Help me understand, How is the Betsy Ross flag racist?

[Procyonix]

Social programs, in and of itself. is not socialism.

From Wikipedia:

In Marxist theory, the socialist mode of production, also referred to as lower-stage of communism[1] or simply socialism as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that emerge from capitalismin the schema of historical materialism. The Marxist definition of socialism is an economic transition where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Marxist production for use is coordinated through conscious economic planning while distribution of products is based on the principle of "to each according to his contribution". The social relations of socialism are characterized by the proletariat effectively controlling the means of production, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership or private artisanal tools and self-management so that social surplus goes to the working class and hence society as a whole.[2]

The source material: "Socialism". Glossary of Terms. Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 20 February 2013.

And while in theory, it is a reasonable idea. It has never functioned properly, because people love power. So whoever is at the top of the pyramid will see that they live in luxury and opulence while the "proletariat" rummages for scraps.

Also, Marx died in 1892, and his theories were already in the world by the start of the 20th century, so I am not quite sure how the claim that Roosevelt was first to be socialist is somewhat perplexing for somebody questioning my historical knowledge. Where Fascism comes in, is that while very different in one key way: they go through a corporate entity or state agent, usually somebody who is a party member/donor. The ultimate goal is still the same: control over the means of production for the benefit of the ruling class.

The other two similarities that tie all three together are how they govern:

1. They are Totalitarian in nature. Dissidents and critics tend to find themselves censured, made to disappear or just outright murdered.

According to Benjamin Valentino in 2005, the number of non-combatants killed by communist regimes in the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China and Cambodia alone ranged from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[q][r] Citing Rummel and others, Valentino stated that the "highest end of the plausible range of deaths attributed to communist regimes" was up to 110 million".

2. They force struggle between the parts of their population. Be it Class based as Marx envisioned, or Ethnic as Stalin and Mr Toothbrush as I like to call him for that silly mustache the effect is the same. All three regime types become dictatorial and tyrannical. Which ultimately leads you back to 1.

3. They all seek to control all aspects of production for "state" interests. Be it by kicking out private enterprise or by co-opting it. All three regime types need total control of production to last any length of time. As if the masses are not dependent on the state for everything, you get a revolution. Which is why Lenin quietly rounded up and executed almost all pt the military participants in the October Revolution, young idealistic naval officers and men. Once they put Lenin in power, they were a threat that they might put somebody else in power. Especially as they started to realize that despite the promises made, the workers paradise was actually industrial slavery.

So that is the basis of my explanation into the three -isms. And why Fascism, despite claims to the contrary is not, as we define "Right" today. The true Right, they believe in primarily one main policy right or wrong: an open economy. No self respecting conservative would advocate for state run economy, even if it was corporate run. IT simply does not fit their economic views.

As a side note on the journalism topic: The incident that the WP is being sued for was not in 2018. So if they were top last year, it was all on their own. And as to who is "legitimate" will depend heavily on a persons political views. If you think Rachel Maddow is a serious journalist, you will believe Vox is accurate and fair and that Fox is going to be Faux News, as we called it when I was younger.

If however, you find two years of Russia Russia Russia silly. You would look at the outlets that pushed that narrative with no evidence for two years akin to the National Enquirer.

Did Russia meddle? Of course. Probably China and North Korea as well. But not for a specific candidate. Certainly not our sitting president who is very unpredictable and mercurial. I am no fan of the man as a person. Nor was I a fan of his two predecessors. But that's besides the point. What we have today is EXACTLY what those meddling in our election wanted. Sow the seeds of distrust in an already fractured nation divided by hatred and mistrust.

2020 will be no different. It will be far worse. The chances to destroy the nation we call home is ripe. Apply enough pressure, and it will fall like a House of Cards because we the citizens of this country we choose to allow Big Tech, and the Media make sure we hate and mistrust one another and refuse to talk. Ultimately, this is why I got into this discussion in the first place. I'm not going to change anyone's minds unless you are a fence-sitter who has no opinion. By the time we are old enough to be on this site most people have their personal beliefs fairly set in stone. Which is why in the 90s, I was a Democrat, and without moving much, today I am party-less. Neither party has our best interests at heart, only their own. The media today is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the parties. And thanks to globalism, this isn't a merely US issue. All around the world, you see people standing up for the national identity an internal well being. Some are more radical than others of course. But if you disagree with the narrative, you are labeled the worst things in history. That's not a way to solve problems The way is, as we have been doing, discuss, debate, and disagree. But at least we read the others pov. And perhaps its a small start to working together as a people. To work to improve our world, our nation, and our more local municipalities.

