend of people posting threads about individual actions and words by people on the Left, and then calling for a mass denunciation of whatever it was or else it's some kind of indictment of revleft if you don't get response sufficient to your tastes? It all seems quite silly.

[#FF0000]

Gacky already admitted that it was general statement made about the white race.

This is the why I hear it:
"ITS NOT FAIR!!!!! WHITE PEOPLE DON"T EXPERIENCE AS MUCH RACISM AS COLORED DO!! ITS NOT FAIR!!!"Er, the problem isn't that white people don't experience racism. It's that people of other races do.


God you commies are just full of excuses. "WAAHHHH!!!! The cappies own all the good stuff and us poor proletarians have nothing!! Wahhhh!!!!!"Here's a fact, boyo: the world is complicated. What I'm offering you is some analysis as to why things are the way they are, and because it goes deeper than "these people tried harder and are better than other people", you can't handle it.


The truth of the mater is that most US Native Americans never even bothered to move out of the stone age. This wasn't because they didn't have enough natural resources on there land, but because they never even bothered to develop their current technology by for example mining metals. I mean not even one fucking Iron weapon did they ever develop on their own. Had they TRIED but weren't able to make enough then I would fuckign understanding.The Native Americans didn't have nearly as many resources at their disposal, at least not for hunter-gatherrers. The Middle East, on the other hand, had an absurd amount of vegetables and animals that were easy to domesticate. And, lucky for Europeans, the Middle East was nearby, so through trade and war and all that, this knowledge spread, and Europeans put it to use as well, and taking advantage of their superior environment (temperate area, most of the country being laid out from east to west, ensuring similar climates all across, more room for expansion).

Meanwhile, the Native Americans had corn, which is hard to grow and has no nutritional value. Africans had some of the most feral and untamable animals around, while the Middle East got horses, goats, chickens, sheep, and pigs. It isn't a matter of will, as you somehow believe. If it's a matter of will, why don't we just will ourselves some lasers and space stations? Clearly, we don't have them now because we just don't want it enough.


Not nearly as close to the technological level of where we are today, which by the way mostly came from capitalism.Debatable. Depends on what you mean by "a result of capitalism". Most technological advancements in the past 50 years came from the government, not the market. Even before then, you can't tell me that people were always trying invent specifically to make money. Sure, there were some folks like Thomas Edison. But then there were ones like Nikolai Tesla. Again I want to reiterate that scientists who develop technology usually recieve government grants.


It should be pointed out that the ones that developed a market, a currency and were practicing some form of capitalism had a pretty advance society.Native American and African societies had markets, and whether or not they had currency depends on what you call currency. Also, capitalism didn't come around until the 18th century. Prior to that they had feudalism. Cool grasp of history bro.



I was simply asking.
I'd appreciate an answer.


You made another failed assumption about me.

HAHA you'd probably be very surprise at what i am then.1) I don't care.
2) You still have no clue as to what you're talking about and that's all that's pertinent to this discussion.


No Africa has a lot of resources to offer but the Africans never really took advantage of them on their own.Cool. What tamable animals are native to Africa? What plants could they have domesticated? Where could they develop agriculture in sub-saharan Africa!?


South Africa is one of the richest countries in Africa. It also has a high percentage of whites and people from india compared to the other African countries.So? What are you implying?


Again Africans are the ones fuckign themselves up.

You are so fucking dumb it's astounding.I gave you a clear example of foreign governments causing troubles for African nations, and you just insist that it is entirely the Africans' fault. Amazing.

When the issue of the Darfur genocide was raised in the UN, it was just sort of panned over, because stopping the genocide in Sudan means that the Russian and Chinese governments wouldn't be getting money from selling arms to the militants. I think that's a pretty clear example.


What I amsaying is that they shouldn't hold a grudge nor should we make it excusable for them to do things to us. "Well we did screw them other some hindreds of years ago so maybe we do deserve it"I'm not doing that. I'm talking about present-day oppression.


If this is true then why are you commies always crying about the little guy?What? That has nothing to do with anything.


Wrong, people will still be able to get help (leech of) without working if they are disable.Well, yeah. If they've got a disability that keeps them from working, they should be taken care of. I thought that was a given.


And you would say a socialist or commie society wouldn't deny people the product of their labor? Really which one?I have no idea what you are saying here.


The market determines the product of a person's labor. IE if there are to many ditch diggers around and the demand for ditch diggers is low then their labor wouldn't be worth much. And it there is a high demand for brain surgeons but there aren't to many around they labor would be worth a lot more.And here you are, definitive proof that you have no idea about communism, socialism, or anarchism. The product of someone's labor in this situation would be the ditch itself, not the price value of it. My god, you haven't read anything on marxism, have you?


No, you will work in accordance to your ability and you will get paid in accordance to you need. And You don't get to choose what your ability will be, what you needs are. This are just some of the ways communism offers less choices and this is a fact.What the fuck are you basing that statement (my bold) on? That's just straight up fabrication.



Ohh you don't beleive me well here let me fill you in on a little slogan about communism.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

This isn't said just to sound pretty, its the fuckign law under communism you dipshit.Hurf durf no kidding. But just because you know the basic slogans doesn't mean you know shit about how socialist government or communist/anarchist society is supposed to work out. And, surprise, you don't. Tell me, how much Marx have you read? And, please, elaborate on how a communist society would look because you've just sort of given a very vague picture of it.


EDIT: PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WITH ANOTHER OIER TALK TO THIS GUY, PLEASE?