Socialism Never Worked Yeah, I know, just linking a video without text. I don't even know who this guy is beyond "Award-winning filmmaker" but he explains it well.
It (or some form of it) worked fine in the UK 1997 - 2010, then the Tories came in and wrecked it all.
caught that too. I'm assuming that he's implying that the plutocrats who were empowering authoritarianism caused both but the phrasing is indeed not correct.
He has such beautiful blue eyes is correct, and I like how succinct and straightforward he is, trying to cram as much backstory into the narrative in such a short format. Fantastic find, @Nova!
People from both sides get mad at me for pointing out the largest and most successful government transfer of wealth in human history were the Homestead Acts. Ten percent of US lands, the overwhelming vast majority of which were located in the Great Plains - the largest area of arable land in the world bisected by the world’s largest navigable river system - were given to 1.6 million Americans FOR FREE. It should also be noted that Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all had significant land reform before their economic booms.
I wouldn't call the Homestead Acts socialism. Socialism doesn't mean "free stuff," although that often is part of its marketing. HA was about putting settlers on newly acquired land. Socialism would be more like taking the land from one person and redistributing it to another, or forcing the owner of farmland to sell only to the state, and so forth.
Is there a through line between the leaders of Germany through WWI, and the Nazis? Sounds like a good paper to me!
You, a very smart man, basing your argument on the premise that those lands were "acquired" and not "taken".
I'd have to say no. The system of government and goals of Germany between 1870 (F-P war) and the rise of the nazis at the end of the Wiemar Republic are more like a hairpin turn. Thinking about it, the WR is probably the transitional phase as German political alignments and identities became shattered. The nazis succeeded in no small part because they were able to either consolidate and redeploy those ideologies, or eradicate them.
I was gonna say "sorta-not-really, but mostly not really." The Weimar Republic was pretty much a successor government to Kaiser Wilhelm's reign. Most of the people in it had been longtime members of the German power structure. The transition was more like "we're changing where authority comes from, and we're getting rid of the monarchy, but many of the same people are in charge, it's just that now they're getting elected by the people instead of appointed by a king." The leaders of the Weimar Republic did enable Hitler's rise, most notably through von Hindenburg appointing him as chancellor, but that was done under duress. Von Hindenburg was an enemy of Hitler's, and Hitler considered everybody who had taken part in the November Revolution that deposed the Kaiser to be a criminal. So there's a reasonably strong throughline from the German Empire to the Weimar Republic, but from the Republic to the Reich was more of a wholesale replacement, albeit one that went through a couple of transitional phases.
There were quite a bunch of Geman conservatives who thought they could control Hitler and make him their useful idiot, if thats enough of a through line for you. But its quite a stretch to say that the Nazis caused WWI. Its more like WWI caused the Nazis. Obviously, many other factors that made them possible here (little democratic traditions, militarism, antisemitism, obedient mindset), but it’s difficult to imagine the rise of the Nazis as it played out had WWI not taken place.
Fixed that for you. Yes, I'm woke. And proud of it. I have seen way too much, over the years and in so many countries, of how much damage colonialism has done. I'm not saying all the whites in North America should "go back to their own countries"; it's much too late for that. But the least we can do is acknowledge that the way the Europeans took over North America and Australia, and invaded most of South America, and large parts of Africa and Asia, was not morally right or justifiable.
Sure, as soon as you acknowledge that a) people in the present aren’t to be held accountable to any of that, b) white people as a demographic aren’t privileged because of it and c) the people who’s land was “stolen” also slow land and treated their neighbors poorly including human sacrifice.. Can we also stop with the collective guilt?
people in the present are heirs to that. so yeah, we have an obligation. we've explained privilege as being a lack of obstacles rather than a set of benefits a dozen times. yes, there were conflicts over territory before 1492. there were also peace treaties and trade agreements made after those conflicts. Y'know? Diplomacy. I don't see what you think is unique with this? Name me a european state that wasn't inflicting the death penalty publicly or mutilations up until the 19th century for crimes like stealing a loaf of bread-your "human sacrifice" canard is nothing but empty racism
Here's the thing ... we ARE privileged because of it, and other things like it, no matter how much that fact hurts your feelings. I personally don't have any ancestors who got land from the homesteading act, but I do have ancestors who benefited from any number of things that were available to them, but not available to non-whites, whether that means the fact that they were allowed to immigrate in the first place (I have ancestors who had zero trouble coming here from northern Europe at the exact same time that the Chinese Exclusion Act slammed the door on people from Asia) or economic opportunities that were only available to people of some races. Generational wealth is real, which is why the descendants of J.D. Rockefeller will always be more financially secure than you even if they never work a day in their lives. It's complex and involves many different factors, which may be part of why the more simpleminded among us are unable to grasp it. And others probably just refuse to grasp it because facts hurt their feelings. I'm not sure which camp you're in.
Not stolen. Won by conquest and/or acquired by treaty. History already happened and it's not on those living today to atone foe it. Besides, everyone living in all of those areas almost certainly took them from someone else before. Conquest is the story of humankind.
So if I beat you unconscious and take your wallet, or you give it to me because I have a gun to your empty fucking noggin and promise not to shoot if you hand it over, I haven't stolen from you? Cool.
Tell me about this distinction. If I attack you and overcome you and take your things, is that no longer theft because I conquered you?
What's more , if he tries to steal his things back, he's not just a thief, but filthy, and stinky, and the filth is deep down in his skin, and he was born with it, like an animal. Yucky, yucky, yucky.
It's theft if you and I are subject to the same law. It's conquest if we're not. I'll repeat: by your standard, everyone is living on stolen land.