Thank you for your time.

 

[lara'rial-za]

I think you got my quote mixed up, I didn't say Roosevelt started the movement, just that him and world leaders enacted on social welfare programs before Karl Marx became popular. I was also trying to highlight how since the 13th century many people have written about socialism, but they may not have used that word, nor did their work become as popular as marx. I feel as though many women over the last few hundred years have written about socialism, communism, anarchy and stateless nations, but their writing was mostly pushed aside. Maybe Karl had a better publishing agent lol.

Roosevelt passed many socialist programs like social security a little over 10 years before Karl Marx became relevant.

I do agree on your statement on broadcast journalism, so I agree with your opinion, but I also wouldn't give any conservative media any more respect than I give rachel maddow. And I certainly don't watch CNN or Fox. I prefer my local news, PBS and C-SPAN.

I do think that we have deviated this conversation far from what the thread was meant to be, however, politics tends to do that to any conversation. I will not be addressing this thread anymore. If you want to talk shop, PM me.

 

[RedRose]

It is so interesting to read from people who obviously are educated. Yes, many of these concepts are much older than we think. And as someone who experienced living with a socialist President, it was basically like the previous and the following one In my country it is unheard of to fear socialism as being "communism".

 

[Vekseid]

And while in theory, it is a reasonable idea. It has never functioned properly, because people love power. So whoever is at the top of the pyramid will see that they live in luxury and opulence while the "proletariat" rummages for scraps.

By this logic you are more totalitarian than any socialist or fascist could ever hope to be.

Right-wing libertarianism is straight up neofeudalism. This isn't a secret, the Mises Institute was sponsored by the Habsburgs, and they openly support the return of monarchies.

As @RedRose states, this is far from new. Libertarianism is like some weird disease that turns functioning civilizations into warring, slaving, feudal states. They buy up land, become its lords, and with the pathfinders (daimyo) of Japan, the landholders (warlords) of China, and the villa holders of Rome, the result is always the same.

The weird thing is libertarian thought is so comfortable with forcing externalities on others they will happily undergo full tax revolt even under the threat of complete annihilation, like large slaveholders during the civil war.

Where Fascism comes in, is that while very different in one key way: they go through a corporate entity or state agent, usually somebody who is a party member/donor. The ultimate goal is still the same: control over the means of production for the benefit of the ruling class.

This is a dangerous level of ignorance, @Procyonix, and it completely glosses over what the Nazis did and why they did it.

Neither Mussolini's fascism nor Nazi fascism controlled the means of production. The Nazi government took over an extremely unprofitable mine, and shut down Jewish businesses, but they otherwise operated on pure capitalist lines. Sometimes you will see some apologist nutjob point out their social expenditures while refusing to show them along their war expenditures or US social expenditures.

What the Nazis did was to supply their economy via raw kleptocracy. First, they took wealth from their undesirables - Jews, gays, trans*, etc. As that began to run out, they took over neighboring nations and took it from the undesirables there. Then they invaded Poland. They never forced any company under their wing to build anything - they stole from untermenschen and other countries to finance these things.

This wasn't remotely sustainable, even by the standards of Socialism or Communism. Eventually you run out of people to steal from.

Mussolini's fascism didn't even rise to this level. "He made the trains run on time" by making it illegal to claim otherwise. Thus, it became a joke.

1. They are Totalitarian in nature. Dissidents and critics tend to find themselves censured, made to disappear or just outright murdered.

Again, every society where 'open economies' are allowed to flourish without regulation ends up here too. Landowners become feudal lords.

This is an utterly useless comparison, accordingly. Modern right-libertarianism is no less totalitarian by this standard.

According to Benjamin Valentino in 2005, the number of non-combatants killed by communist regimes in the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China and Cambodia alone ranged from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[q][r] Citing Rummel and others, Valentino stated that the "highest end of the plausible range of deaths attributed to communist regimes" was up to 110 million".

I wonder how easy it would be to get to a billion with purely capitalist deaths. The Irish famines, the slave trades, the Indian famines, the modern American insurance system, the Native American genocides, the Aboriginal genocides...

All this gets swept under the rug by pure capitalist apologists because it is so terribly inconvenient to remember.

2. They force struggle between the parts of their population. Be it Class based as Marx envisioned, or Ethnic as Stalin and Mr Toothbrush as I like to call him for that silly mustache the effect is the same. All three regime types become dictatorial and tyrannical. Which ultimately leads you back to 1.

