A lonely nation: Has the notion of the ‘American way’ promoted isolation across history?

[Zwing]

Tell me....If capitalism is so very bad, what
do you prefer?

As primally natural a social order as is available: the tribe, the clan, the hunter-gatherer group, the pack, the pride…whatever it is…but alas, that is impossible unless there is a near extinction event. I detest human society and its artifice. My choice would not be the modern liberally democratic state, or the modern socially democratic state, or the modern politically communist state…none of that. I can tell you one thing about capitalism, and that’s that it breeds extremes of jealousy and resentment. If I were to be working some crap mundane job at an Amazon distribution center making crap pay (I don’t, and wouldn’t), and I were to regard Jeff Bezos as rich as he is, why then I would want to find a way to get to Jeff Bezos and kill him (perhaps not everybody is as vehement in this as I, who am vehemently competitive by nature), but would be frustrated by the interposition of the government and its “legal code”, which would prevent me from so doing. I would, frankly, prefer to live in an archaic state among hunter-gatherers than live with that hatred and frustration.

EDIT: NOTE: Please, all Amazon employees, don’t desire to kill Mr. Bezos, but accept your current lot and work for a brighter day…I do not advocate the killing of anybody, but I am only illustrating the feelings involved above. Got it?

 

[Zwing]

I converse with civil interesting posters.
Be one.

Despite your obviously bruised feelings, I have posted nothing uncivil or insulting of your intelligence. Please get over it, as I appreciate the dialogue which you provide, and I admire your thought processes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Despite your obviously bruised feelings...

Not ready to be civil & interesting yet, eh.

 

[Zwing]

Not ready to be civil & interesting yet, eh.

Does “civil and interesting” mean “ever agreeing in substance” with yourself?

 

[Heyo]

What his fans have posted about his work suggests naivete.

Das Kapital is anything but naïve and is still part of some economics curricula. His idea of the "Mehrwert" (added value) is basis for taxes worldwide. He describes all the characters of money, how it is accumulated, how its value can be deflated, how it is fetishized. I can't go into details (because I forgot them and would have to look it all up) but be assured that even conservative, pro capitalism scholars of economics value the insights he had.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does “civil and interesting” mean “ever agreeing in substance” to yourself?

Is that a real question or rhetorical?
I'll give the benefit of doubt....
It means responding to someone's post by addressing
the substance with a thoughtful response, devoid of
personal negativity. Some of your posts succeed.
Some fail. Those are unworthy of considered response.

 

[Revoltingest]

Das Kapital is anything but naïve and is still part of some economics curricula.

I'm just going by what his followers post.
(Never read the book.) What appears to matter
to them is the goal of socialism eventually
morphing into communism. That is indeed
naive because it ignores human nature. Rather,
it's a dream about what humans would become.

 

[Zwing]

It means responding to someone's post by addressing
the substance with a thoughtful response, devoid of
personal negativity.

Perhaps I was not careful in my syntax, but I think it clear that I was attacking the phrase, and not resorting to an ad hominem argument. Perhaps I should have said that “voluntary economic association is a phrase which is generally used disingenuously”. I regret if my hurried syntax made the post seem like a personal attack. I am am “A type” personality, ever feeling “large and in charge”, so people must bear with me at times.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps I was not careful in my syntax, but I think it clear that I was attacking the phrase....

Syntax isn't the issue. It matters not to what or whom you referred.
I favor capitalism because of voluntary economic association, in
contrast to a command economy.
If you disagree, that can be discussed. If you dismiss it as
disingenuous, I've no interest to read any further in your post.

Interesting posters here sometimes fall from grace. Provided
they recover from personal animosity, I'll continue engaging
them. But animosity predominates with some others. I avoid'm.
You get to decide which group you want to join.

 

[Heyo]

I'm just going by what his followers post.
(Never read the book.) What appears to
matter to them is the goal of socialism
morphing into communism. That is indeed
naive because it ignores human nature.
Rather, it's a dream about what humans
would become.

What you are describing is the synthesis, that what should be - which I already dismissed.
What is great about him is his analysis of what is (or was at his time) and where it would lead if unchecked. He understood that the "invisible hand" was a myth and not competition but monopolism was what would result. He described how wealth has a tendency to accumulate, how frequent market crashes would result and why inflation is inevitable.
He also understood a thing or two about psychology, the fetish character of money, alienation through factory work and that religion is the opium of the masses.

 

[Revoltingest]

What you are describing is the synthesis, that what should be - which I already dismissed.
What is great about him is his analysis of what is (or was at his time) and where it would lead if unchecked.

Unchecked economic systems are strictly hypothetical.
It reminds me of the typical socialist diatribe against
"unbridled capitalism" as an argument against capitalism.
It smells of straw.
Is Marx's analysis actually analysis, or is it just his
arguing against a parade of imagined horribles?

He understood that the "invisible hand" was a myth and not competition but monopolism was what would result.

How did he support this claim?

He described how wealth has a tendency to accumulate, how frequent market crashes would result and why inflation is inevitable.

This is all knowable by looking at history.
He wouldn't be alone in groking the obvious.

He also understood a thing or two about psychology, the fetish character of money, alienation through factory work and that religion is the opium of the masses.

Again, he shows a keen sense of the obvious....except in psychology.
This is evidenced by how both socialism & capitalism functioned in
the real world. Sky-is-falling predictions for capitalism fail to take
into account political feedback effects. And his socialism model
was based upon the presumption that all human thought would
evolve in a particular way. <-- As I understand what socialists
tell me.

 

[Heyo]

This is all knowable by looking at history.
He wouldn't be alone in groking the obvious.

