Kansas Crimson

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:15 pm

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:14 pm getting florida restored back to its' glory is a far greater priority.

is the US annexing it?

i’m sure you’d behind an actual Seminole Nation

That’s probably the last time glory and Florida were used in close association. Unless you’re referring to illegal adult entertainment establishments.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:14 pm getting florida restored back to its' glory is a far greater priority.

Florida is a habitated swamp. 20 minutes of hard rain over lunch and there were cars floating in the parking lot the last time I was there.

Bummed to see that the causeway to Sanibel Island received heavy damage. The island is now inaccessible by car. Hopefully everyone evacuated and there are no needs to get back in there immediately.

I’m renting a home on Pamela Dr in Punta Gorda for the month of January. Anyone have an idea of the extent of damage there?

I'd be doing the same google searches that you would to find that info.

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/ ... gorda-area

I hope you have a refundable deposit and a solid cancellation policy.

Overlander wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:47 pm I guess you would have to live in Michigan to admire Florida

lol, nailed it.

Florida is fucking dump, but still better than Michigan.

Rank states from 50 (worst) to 1 (best). Michigan probably sits in the 40's, high 30's at best.

"there are no underdeveloped countries, only overexploited countries."

It's just a thought, and sorry I don't have some comprehensive link from some respected source ready to offer.

but, I think it's at least worth asking, in places like Somalia and Ethiopia and Kenya like the article mentions, who possess the wealth there? Who possesses the resources?

maybe there's just not much wealth or resources there. Or, if there is wealth and resources, but it's controlled by some sorta capitalists while the people there starve, well...

without looking, my guess is corrupt capitalists and/or military

my gut tells me Kenya is unique from the others you mention, but perhaps not

Somalia has been plagued by civil war and government failures, and has largely been without much of any national “state” presence since the 90s

Ethiopia actually has the fastest growing economy in Africa, behind Nigeria, yet still remains one of poorest…largely because of poor governance it seems. historically it had been ruled by a caste system of “royals” and peasants, but now the elites are government officials and a small number of skilled professionals

an important point to keep in mind is that nearly all sub-saharan countries are in the same boat - highly concentrated wealth among a few, but widespread poverty among the populace

Yea, so the problem is largely capitalism.

it does seem that “concentrated wealth among a few, but widespread poverty among the populace” so often seems to come with capitalism, don’t it?

Especially with unchecked laissez-faire capitalism left to its own free market devices, without any policies otherwise, that are otherwise prone to being booed off the primary stage as big scary “job-killing regulations” and such.

Again, I don’t have a nice tidy link ready to offer in support, but I think at least a cursory observation suggests wealth hoarding and inequality are not flaws of capitalism, but are features.

It’s just some sorta neo-feudalism, with the lords now called CEOs.

And, in the context of wealth in Africa and imperialism and white supremacy and whatnot, at the very least there needs to be some conscious reckoning about as much. But man is that a difficult conversation to have!

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:02 am Yea, so the problem is largely capitalism.

not in my opinion

the problem is corruption…capitalism is just a convenient vehicle

Ethiopia kinda throws your imperialism narrative out the window

That’s prob a valid distinction on many levels.

In your opinion, where is that line drawn between capitalism and corruption? What’s the best way to account for and offset and prevent corruption? Could other vehicles be less prone to corruption?

A Qusdahl type prob says the capitalist system is inherently corrupt.

Is an “ownership class” really necessary? Or is that just some construct imposed by those in power with little regard for anything beyond their own accumulation of wealth?

ETA what about Ethiopia and imperialism, too? I’m not familiar, so please elaborate

all of Africa has been a colony of a European country at some point

Ethiopia is unique in that their occupation by Italy lasted only 5 years in ~1920s (i think)

imo, all types of governments and economic models are prone to corruption because they all rely on humans to “do the right thing”

people suck, and inevitably someone comes along and shits all over everything

i’ve long contended that an absolute monarchy is “best”, but that’s only if the monarch is truly just, equitable, empathetic, fair, etc, etc, etc (good luck finding such a person that actually wants the role). that’s more of a political system than an economic system though

which economic systems are you trying to compare, specifically? the lines between economic and political can get pretty fuzzy

Honestly, I’m too devil’s advocate and inherently skeptical to make such blanket statements as, imperialism is wholly evil.

