The Negro Question

[Conquer or Die]

http://newsone.com/nation/srobinson/opinion-how-much-is-one-black-man-worth-lebron-vs-oscar-grant/

[¿Que?]

I thought the article was kind of weak, really. It offers very little new insight. It was a good idea to consider Oscar Grant's life alongside that of a notable celebrity like LeBron, my question, though, is what do we get out of presenting this case in this way? I don't think the article really answers that.

[Bud Struggle]

Well fine one guy is talented and works hard and makes a lot of money--the other guy (like 99.99999% of us) isn't so talented. But that's just money. But according to the American legal system--both men have equal worth under the law. Each have EXACTLY the same rights and duties. Each man is innocent until proven guilty and should be given a fair trial if accused of a crime.

Obviously it doesn't always work that way--but it is an admirable thing that the system tries to do that and there are a lot of people in the American legal system that would work had to see that it happens. There are some that would subvert the system (like the cop that doesn't know what his gun looks like.)

It seems to me the problem isn't with the system itself--it's with the people the run the system.

[¿Que?]

Well fine one guy is talented and works hard and makes a lot of money--the other guy (like 99.99999% of us) isn't so talented. But that's just money. But according to the American legal system--both men have equal worth under the law. Each have EXACTLY the same rights and duties. Each man is innocent until proven guilty and should be given a fair trial if accused of a crime.

Obviously it doesn't always work that way--but it is an admirable thing that the system tries to do that and there are a lot of people in the American legal system that would work had to see that it happens. There are some that would subvert the system (like the cop that doesn't know what his gun looks like.)

It seems to me the problem isn't with the system itself--it's with the people the run the system.
Judge a system not by its words, but by its actions!

[Bud Struggle]

Judge a system not by its words, but by its actions!

I know--that's and issue. But the same rule applies for things like Communist Revolutions, too. Don't you think?

In both cases it is the people that screw things up--not the idea itself.

[¿Que?]

I know--that's and issue. But the same rule applies for things like Communist Revolutions, too. Don't you think?

In both cases it is the people that screw things up--not the idea itself.
Hm...Good point. On the other hand, the question of praxis is central to communism. In the case of liberal democracies, there is no equivalent concept. It is a lot more difficult to explain the failures of liberal democracy (based on liberal democratic theory) with nothing connecting it to its actual real life manifestation. Like the old saying, "You can't get there from here."

[RGacky3]

I know--that's and issue. But the same rule applies for things like Communist Revolutions, too. Don't you think?

In both cases it is the people that screw things up--not the idea itself.

If a system can be screwed up by individuals, then its a bad system.

[trivas7]

Hm...Good point. On the other hand, the question of praxis is central to communism. In the case of liberal democracies, there is no equivalent concept.
OTC, it is called legal precedence and is the basis of the law we Americans inherited from the British.

[¿Que?]

OTC, it is called legal precedence and is the basis of the law we Americans inherited from the British.
So you're asserting that liberal democracies fail due to a flawed legal system? I would have to disagree, as I believe the legal system to be a direct result of the economic system.

[synthesis]

Well fine one guy is talented and works hard and makes a lot of money--the other guy (like 99.99999% of us) isn't so talented. But that's just money. But according to the American legal system--both men have equal worth under the law. Each have EXACTLY the same rights and duties. Each man is innocent until proven guilty and should be given a fair trial if accused of a crime.

Obviously it doesn't always work that way--but it is an admirable thing that the system tries to do that and there are a lot of people in the American legal system that would work had to see that it happens. There are some that would subvert the system (like the cop that doesn't know what his gun looks like.)

It seems to me the problem isn't with the system itself--it's with the people the run the system.

I would fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of these issues. People have made arguments such as yours since time immemorial, and when "the people who run the system" are replaced with others and nothing changes, they are left to ascribe these "aberrations" to such nebulous concepts as "human nature" and the like.

What you call "the system," I call a form of nationalist idealism that is far more naive than anything expressed on this forum. The actual system - the one that really exists - takes those noble ideals and warps them into a form that serves people's interests by any means necessary, and those with the most power and wealth are most able to use that system to their advantage.

