"
faerwin wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
It would also be equality of outcome, and thus communism. I'm not a communist, so when I see that EA has 3 apples and EB has 1 apple, I don't immediately assume racism; I consider the possibility that perhaps EA earned 3 apples, and EB only earned 1. If it could be demonstrated that EA and EB didn't have equal opportunity to earn apples, then I'd describe such a system as racist.
That wouldn't be communism. Communism is the control of the state over every resources and services and then their redistribution to the population. The example doesn't assume it's state driven and as thus, calling it communism is a far stretch of imagination.
Then what is anarchocommunism?
"
faerwin wrote:
In such example, would you consider it racism to bring both to 2 apples even if it technically is a detriment to EA?
Except in the extremely rare instance that both earned exactly the same amount of apples, yes, I would.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on Nov 5, 2017, 5:55:19 PM
|
"
faerwin wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
It would also be equality of outcome, and thus communism. I'm not a communist, so when I see that EA has 3 apples and EB has 1 apple, I don't immediately assume racism; I consider the possibility that perhaps EA earned 3 apples, and EB only earned 1. If it could be demonstrated that EA and EB didn't have equal opportunity to earn apples, then I'd describe such a system as racist.
That wouldn't be communism. Communism is the control of the state over every resources and services and then their redistribution to the population. The example doesn't assume it's state driven and as thus, calling it communism is a far stretch of imagination.
The example assumed that both person were identical except for their ethnicity, I should have clarified.
In such example, would you consider it racism to bring both to 2 apples even if it technically is a detriment to EA?
If not by the state, then who is conducting the redistribution of the apples?
The example assumes EA and EB are identical except for ethnicity. Does this also assume that they have responded to all stimuli identically, made all the same decisions? How then does one have more apples than the other?
The question is a trap, because it assumes that every white person with apples, has those apples because of racism. If EA and EB are perfectly identical except for ethnicity, then they would have the same number of apples, because institutional racism against minorities does not exist in America—it is quite literally illegal. If it can be proven that EA took an apple that rightfully belonged to EB, then there is institutional recourse for EB to get their apple back.
Devolving Wilds
Land
“T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.”
|
Posted byCanHasPants#3515on Nov 5, 2017, 6:06:48 PM
|
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
It would also be equality of outcome, and thus communism. I'm not a communist, so when I see that EA has 3 apples and EB has 1 apple, I don't immediately assume racism; I consider the possibility that perhaps EA earned 3 apples, and EB only earned 1. If it could be demonstrated that EA and EB didn't have equal opportunity to earn apples, then I'd describe such a system as racist.
Personally, I see anarcho communism as impossible. Communism needs a centralized power to redistribute resources while anarchism is all about not having a centralized power. I don't see how it would be possible outside of extremely small groups (ie, a family).
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
Last edited by faerwin#5850 on Nov 5, 2017, 6:09:34 PM
|
Posted byfaerwin#5850on Nov 5, 2017, 6:09:14 PMAlpha Member
|
"
CanHasPants wrote:
"
faerwin wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
It would also be equality of outcome, and thus communism. I'm not a communist, so when I see that EA has 3 apples and EB has 1 apple, I don't immediately assume racism; I consider the possibility that perhaps EA earned 3 apples, and EB only earned 1. If it could be demonstrated that EA and EB didn't have equal opportunity to earn apples, then I'd describe such a system as racist.
That wouldn't be communism. Communism is the control of the state over every resources and services and then their redistribution to the population. The example doesn't assume it's state driven and as thus, calling it communism is a far stretch of imagination.
The example assumed that both person were identical except for their ethnicity, I should have clarified.
In such example, would you consider it racism to bring both to 2 apples even if it technically is a detriment to EA?
If not by the state, then who is conducting the redistribution of the apples?
The example assumes EA and EB are identical except for ethnicity. Does this also assume that they have responded to all stimuli identically, made all the same decisions? How then does one have more apples than the other?
The question is a trap, because it assumes that every white person with apples, has those apples because of racism. If EA and EB are perfectly identical except for ethnicity, then they would have the same number of apples, because institutional racism against minorities does not exist in America—it is quite literally illegal. If it can be proven that EA took an apple that rightfully belonged to EB, then there is institutional recourse for EB to get their apple back.
It could very well be a discrepancy of salary for equal work (as was seen with men and women a few decades ago).
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. A lot of workers are scared of their employers because they use scare tactics or can simply show you the door. Even if there is legal recourse available, they are mentally, physically and financially draining. So a lot of employees just end up taking it even if they know full well that what their boss is doing is illegal. Minorities are even more prone to such behavior from employers.
