Racism, an instinctual nature of separation

Some people win the lottery. Doesn't mean that you have a reasonable chance to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? So you can be the most law-abiding person to get shot in your ghetto?

If you're born into the worst parts of America, there's no reason not to engage in reckless hedonism because you'll probably be dead before 30 no matter what. The system is rigged and there's no hope.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. It all goes back to economic factors.

I'm recognizing that Capitalism is broken and is capable of doing nothing but grinding the flesh of the unfortunate between its turning cogs. I'm recognizing that black Americans will only be free when they destroy this machine.

 

What lottery did Ben Carson win?
Sean Combs?
Tyler Perry?
Chris Gardner?
Colin Powell?
Robert L. Johnson?

And thousands of others without a famous name. The "woe is me, born black with no chance in life" is an insult to the hundred of thousands of Black Americans who DO succeed when coming from a disadvantaged background.

 

OK Oso, picture this, you apply for a good job and as many do you have to take a test to determine if you are ready to even train for the job. If you have not assimilated economically you likely won't get that job.

What makes sense to you, is irrelevant when it comes to people melting together into society and economically.

 

The ones who succeed have generally assimilated to the jobs in question. Other wise you have the "woe is me crowd" who insist that the main stream economy will assimilate to them. Its not going to happen.

I know of a job which has just been filled locally. Since I am a psychologist I occasionally do interviews as to who can do the job with the least training. I accomplish this with an achievement test, and if that is not clear cut I administer an IQ test. Those are the tools with which I have available to me.

There is a distinct difference in test and survey scores based on the culture from which the applicant comes. The Asians, who have a much higher esteem for education invariably score highest, then Caucasians, then blacks and then Hispanics, depending on when and where they received the education. Is that a biased approach? Probably, but those who need to assimilated always get the better jobs.

 

Capitalism.

A small group beat the odds. That's true with most near-certainties.

I don't believe that gathering wealth says anything about you. I think that it's all about being in the right place at the right time. I don't buy the line that anyone can be massively wealthy and powerful if they work hard enough, because that's just what the people on the top want you to believe so you'll keep working for them and stay docile.

 

Exactly my point.

 

See, now that's the of statment that shows how (*)(*)(*)(*)ing disingenuous the left is about the Black community in this country. No one is saying that ANYONE can be the super rich and powerful. There are poor and disadvantaged people of every race/color/creed/religion or whatever grouping you care to use. However, the American Blacks have been fed a line of (*)(*)(*)(*) by the left that they can only succeed with their "help" and it's not possible to do it on their own.

 

Capitalism is the only economic system which in practices spreads to most money to the most people. Can we use better regulation? Of course, but never such that wealth does not increase across the board. There has been a successful Socialist/Marxist/Communist state. They fail because the high achievers are not allowed to leave, thus they simply stop producing as much.

 

I am so massively bored of hearing every single person who thinks they know what they're talking about because they read Animal Farm once when they were in high school trot out this tired out argument that I'm not even going to bother copy and pasting the rebuttal I have typed up in my agitprop folder.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not saying that Black people can't succeed on their own.

I'm saying that workers under capitalism need to overthrow the system, and that only through this revolution will racism be abolished.

 

If you're born into communism, there's overwhelming odds saying you're going to die poor.

 

You aren't poor if you never have to worry about homelessness, affording healthcare, affording food, or the security of any of your necessities.

 

]

Communists provide all that for free without people having to do a thing, where and when?

 

Cuba, USSR, DDR, Pre-1990 DPRK, Albania, others I don't care to mention.

Socialist revolutions have near universally lead to a massive increase in education, women's rights, quality of life, etc. And they very commonly eliminate homelessness and starvation.

 

Complete rubbish they starved to death 10s of millions, had plenty of homeless and many of the so called homes wouldnt be seen fit for living in the capitalist West. Then human rights --- thats an even bigger joke communism removes the rights of individuals, its track record is pathetic. Importantly where did they get all this without having to lift a finger? Btw why have you chosen not to live in a communist country?

 

There was actual famines, not fake famines that result from flawed distribution of resources. It was communists that finally put a stop to famine in these countries, as Russia and China had them regularly for centuries.

Every statistic I've read suggests otherwise.

The worst complaint about the apartment complexes that made up most of the USSR's housing was that they all looked identical on the outside. That's one anecdote.

How an individual be said to have rights or freedoms when he is starving on the streets? If you aren't guaranteed that security, then all of your freedoms exist only on paper.

People are expected to work if they are able, but people will not mourn a lack of work available and those who cannot work due to disability or circumstance will not be penalized.

My choices are Cuba and the DPRK. The DPRK has devolved into something that nobody has ever seen something quite like, and Cuba is inaccessible to the average American.

