Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Topic: I’m not ideological but I was thinking about this
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc started this discussion 2 weeks ago#137,278
Maybe this is a dumb thought, but I was just thinking about this. Marxism and Liberalism have something in common. Marxism views history as a struggle between the working class and the proletariat, while Liberalism views history as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, and both assert that they will win out over their enemy in the end because they’re rational. What do you all think about that? Do you think that history is a struggle and one ideology will win out in the end? And if so which one?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,454,754
There are also some assumptions that are made that idk about. Like Marxism for example assumes that people will seize the means of production, but that doesn’t necessarily happen. And Liberalism assumes that debate will lead to progress, and that good ideas will win out over bad ones, but that doesn’t always happen.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,454,756
Or like with gun ideology there’s this weird faith that people have, or at least that some people have, that if you give everyone a weapon, the good people and the criminals, it will naturally work out by itself because there will be more good people than bad people and there will be more good people defending themselves than bad people committing crimes. But there’s not really a rational reason to believe that. It’s blind faith.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) septuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,454,758
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
But I mean even that’s stupid. Because Europeans had the largest empires and those empires, the British Empire, the French Empire, Portugal, Spain, Nazi Germany, I mean even the United States had racist laws. They were all racist empires to some extent, but white people aren’t the majority of people in the world, so all of that didn’t actually amount to anything in terms of population, it had economic success but it seems to be limited to that. So even that’s kind of bullshit. Having a huge racist empire won’t really make your races share of the world population any bigger, and in the long run, empires fall.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) octuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,454,759
Although I guess there’s a counter argument that slavery is actually bad for the economy because since slaves don’t earn salaries they don’t add to consumer spending, and everyone’s salary is someone else’s consumer spending. So you could argue that maybe slavery didn’t actually make the west richer, it made the west poorer than it would have been without slavery (still profiting off of it obviously but the profit would be lower than the benefit to the GDP from everyone earning a salary), but colonialism made Africa even poorer relative to the west, but if there was no slavery, both Africa and Europe would be significantly richer if Africa developed as Europe did and Africa and Europe traded with each other instead.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) nonuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,454,760
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Although the issue with that is if you word it incorrectly people will think you mean something other than what you mean and racists jump on that, which is stupid because it’s actually a strong economic argument against the viability of slavery.