He did it 170 years ago when there was not much of a history of capitalism.

 

[Zwing]

Syntax isn't the issue. It matters not to what or whom you referred.
I favor capitalism because of voluntary economic association, in
contrast to a command economy.
If you disagree, that can be discussed. If you dismiss it as
disingenuous, I've no interest to read any further in your post.

I have explained that what I referred to a “disingenuous” is the customary usage of that and similar phrases, and not your personal political opinions, yet you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that, steadfastly maintaining the opposite. This can only mean that you are either stupid, or that you are trying to provoke me for some reason. Since my experience of your posts has indicated significant intelligence, I can but assume that you are being provocative, and I don’t appreciate it or understand why. You must understand that I am a physical man, and I enjoy responding to provocation physically. Since I cannot respond thusly in this virtual environment, being provoked causes me significant psychic agony, and I hate that.

Interesting posters here sometimes fall from grace. Provided
they recover from personal animosity, I'll continue engaging
them. But animosity predominates with some others. I avoid'm.
You get to decide which group you want to join.

What’s with the strange line breaking? Is this an attempt to create meter of your thoughts? Whatever the case, I find those thoughts and your refusal to accept my explanation of the words I used quite expressive of arrogance. Provocation is bad enough, but provocation exacerbated by arrogance is something that I find intolerable. You threaten to “avoid” me. I hate being threatened, especially in the virtual environment where I cannot “step to your moustache” (op. cit.), and am bothered by the incongruity of someone who spends so much time on an online forum as you do having the balls to display arrogance in any fashion. What have you to be arrogant about? You a billionaire? Got a fashion model for a wife? Ever win a Super Bowl…maybe in reality you’re Tom Brady? Have any kind of authority over others?

Since I would not like to be avoided and do not think that I at all deserve such a threat, let me do ‘ya one better…consider yourself dishonored by being ignored by another user for one month, starting presently. Perhaps after a month’s time, we may reassess.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have explained that what I referred to a “disingenuous” is the customary usage...

Ugh...

 

[Zwing]

Since I would not like to be avoided and do not think that I at all deserve such a threat, let me do ‘ya one better…consider yourself dishonored by being ignored by another user for one month, starting presently. Perhaps after a month’s time, we may reassess.

I will change this to a week, since I might be going out of state for a few months, and am unsure whether I shall continue my participation here on RF. I feel close to being ready to jump ship, as I don’t seem to be able to engage about the religious ideas that I originally indended to in joining (can’t join in the DIR’s that I would).

 

[metis]

Where all the common folk pull themselves up by their own bootstraps except, of course, for those who cannot afford bootstraps.

How convenient is must be to embrace a view of capitalism and imperialism where poverty and oppression can only be the fault of the poor and oppressed.

And to support that, the international slave trade was based on these as countries were in competition for resources and cheap labor.

 

[pearl]

Who Was Peter Faneuil?
Faneuil was one of the wealthiest merchants in Boston during the 18th century. The son of French Huguenots who settled in New York, Faneuil, after his parents died, moved …

MSN

Also, a slave trader. People want to remove his name altogether. I agree. It wouldn't change history, neither would it reward it.

 

[Stevicus]

View attachment 78828

Who Was Peter Faneuil?
Faneuil was one of the wealthiest merchants in Boston during the 18th century. The son of French Huguenots who settled in New York, Faneuil, after his parents died, moved …

MSN

Also, a slave trader. People want to remove his name altogether. I agree. It wouldn't change history, neither would it reward it.

I had never heard of him or Faneuil Hall, so it wouldn't bother me if they changed the name. Although I can imagine there might be quite a few places named after people of questionable repute. They just changed the names of a lot of military bases because they were named after Confederate generals.

 

[Sand Dancer]

America was a social experiment away from the monarchies. Monarchies were like one large family or tribe; shared DNA. However, monarchies were very lopsided and restrictive. Those at the top, structured things so they could enjoy the best of life. While, the vast majority of people were drones, who had little freedom and no upward mobility; serfs and slaves.

America; via the Constitution, did away with monarchy rule; smaller government and human rights. It became a melting pot for immigrant all over the world. Immigration broke the intimacy of pure cultures, but the Constitution allowed for more opportunity; rise of the middle class.

In the city, where I grew up, my grandparent's generation immigrated from all over Europe, with each culture clanning together, in their own area of the city. My parent's generation started to merge cultures. They became bilingual; English plus their ethnic language. The once pure cultures started to inter-marry, with neighborhoods becoming more a blend people from many cultures, pure and mixed. By my generation, the wide variety of youth backgrounds all wanted to be American, instead of sticking with the old ways; unified by the melting pot. The Love Generation overcame these isolation problems by finding a way to make a new larger family. After that it was down hill again.

Since that time, the Political Left has tried to teach Americans to leave the melting pot; diversity instead of unity. One is now an African American, Jewish American or Asian American, with America last and clan first; going backwards. MAGA was about unifying culture; golden generation. Students do not even have to learn to speak, English, but can stay separated via their native tongue. That separates neighbors.

Both sides are going too far, IMO. MAGA was not unifying in their actions. In ideas, maybe that was intended but it didn't happen.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Das Kapital is anything but naïve and is still part of some economics curricula. His idea of the "Mehrwert" (added value) is basis for taxes worldwide. He describes all the characters of money, how it is accumulated, how its value can be deflated, how it is fetishized. I can't go into details (because I forgot them and would have to look it all up) but be assured that even conservative, pro capitalism scholars of economics value the insights he had.

I must admit that I found the book to be occasionally brilliant and persistently difficult. (I seem to recall feeling obliged to read it.)