I also prefer to solve problems rather than run away from them.

 

The fact is, your caption is backwards, Democracy can only exist in a basically Capitalistic economy. Every Marxist economy or derivative their up will always become an Autocratic/Dictatorial government. Small communities can survive in limited partially socialist circumstance, states/countries cannot. Those must ultimately require stringent control to keep the high achievers from escaping.

 

That ridiculous diatribe was certainly not written about me. I have lived in so called "Socialist" countries and KNOW WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED. Capitalism is the only economic system which in practices spreads to most money to the most people. Can we use better regulation? Of course, but never such that wealth does not increase across the board. There has NEVER been a successful Socialist/Marxist/Communist state. They fail because the high achievers are not ALLOWED to leave, thus they simply stop producing as much and they inevitably become autocratic/dictatorial. I don't know where you were educated in economics, but you should get your money back.

Animal Farm is an allegorical and dystopian novella by George Orwell, first published in England on 17 August 1945. According to Orwell, the book reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on into the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union.[1] Orwell, a democratic socialist,[2] was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscow-directed Stalinism, an attitude that was critically shaped by his experiences during the Spanish Civil War.[3] The Soviet Union, he believed, had become a brutal dictatorship, built upon a cult of personality and enforced by a reign of terror. In a letter to Yvonne Davet, Orwell described Animal Farm as a satirical tale against Stalin ("un conte satirique contre Staline"),[4] and in his essay "Why I Write" (1946), wrote that Animal Farm was the first book in which he tried, with full consciousness of what he was doing, "to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole".

The original title was Animal Farm: A Fairy Story; U.S. publishers dropped the subtitle when it was published in 1946, and only one of the translations during Orwell's lifetime kept it. Other titular variations include subtitles like "A Satire" and "A Contemporary Satire".[4] Orwell suggested the title Union des républiques socialistes animales for the French translation, which abbreviates to URSA, the Latin for "bear", a symbol of Russia, which also played on the French name of the Soviet Union, Union des républiques socialistes soviétiques.[4]

Orwell wrote the book between November 1943 and February 1944, when the UK was in its wartime alliance with the Soviet Union and the British people and intelligentsia held Stalin in high esteem, a phenomenon Orwell hated.[5] The manuscript was initially rejected by a number of British and American publishers,[6] including one of Orwell's own, Victor Gollancz, which delayed its publication. It became a great commercial success when it did appear partly because international relations were transformed as the wartime alliance gave way to the Cold War.[7]

Time magazine chose the book as one of the 100 best English-language novels (1923 to 2005);[8] it also featured at number 31 on the Modern Library List of Best 20th-Century Novels. It won a Retrospective Hugo Award in 1996, and is also included in the Great Books of the Western World selection.

Actual Marxism turned out worse that Orwell's descriptive analysis. Every state wide attempt has failed, MISERABLY over time. Marxism is not only an economic system which enriches the Commissars while leaving the workers in desperate poverty. Capitalism was the only solution to Marxism.

New renditions of "Democratic Socialist" are not socialism at all. It is a system by which the hierarchy is regulated to cut back on enriching already people and enhance the peoples standards of living

so·cial·ism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. There is no historical evidence that suggests this would ever work in a world of free people.

 

In what backwards world does fighting FOR civil rights...cause them to be taken away except from a backlash by racists?

 

Minorities need to assimilate to the cultural and economic societies in which they live.

That is arrogant horse manure coming from the mouth of an ignoramus.

 

Really?

Because China is about as capitalist as it gets.

No Democracy there

 

Democratic Socialism (capitalism properly regulated) will do a better job of providing what you call for AND make more people wealthy that any form of Marxism. There has never been a successful Marxist state in which the majority people were elevated out of poverty. One of the best examples is CUBA, which as a marked variation of wealth between the people and the leaders.

 

None of those are success stories for Marxism, ESPECIALLY THE DDR. A person would have to be stupid, blind, deaf, and ignorant to suggest that the DDR (now part of all Germany) did not multiply its wealth when it went back to its rightful place in world societies. None of the others were successful either, certainly not to the level Capitalism is.

 

Your way will not solve problems, no Marxist system ever has, and none ever will.

You are a flipping CRACKPOT. Did you quit school after kindergarten. I have lived in various countries across Europe and Southern Asia for over 20 of my 80 years and know for a fact you are full of excrement with your head firmly implanted into your excremental orifice. BEGONE SATAN!

 

Not at all, my good Mr. Smith. It is the Nurture of Socialism that enables Capitalism to flourish in Nature.

- - - Updated - - -

PoliceStateUSA?

 

Our form of socialism is already the best in the world; and, the proof is, the right keeps complaining about steak and lobster privileges on ebt cards and how our poor, are not really poor enough by true, third world definitions of poor.