This is blatantly false. Mussolini was against anti-semitism until Hitler forced his hand a decade and a half later.

3. They all seek to control all aspects of production for "state" interests. Be it by kicking out private enterprise or by co-opting it. All three regime types need total control of production to last any length of time. As if the masses are not dependent on the state for everything, you get a revolution.

This would be an interesting point of the fascists actually did it, but they did not. There was language to this effect initially, but the reality basically went south for any left-fascist. Mussolini was beholden to the rich, not the masses, and he did their bidding.

Because, you see, the truly destitute don't revolt. It's the upper and middle classes that revolt, because they have the free time and the wealth to do so.

So that is the basis of my explanation into the three -isms. And why Fascism, despite claims to the contrary is not, as we define "Right" today. The true Right, they believe in primarily one main policy right or wrong: an open economy. No self respecting conservative would advocate for state run economy, even if it was corporate run. IT simply does not fit their economic views.

Fascism is right-wing because entrenched hierarchies are the literal definition of what we consider to be right-wing, and this is the very root of conservative thought. Because the left-wing elements of fascism were left in the ditch, what remained was an intensely right-wing structure, with some occasional nods like government-run unions in the case of Mussolini's Italy. Which if anything is even more right wing.

Did Russia meddle? Of course. Probably China and North Korea as well. But not for a specific candidate. Certainly not our sitting president who is very unpredictable and mercurial.

Russia specifically meddled against Hillary. Their main support was for Sanders, Trump, and Jill Stein.

2020 will be no different. It will be far worse. The chances to destroy the nation we call home is ripe. Apply enough pressure, and it will fall like a House of Cards because we the citizens of this country we choose to allow Big Tech, and the Media make sure we hate and mistrust one another and refuse to talk.

If this is the way you think, you are helping those who would see the US fall all the same.

 

[Procyonix]

Well, I will keep this short, as I really don't see much point in making it longer. We are never going to agree.

I never in any place in this gave my opinion, or my beliefs. And I certainly didn't ever claim that capitalism without regulation is desirable. From a pure economics theory perhaps. It like the other forms of economies/governments there is a simple problem to all of them: people. We as a race are obsessed with power over others. I don't understand why, as I am not a socialistic or a psychiatrist. But we are. IF we can't look down on somebody, we are upset and shallow. This is why despite literally centuries and millennia around the world. there are so many unilateral hatreds. Some can rise above it for a short time, but rarely for long. Hence we see the current world situation.

Honestly, since you keep pushing words in my mouth, I will tell you something. I was a Bill Clinton democrat. I voted for him twice, and twice for Obama. I didn't always agree with their choices and policies but over all, I understood and agreed with what they thought they wanted to accomplish. That today, the very things that had described the post Vietnam Era Democratic party in theory: equality under the law regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or religious belief or non belief; and standing up for worker's rights and protecting their ability to make a living are considered "right wing" or "libertarian." Sure. some of the talking points are use are from conservatives. The current Democratic party and the 8% of our population that are the extreme left progressives, are so far to the left now that the center look right wing. There are numinous studies and polls by reputable sources and agencies to back this.

when i give you the tenants of a ideology, I am not giving you the way they were actually implemented. Only in the theorhetical nature and primary implementation. Does laissez-faire capitalism have bloody hands. OF course it does. And by sheer numbers, of course that number will be higher than the others. But then again, Capitalism has been around for centuries. Where as the others amassed their death toll in decades.

As to the Russian thing. unless you can provide actual independent proof, i am inclined to call bullshit. The MSM has been screaming Russia for 2 1/2 years to get the clicks and incite their base. It was started based of a discredited source whether he intentionally mislead the Clinton Campaign or not, is debatable. I haven't seen evidence either way. But there is a reason CNN and MSNBC and other "journalism" outlets are dying in record numbers. They have focused for two years over a parties anger at losing an election they felt was in the bag. The only person responsible for her loss ultimately is her. She chose to not campaign in the Rust Belt, because it was a lock. That's it. And by focusing on the past, we can't as a society move forward.

And if you think big tech isn't manipulating the election... yeah.. I can't help you with that. I respect you for what you do as a site host. I enjoy both of your sites immensely. However, politically we have nothing in common any longer. And that's sad, truthfully.

 

[Vekseid]

Well, I will keep this short, as I really don't see much point in making it longer. We are never going to agree.