I guess in east imperialism can afford benefits to colonized places? They can gain a lot in a hurry as far as technology and education and infrastructure and other resources, perhaps.

But colonization so often also comes with oppression and exploitation too, doesn’t it? So often indigenous peoples are coerced into some foreign new capitalist economic model, if they aren’t just completely slaughtered anyway. The resources in their region are suddenly no longer theirs cuz they’re “owned” by someone else now. And you can pretty much say buh-bye to the indigenous culture too.

Are there examples of imperialism for which the benefits outright the costs? Ethiopia, perhaps? Is it possible to expand on that?

Are there examples of imperialism for which the benefits outright the costs?

how can this possibly be answered?

every situation is unique, as the cultures and resources of each locale and colonizing power vary considerably

again, if it is the “right” colonizer in the right situation i think it can very likely end up being a net positive

but, such metrics are nearly wholly subjective. something you or i view as a benefit might be entirely different from a rural African villager

do i think they should have the right to choose their own fate, so to speak? absolutely. but, again, humans are largely fallible, and even within a single village/country/culture views will vary…how can anyone be certain that the views of one or a few actually represent the views of the whole?

how do you reconcile the views of short-term gains and prosperity versus those that favor long-term stability?

KUTradition wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:34 am imo, all types of governments and economic models are prone to corruption because they all rely on humans to “do the right thing”

agreed. That's why, at least in principle, we should be trying to establish economic and political systems designed to prevent corruption, not provide a convenient vehicle for it. (namely, with systems that disperse economic and political power, perhaps, rather than concentrate it)

people suck, and inevitably someone comes along and shits all over everything

again, agreed!

but again again, let's implement systems designed to prevent that shit, rather than make shit easier.

i’ve long contended that an absolute monarchy is “best”, but that’s only if the monarch is truly just, equitable, empathetic, fair, etc, etc, etc (good luck finding such a person that actually wants the role). that’s more of a political system than an economic system though

if we really wanna apply leftist theory here (or at least my meme-deep understanding of as much)...so "leftists" are a very broad group, definitely not homogenous ideologically, demographically, etc., especially compared to so many righties.

There's a subset of leftists known as "tankies," a term coined from when the USSR sent in tanks to quash a fascist uprising in Hungary way back when. Basically, this group of leftists subscribe to an ideological paradox that's something along the lines of "you NEED a certain amount of authoritarianism to achieve a certain free society." or something. I suppose it's part of the paradox of "in a truly tolerant society, intolerance must not be tolerated."

I'm not even sure how I feel about it, though. But, for the sake of an economic and political system to be implemented on some macro scale, maybe a little authoritarianism IS necessary to get everyone on the same page. Or, at least that's more likely to work than going full furthest-left anarchist and thinking everyone will suddenly adopt some ideology of "horizontal communities" and "robust mutual aid" enough to render a hierarchical authority obsolete.

So yea, maybe you're "absolute monarchy that is just" theory is something along those lines too.

which economic systems are you trying to compare, specifically? the lines between economic and political can get pretty fuzzy

yea, so often, economic policies are a result of political rule, and perhaps vice versa too.

Again to talk leftist ideology in at least in some general sense, is it possible to implement some economic system volunatarily, rather than through coercion or force?

As it applies to imperialism, how would THAT work? Rather than a bunch of indigenous types suddenly having some white dude show up with guns and say "oh, all your resources here, well I own them now, so your options going forward are either come work for me for slave wages, if not full blown slavery; or you can all be slaughtered."

Has there ever been some example of imperialism for which the colonizer shows up and says, "would you guys like to adopt this new economic model designed for the benefit of us all?"

i can almost guarantee that Puerto Ricans are grateful for the western healthcare they receive (relative to other caribbean locales), but is that more important than other effects from colonialism?

really enjoying this discussion btw!