Thread: America

THE IDEA IS SIMPLE: AMERICA KILLS PEOPLE FOR HER OWN PROFIT!

The human brain is not capable of processing the sheer amount of subtle details regarding this claim, and most of those details are not accessible anyway. Therefore, it's necessary for us trim down the reality to a reasonable level for our minds to handle. However, I think you took the simplification to an alarming extreme. Nothing is "simple" about a topic like this. Perhaps you have more reasoned opinions on the subject - but if so, you haven't voiced them, so it's hard to take you seriously on this.

Since i'm not the OP, that might be the case. Personally, i'd give him the benefit of the doubt. But hey, why pass up a chance to be offended?

Last time I checked, being offended is my problem. But, hey, we can make this thread about me being offended instead of America!! I'm narcissistic enough for that. Or std19003 can start over. But we can't wait for that to happen. We all know that if you can be offensive, you should, because it works and comes with zero consequences. Every discussion, whatever is about, absolutely needs to be had, especially if it somehow involves America.

Originally Posted by Neo1

Sometimes being deliberately offensive is the best way to spark a discussion.

I completely agree with this statement, and have used this technique myself since I've discussed/debated topics that are normally considered "off the table" in polite circles. However, the OP didn't use this opportunity to engage in a discussion. Instead, all we recieved was a bold assertion.

I can't ban anyone, that is a wish that falls on deaf ears. It would do you well to realize I can't press a button in the next five minutes and end this. Even if the thread is locked, std19003 can do the amazing thing, take my advice, and start another thread. And in the grand scheme of things, his rights aren't being violated. CBoard isn't a government. If he trolls, becomes obnoxious and ultimately breaks the rules, he risks the ability to post. On the contrary, I defy you: I completely realize that this is a forum. I'm glad that you don't approve of me being angry, but I feel no remorse.

I realize this is an internet forum ofcourse, but would your reaction be any different if it wasn't?

Well, I can't ask for people to be arrested if they made that image a billboard. Even if I did the police wouldn't act. I think you need to accept that I acted like a prick today. I have no problem with it myself.

Our chief export is bacon and pornography and that is the best you can do?

Bacon is good. Pornography I don't have a problem with. It kind of is.

Originally Posted by std10093

THE IDEA IS SIMPLE: AMERICA KILLS PEOPLE FOR HER OWN PROFIT!

(...)

The problem is of humanity and not of just America. America is just the player now.

I haven't read the complete thread, just skimmed through the postings. The whole topic is very very interesting to me, yet on the other hand it terribly annoys me. So many over-simplifying slogans, so much propaganda from both sides.

The sentence(s) above, however, made me want to reply something.

In my opinion, it is important to understand that it is not "America" (for whatever that means) to kill people for profit. It's global capitalism. I know that, for many people, this point is not easy to get since you have to talk about very abstract ideas, principals, and mechanisms. And you have to deal with the fact that there is no concrete person to put your finger on.

Humans always tend to seek for scapegoats for it is much easier to accuse other people than to actually deal with abstract systems and their pros and cons, their mechanisms and the disadvantages that are inherent.

Capitalism is a complex system with a lot of inherent problems, and you either accept them because you think it's still the best system you can get, or you go looking around for something else. Finding a scapegoat may make life easier for yourself, but it won't help in dealing with the world's problems.

The conception of a capitalist economy does not contain any ethics - it's about maximizing profit which, in theory, has certain regulative side-effects. Some people believe in these side-effects, some (including myself) don't. But in no way can you criticise a system by ethical arguments which is not supposed to work by ethical mechanisms. Trying to do so only leads to hatred, separation, social exclusion and violence.

Instead we have to try to understand how this system works, what it's advantages, possibilities, and down-sides are, and to find better alternatives.

@Mario F. - though I disagree in several aspects mentioned, this is much more valuable input than the picture that started this thread. I respect all that you have to say since it sounds to me that you gave your ideas and points of view a lot of thought and that you seem to know what you are talking about.

The first thing I feel I need to say is, I did not mention the terms "socialism" and "communism". I avoided these terms on purpose. Sure, I do have a Karl Marx avatar and I talked about alternatives to a capitalist economy. The first thing that comes to people's minds when they encounter such input is "socialism". And yes, I do believe in socialism. But I did intentionally talk about "finding alternatives". I would never state that my ideas are the one and only truth. It's not like capitalism and socialism are the only alternatives to choose from. A lot of scientific fields study the conception of society from very different angles and whatever idea you have of how to build a society is worth giving it some thought. And who knows, maybe one day I find something else to believe in than socialism.