I never in any place in this gave my opinion, or my beliefs. And I certainly didn't ever claim that capitalism without regulation is desirable. From a pure economics theory perhaps. It like the other forms of economies/governments there is a simple problem to all of them: people. We as a race are obsessed with power over others. I don't understand why, as I am not a socialistic or a psychiatrist. But we are. IF we can't look down on somebody, we are upset and shallow. This is why despite literally centuries and millennia around the world. there are so many unilateral hatreds. Some can rise above it for a short time, but rarely for long. Hence we see the current world situation.

Honestly, since you keep pushing words in my mouth, I will tell you something. I was a Bill Clinton democrat. I voted for him twice, and twice for Obama. I didn't always agree with their choices and policies but over all, I understood and agreed with what they thought they wanted to accomplish. That today, the very things that had described the post Vietnam Era Democratic party in theory: equality under the law regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or religious belief or non belief; and standing up for worker's rights and protecting their ability to make a living are considered "right wing" or "libertarian." Sure. some of the talking points are use are from conservatives. The current Democratic party and the 8% of our population that are the extreme left progressives, are so far to the left now that the center look right wing. There are numinous studies and polls by reputable sources and agencies to back this.

I am sorry, I am unable to parse what you are trying to say here in any coherent fashion.

You made false statements. Trying to link fascism and socialism as you do is utterly useless. Like trying to claim some symmetry between apple juice and milk, because they both contain sugar, but pretending orange juice isn't in the discussion.

when i give you the tenants of a ideology, I am not giving you the way they were actually implemented. Only in the theorhetical nature and primary implementation. Does laissez-faire capitalism have bloody hands. OF course it does. And by sheer numbers, of course that number will be higher than the others. But then again, Capitalism has been around for centuries. Where as the others amassed their death toll in decades.

It's far easier to argue that Cambodia wasn't exactly socialist, much of the Soviet depopulation was because of the Nazis, and that Mao was being a fucking moron and that his misguided policies could have been enacted by any suitably powerful government (and was - British India), than it is to try to claim that the Irish famine or the slave trade were anything but pure unfettered capitalism.

As to the Russian thing. unless you can provide actual independent proof, i am inclined to call bullshit. The MSM has been screaming Russia for 2 1/2 years to get the clicks and incite their base.

I am not sure what you are trying to ask me for, here. I wrote about Russian influence over Wikileaks for the past eight years here. You can go to this article, download the file yourself, directly from Guccifer 2.0's site, and see the fingerprints for yourself.

Three years later, they haven't bothered to clean up their editing.

Or you can read the e-mails Trump Jr. himself tweeted out.

There's more, of course, though some of it gets a bit more complicated. I don't think it's relevant.

None of this stuff is new. I've known about Russia pulling shit like this for most of the decade, and so have a lot of us in the technical sphere. We just expected it to go nowhere because 90% of what they do (in the US) is try to put up divisive shit to get blacks and whites hating each other.

It was started based of a discredited source whether he intentionally mislead the Clinton Campaign or not, is debatable. I haven't seen evidence either way. But there is a reason CNN and MSNBC and other "journalism" outlets are dying in record numbers. They have focused for two years over a parties anger at losing an election they felt was in the bag. The only person responsible for her loss ultimately is her. She chose to not campaign in the Rust Belt, because it was a lock. That's it. And by focusing on the past, we can't as a society move forward.

She lost three states by 80,000 votes combined. That's such a ridiculously narrow margin that trying to pretend that any sort of bullshit didn't swing it simply doesn't fly. She owns her loss, but so does voter disenfranchisement, Wikileaks timing their e-mail dump, and Comey bringing up e-mails regarding a completely different person.

And if you think big tech isn't manipulating the election... yeah.. I can't help you with that. I respect you for what you do as a site host. I enjoy both of your sites immensely. However, politically we have nothing in common any longer. And that's sad, truthfully.

Because I gather you don't have a source that isn't Alex Jones level of crazy or worse.

 

[Procyonix]

This will be my final reply in this topic or thread. So any replies after this will be left unread.
Until they banned him and the media made a fuss about him, I didn't know who Alex Jones was. I don't watch crazy people.
While their motives are questionable, as both sides alternatively hate or love them, I will accept Wikileaks as as close to unbiased as is possible in todays world.
I figure if both sides cant decide if they love them or hate them, then its likely a decent enough source.