Everyone must adapt to this system or be rendered irrelevant - at best. Therefore, to counter your statement that "the problem isn't with the system, but with the people who run it," I would turn to another adage that is far more potent, satisfying and ultimately capable of producing meaningful results that change everyone's lives for the better... that is: Don't hate the player; hate the game.

[Bud Struggle]

I would fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of these issues. People have made arguments such as yours since time immemorial, and when "the people who run the system" are replaced with others and nothing changes, they are left to ascribe these "aberrations" to such nebulous concepts as "human nature" and the like. I know the flawed nature of the human condition isn't something that figures largely in Communist ideology but there is an historical basis for the belief--the actual Constitution of the USA promises fairness across the board for everyone--yet is corrupted by human greed for power and money. The Constitution of the Soviet Union was a pretty decent document, too yet it never governed the country--people with "ambition" did. I don't see how you can remove those factors from the human condition without imposing a totalitarianism that is 100 times worse than the problem you are trying to correct.


What you call "the system," I call a form of nationalist idealism that is far more naive than anything expressed on this forum. The actual system - the one that really exists - takes those noble ideals and warps them into a form that serves people's interests by any means necessary, and those with the most power and wealth are most able to use that system to their advantage. I understand how you see that--and I see how I arrive at my conclusion--the only systems that EXIST are human systems that are run by human being and are prone to corruption and failure. That's why for all their Revolutions and good intentions Communism has turned out the way it has--brused, battered and bloody and nothing like Marx intended.


Everyone must adapt to this system or be rendered irrelevant - at best. Therefore, to counter your statement that "the problem isn't with the system, but with the people who run it," I would turn to another adage that is far more potent, satisfying and ultimately capable of producing meaningful results that change everyone's lives for the better... that is: Don't hate the player; hate the game. I admit that some games are better than others--but there is a huge human factor involved also.

[RGacky3]

I know the flawed nature of the human condition isn't something that figures largely in Communist ideology but there is an historical basis for the belief--the actual Constitution of the USA promises fairness across the board for everyone--yet is corrupted by human greed for power and money. The Constitution of the Soviet Union was a pretty decent document, too yet it never governed the country--people with "ambition" did. I don't see how you can remove those factors from the human condition without imposing a totalitarianism that is 100 times worse than the problem you are trying to correct.

Actually, the flawed nature of the human condition is a large part of socialist ideology, reason being that economic power should be absolutely decentralized. Actually is much more of a problem for Capitalism, because it assumes that everyone will play by the rules and let the market work, which is obviously preposterous.

As far as the constitution, it did'nt take into account Capitalism, as far as the USSR constitution it did'nt take into account the undemocratic nature of the party, and both of those were not mistakes in my opinion. These documents were not just principles that came out of nowhere, but they were done with the purpose of keeping society stable while leaving the ruling class in power.

In my opinion the focus should not be on restructuring power or trying to set up a new system, but on decentralizing power, both economic and political (the two are extreamly intertwined)

If I was in the USSR I'd be fighting against party power, in the US I fight against corporate power.


I admit that some games are better than others--but there is a huge human factor involved also.

Of coarse, but that factor should be minimalized.

[synthesis]

I know the flawed nature of the human condition isn't something that figures largely in Communist ideology but there is an historical basis for the belief--the actual Constitution of the USA promises fairness across the board for everyone--yet is corrupted by human greed for power and money. The Constitution of the Soviet Union was a pretty decent document, too yet it never governed the country--people with "ambition" did. I don't see how you can remove those factors from the human condition without imposing a totalitarianism that is 100 times worse than the problem you are trying to correct.

You don't implement a system to "remove" those factors, you recognize them and then implement a system to compensate for them.


I understand how you see that--and I see how I arrive at my conclusion--the only systems that EXIST are human systems that are run by human being and are prone to corruption and failure. That's why for all their Revolutions and good intentions Communism has turned out the way it has--brused, battered and bloody and nothing like Marx intended.

Right. An illness must be properly diagnosed before it can be treated.