Good Evening Boatswain:
History is long, and who defeats who as well as what is accomplished changes through the lens of circumstance. I think we have yet to see how this whole enterprise proves out in the long run. Insofar as the defeat of the Native American is concerned, I would ask for more definition on what was won and what was lost, especially when we find ourselves in position to look back with pride and satisfaction at the subjugation of another race of people. If that is our position, then my sense is that we may have lost far more than we have gained.
I was narrowly speaking about one other poster’s comment inferring that Africa’s resources prevented capitalism from establishing itself there. Africa is full of largely untapped resources, whereas north American resources were rapidly tapped by the europeans. Whether this was “just”, or “good”, or should be viewed with “pride and satisfaction” is another argument.
What is your definition of the defeat of the African people, and can you elaborate on your ideas as to how they should be defeated? What is it that you would you do to them?
I never said they “should” be defeated. I was strictly rebutting the poster’s comments about Africa’s lack of resources being the source of their lack of large scale capitalism.
The manner in which you spoke of Native Americans and Africans suggests that you are very much in favor of the subjugation of large masses of people; however, in this last entry you seem to have acquired a distaste for it. I suppose it depends on who is being subjugated, do I understand you correctly?
I never suggested that at all. I was just reviewing history. However YES, my distaste for subjugation of people DOES depend on who is being subjugated, and how. After WWII General MacArthur totally subjugated the Japanese people, which was necessary to drive out the extremist, imperialistic ideology that was pervasive in the culture. Likewise, the west totally subjugated the west German people (totally outlawing anything Nazi), and the Russo’s totally subjugated east Germany. This was a combination of “to the victor goes the spoils” along with total subjugation of culture to prevent another world war.
As for the idea of an elite few living off of the sweat of the masses I would point out that the United States is a capitalist country, and the actual facts reveal that 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of the total income. And while the C.E.O.’s of the America’s largest companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, it has risen to 531 times as much in 2001. Between 1980 and 2005, more than 80% of the total increase in incomes went to the richest 1 percent. In 2012, the gap between the richest 1 percent and the remaining 99 percent was the widest it’s been since the 1920s. It would seem that the elite few as you call them have found a new home. While I would not argue that the elite have made out very well in socialist societies attempted to date, I do not see a material difference in that particular outcome among capitalist nations. I come from the richest 3 percent and I am in a very good position to talk to you about all the breaks this stacked deck have afforded me because I have people who are paid to keep me well advised about it. And let me tell you, it’s far from fair.
The difference between capitalist and socialist economies/cultures/societies, with regarding to the uber-wealthy, has everything to do with the mobility of who makes up the uber-rich. In capitalist societies, there is usually a great deal of mobility. Millionaire’s are made, and millionaire’s are broken. Look back to Rockefeller’s and Carnegie’s of the late 19th century…I don’t believe they came from old school money, they made it! How did they keep their money? By electing politicians who helped them keep it.
The uber-wealthy will always stack the deck to keep themselves, and their legacies, uber-wealthy. They can do this via capitalistic methods, such as acquiring competitor companies, or by socialist methods, such as supporting politicians who pass laws/regulations that prohibit competition.
I would rather you do the former, because at least then I have a chance of joining you. As we in America has grown more socialist we have lost our upward mobility. One glaring example is the regulations for driving a taxi in New York. That job used to be available to virtually anyone with enough start up cash for a decent car and a map. Now you have to buy one of the limited number of medallions (limited by a very socialist city government) which costs upward of $1,000,000…thus preventing a poor or middle class person from getting that job.
Just look at the money who supported President Obama. It’s funny how those in the media always portray Republicans as “those rich elitists” when most of the uber-wealthy in the country support the Democrats.