And before you think my leaving this topic is because of bad facts or whatever, i am doing so for a simple reason. Like some of the earlier posters from the other side, when they lowered themselves to attacking another participant in this conversation, they lost my respect. My assessment of the political ideologies was based on my college poly sci courses, when colleges taught facts and not ideologies. Just like the part about the Soviet Union. To claim their body count is because of the Nazis is essentially a flat earther level of argument. They murdered people for ideological reasons, long after the war was over. They also murdered more of their own citizens before the war started. The system there was flawed from day one.

On a small scale, both Socialism and Communism can work. But it has to be very small. Its when you get past a certain point that they become untenable. At least as "true versions" of the ideology. I don't know enough about the version in place in France, so that would be why I didn't comment or RedRoses commentary. As well as I have found her to be a good and logical thinker who is pleasant to people. So I saw myself replying to that unnecessary, she knows her country better than I. And it is a fact that Europe is further to the left that most American.

So I will bow out now, adieu.

 

[Vekseid]

While their motives are questionable, as both sides alternatively hate or love them, I will accept Wikileaks as as close to unbiased as is possible in todays world.
I figure if both sides cant decide if they love them or hate them, then its likely a decent enough source.

You don't need to trust anything I wrote in the page I linked, you can research everything yourself. I show you exactly how and do my best to explain why. They are a hostile intelligence agency beholden in part to the Russian government. This isn't an opinion, this is a straight, verifiable fact.

And you could verify this yourself with a few minutes of research. It isn't hard.

As I told you, you've aligned yourself with those who seek to divide the US, to see to its destruction. You claim the 'MSM' is dividing the US and have zero interest in evaluating your own role in doing so.

And before you think my leaving this topic is because of bad facts or whatever

I think it's because you are hostile to the notion of re-evaluating your knowledge base. Everything you learned in your 20's must be true. Us youngsters just don't understand, don't care to learn, can't see, or whatever.

I never claimed the Soviets were innocent. The high-end body count claims have been called into question by historians since the fall of the Soviet Union and we gained access to their archives. It has shaped our understanding of what happened in Eastern Europe during and before World War II immensely. Accordingly the claims of 100m+ body counts to socialism/communism are incredibly spurious.

On a small scale, both Socialism and Communism can work. But it has to be very small. Its when you get past a certain point that they become untenable. At least as "true versions" of the ideology.

Of course it is, but those numbers change dramatically as certain services can be provided en mass at near-zero cost for (close to) free. Ten times as many people use BMR, my costs double.

Marx foresaw this, and the current rise of socialism in the United States is a growing realization of this. We are entering an era where more and more sectors of labor can be automated. 90% of what I do for a living is making stuff more automated for people.

No rant of yours is going to stop the rise of socialism in the United States, and I expect in ~2030 they will become a serious political force, enacting meaningful policy change. There are things you could do to stop it - stopping socialism is practically a solved science. We did it seven decades ago, as a matter of active policy to make sure it couldn't take root here. However, there is no political will to enact those solutions today, so the movement rises.

 

[RedRose]

Of course there are different types of fascism and not all of them include racism/violent racism.

Socialism also can range from"let's have free social security and more vacation days", to a dictatorship etc. The thing many Americans seem so afraid of, isn't what is taking place in Western Europe. Except for taxes But I'll take taxes if it means poor people (and myself!) don't have to worry about surgery, high-end meds or whatever.

 

[Pazzo]

.....this is soooooooo not what I was hoping for.

I simply asked about the 13 star flag, and why it was considered racist.

I feel as though I mistakenly flipped open a lighter in a dead pine forest made of rich lightered pine knots...

My thread has officially devolved.

 

[Anael]

No apology for laughing my tired, veteran, old, fat ass off at this shit. If it happened - wonderful. If it didn't - great. Either way it's some shit-pot-stirring that doesn't deserve space in the universe. Jaysus, get a life!

 

[Johnny Rico]

I think its hilariously ironic that that Nike has jumped on the SJW bandwagon considering they've been one of the worst offenders for workers rights with shit like sweat shops and general low wages. Literal corporate stooges sitting in their ivory towers and putting on a rainbow colored pin and claiming they're apart of the "resistance." In the end its all about selling more sneakers to dummies. And yes the betsy ross flag was racist, that whole era was. But that doesn't discount the great idea of America and how great this country is as far as progress and all of that. And I'll gladly continue to thank George Washington, even though he was a complicated polarizing individual. Fuck em.

 

[Johnny Rico]

.....this is soooooooo not what I was hoping for.

I simply asked about the 13 star flag, and why it was considered racist.

I feel as though I mistakenly flipped open a lighter in a dead pine forest made of rich lightered pine knots...

My thread has officially devolved.

It happens.