And no, just because EA has more apples in the example doesn't mean they have more because of racism, it does, however, means that EB has less apples because of racism.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwin#5850on Nov 5, 2017, 6:15:36 PMAlpha Member
|
"
CanHasPants wrote:
institutional racism against minorities does not exist in America—it is quite literally illegal.
The IRS discriminating against non-profit organizations based on political affiliation is also illegal. Doesn't mean institutional discrimination can't occur. I don't think it's true that institutional racism against people of color doesn't occur in America... although I'll grant you that its illegality helps a lot to keep occurrence rates very low.
"
faerwin wrote:
Personally, I see anarcho communism as impossible. Communism needs a centralized power to redistribute resources while anarchism is all about not having a centralized power. I don't see how it would be possible outside of extremely small groups (ie, a family).
I agree. But not everyone does. What you were describing was communism, and as such the state was somewhat implied.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Nov 5, 2017, 6:28:31 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on Nov 5, 2017, 6:26:09 PM
|
"
faerwin wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
It would also be equality of outcome, and thus communism. I'm not a communist, so when I see that EA has 3 apples and EB has 1 apple, I don't immediately assume racism; I consider the possibility that perhaps EA earned 3 apples, and EB only earned 1. If it could be demonstrated that EA and EB didn't have equal opportunity to earn apples, then I'd describe such a system as racist.
That wouldn't be communism. Communism is the control of the state over every resources and services and then their redistribution to the population. The example doesn't assume it's state driven and as thus, calling it communism is a far stretch of imagination.
The example assumed that both person were identical except for their ethnicity, I should have clarified.
In such example, would you consider it racism to bring both to 2 apples even if it technically is a detriment to EA?
No it's not. It's THE WORKING CLASS having the control of the means of production. This a huge difference and clearly shows that communism never existed. Communism essentially beleives in NO goverment.
|
Posted byastraph#3219on Nov 5, 2017, 6:45:28 PM
|
|
no, that would be anarchism. not communism.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwin#5850on Nov 5, 2017, 6:51:28 PMAlpha Member
|
"
faerwin wrote:
"
astraph wrote:
"
faerwin wrote:
Communism is the control of the state over every resources and services
No it's not. It's THE WORKING CLASS having the control of the means of production. This a huge difference and clearly shows that communism never existed. Communism essentially beleives in NO goverment.
no, that would be anarchism. not communism.
I got winner.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Nov 5, 2017, 7:58:31 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on Nov 5, 2017, 7:56:02 PM
|
"
faerwin wrote:
It could very well be a discrepancy of salary for equal work (as was seen with men and women a few decades ago).
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. A lot of workers are scared of their employers because they use scare tactics or can simply show you the door. Even if there is legal recourse available, they are mentally, physically and financially draining. So a lot of employees just end up taking it even if they know full well that what their boss is doing is illegal. Minorities are even more prone to such behavior from employers.
And no, just because EA has more apples in the example doesn't mean they have more because of racism, it does, however, means that EB has less apples because of racism.
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
"
CanHasPants wrote:
institutional racism against minorities does not exist in America—it is quite literally illegal.
The IRS discriminating against non-profit organizations based on political affiliation is also illegal. Doesn't mean institutional discrimination can't occur. I don't think it's true that institutional racism against people of color doesn't occur in America... although I'll grant you that its illegality helps a lot to keep occurrence rates very low.
Absolutely (on both accounts), perhaps I should have said that institutional discrimination is not upheld by the greater American society, as it is typically rectified when exposed and proven. If they (whomever) could get away with it (whatever), I am sure they would continue to do so, but public scrutiny forces change, because the public at large does not support (whatever) practice.
I apologize if my thoughts come across as poorly conceived or half finished—I am still trying to put my finger on what in particular it is about this whole conversation that doesn’t sit right with me, and you are my sounding board.
What I mean to say is not that institutions cannot be racist, surely they can and do do wrong, but rather it is not systemic.
Devolving Wilds
Land
“T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.”
|
Posted byCanHasPants#3515on Nov 5, 2017, 8:08:35 PM
|
"
CanHasPants wrote:
What I mean to say is not that institutions cannot be racist, surely they can and do do wrong, but rather it is not systemic.
It depends on how you draw the boundaries of the system. In any case, I don't think simple descriptions at the maximum zoom-out level do justice to the dynamic landscape of a culture war. There are certainly institutions of anti-white racism; there are certainly institutions of pro-white racism; there is a lot of ground controlled by neither; it's a diverse landscape.
I think the only safe generalization about the whole is: the neutral areas are shrinking. And that's bad, because both flavors of racism are cancer.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Nov 5, 2017, 8:34:12 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on Nov 5, 2017, 8:32:52 PM
|