Of course you have to believe in something, and that's okay as long as you stay open-minded and are willing to revise your ideas and beliefs. And if I feel that someone gave his ideas a lot of thought then I do not care whether the result is accepting today's capitalism, approaching a different conception of capitalism, any of the countless different approaches to socialism, or something completely different. The world is such a complicated thing, every input is welcome to me.

A try to reply:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Seems it too an oversimplification. Saying that global capitalism is responsible for the deaths of countless individuals in the name of profit, carries with it the idea other systems do not.

That is not exactly what I wanted to say. But maximizing profit is the core idea of capitalist economy. What ever advantages capitalism has, theoretically or practically, are merely side-effects. That is not a question of personal opinion but - without any judgment - a conceptional fact. That does not mean that other systems do not lead to kill innocent people and I would never state anything like this. There are, in fact, some minor anarchist schools of thought according to which individuality is the highest priority and value, and within these conceptions it is absolutely fine to kill other people in order to get the most out of the world for yourself. I was not judging capitalism when I was stating that maximizing profit is the highest priority and value of this concept, and so far I did not mean to say that other ideas are superior. I happen to believe so, but to this point it was not yet what I wanted to say.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Then we remember the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Soviet war in Afghanistan or the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

...all of which are severe crimes against humanity, commited in the name of socialism. I agree. But if you study the writings of Karl Marx, and then you study all of these regimes, you will learn two things:

Firstly, none of these so-called socialist societies have changed anything of the mechanisms and core conceptions that Marx analyzed as constituent for a capitalist economy. All they did was concentrating property on industrial resources in the hands of the so-called communist party and substituting the former regime by their own. They missed all relevant aspects which constitute the brilliant work and analysis of Karl Marx. From this point of view it is not decent to even call those societies socialist.

Secondly, such aggressive expansion and territorial war is neither a key conception of socialism, nor is it a consequential side-effect, whereas the maximizing of profit without any regard to social standards is a key conception of capitalism.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

It's just easier to acknowledge the human race, like so many other animal races, is highly competitive for space and resources as a self-preservation natural process we can't shake off our backs yet. (...) Communism is a movement that needs nurturing, support and idea dissemination. It exists in direct opposition to human nature. (...) By contrast Capitalism is human nature.

I am not an evolutionary biologist nor an expert in ethnology, but as far as I know this is highly debatable and only one assumption among others. Looking around in the animal kingdom and taking as a basis that humans are animals too, it seems like an obvious conclusion, but as far as I understood this is a very superficial view, since we have only little knowledge of what "human nature" means, how ancient and prehistoric societies were organized and what character traits and behaviour are instinctive, or cultural. As for my knowledge, there is enough evidence that humans among other primates are rather social than egotistic animals. Plus the fact that some of the key aspects of capitalism, like artificial decoupling of actual benefit and monetary value in the form of converting goods into products, is absolutely nothing natural.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

But let me tell you we often tend to look at capitalism as some sort of cohesive political and philosophical entity. And tend to give it attributes as if it was some sort of identifiable body of thought. One of those attributes would be for instance "Capitalism kills innocents for profit". I happen to think this is a gross mistake.

I do not mean to treat capitalism as a philosophical entity but rather as a conception of organizing the economy of a society with regard to it's regulative side-effects. That's the valuable benefit of Marx' works. To ground criticism on scientific facts and analysis of capitalism's mechanisms and inherent functionality. Again, to this point without any judgment.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

As post cold war societies, we have been slowly and inexorably removing from capitalism anything that could make it identifiable.

I don't see where we have been removing constituent key concepts from capitalism. Capitalism means: private property on industrial resources, transforming goods into products, relying on profit maximizing as the mainspring of economic organization with the supply of the people as a mere side-effect. This is the core of a capitalist economy, and not a single one of these features has changed, neither in explicitly capitalist societies nor in so-called socialist societies, which, as you correctly state, are more similar to capitalism than to socialism. But not because it's human nature, but rather because, in contrast to solemn speeches and manifestos, they never touched any of these key conceptions.

I'm surprised this thread is still going on.

If there was an actual gripe, there would be more than just a sentence in the original post--maybe an argument or rant or something. Instead there's just an amateurish attempt at trolling. Mario pretty much summed it up when he said "euro trash-talk".