Commentary on the Communist Manifesto

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist

This will be a commentary on the text of the Communist Manifesto. Text itself often comes with the introduction, but said introduction – half of the book – will be ignored, or, at best, touched upon at the end. Aside from comments on the Manifesto itself, however, notes will be made on where modern world differs from that which Marx had described. As a result, this commentary will be less of a direct commentary and more of a manifesto itself.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Some comments:

This is the view of modern Left: enemy is always the capitalist, and “workers of all lands” have to unite to overthrow the capitalist. But this view actually serves the capitalists: capital means power, and power today is primarily international. It is international capital that is dangerous to workers’ rights, not small and medium, national businessmen. But this stance of Manifesto, that history is based on class struggle, is obvious in today’s progressivism: ethnicity and race do not exist; entire humanity is human race; culture is irrelevant; immigration is good; immigrants, blacks etc. are being exploited by big bad capitalists. The classist and international nature of Marxism have left the Left wide open to exploitation by the very capitalists they profess to oppose.

I don't think this is true, there are plenty of people and groups on the left that are very focused on ethnicity, race, the importance of culture, etc. There's something of a marxist influence on that focus in that they have a habit of framing everything in terms of oppression by external parties and hating traitors to the ethnical/racial/etc cause, but the view of the left diverges considerably from marxism itself.

Unlike what Marx states, the relationship between the colonization and the markets was a reinforcing loop: hunger for markets was caused by the development of manufacture and industry, but once colonization began it fed said development. Burgoeise did tear apart natural ties which formed feudal, patriarchal, idylic relations of old: only money remained, as a replacement for family and honour. Instead of God, culture and tradition, there are new gods – money and free trade, instead of culture there is hedonism, and instead of tradition there is emptiness to be “filled” by PR experts, by logos and by illogical wants. Occupation has become a mere job, something to be done with no honour and no enjoyment, merely to satisfy basic animalistic needs of the body.

I'm not sure how you're getting "unlike what Marx states" at several points here, such as the bolded line, because that's exactly in line with what Marx has said: "The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.......Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him."


Cosmopolitan character of consumption and production in every country has also robbed it of soul, of humanity. Industries no longer utilize not just indigenous raw material, but also indigenous workforce neither. Materials and workers are both imported from abroad, and this globalist exploitation is given a veil of legitimacy by covering it in terms such as “humanitarian”, “refugees”, “aid” and so on. New wants – which are nothing new today, being a product of 19th century colonialism – indeed require for their satisfaction the products of new lands and climes. Nations are no longer self-sufficient, but are universally interdependent. This interdependence is presented as a good thing, as something that will help prevent future wars – but it was just as strong in 1848. when Europe bled due to revolutions, and in early 1900s when The Great War – later renamed World War I – had started. So neither free trade nor open borders can be thought of as a guarantee of peace. In fact, they are dangerous to peace because they promote contact, and contact means conflict. At the same time, reduction in “national one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness”, as Marx had put it, leads to loss of intellectual diversity alongside the cultural and biological diversity.

The traditional defense/justification for globalism is not "it's humanitarian aid", it's that global trade is a net benefit to everyone in the long run by leverage comparative advantage on an international scale (with the traditional criticism being that everyone generally better off doesn't address the issue of the few people that are specifically worse off). The underlined bit is confusing, it's an accepted and well documented fact in economics that human wants are unlimited because that's simply the nature of man, not because of some side effect of colonialism.

The bolded bit, however, I find truly objectionable. Very few states are self sufficient, and those are have only emerged in the modern era, when technology and widespread education allowed truly massive nation states to form and be effectively controlled and administered. Before that point (and still today, just to a moderately lesser degree) international trade for resources lacking in one area was essential and has never not been the case, with some of the most well documented early international trade dating back to the bronze age. It is true that trade does not ensure peace, it merely makes war and conflict less likely. But an ideological demand that states be fully self-sufficient ensures war, as the only way to gain needed resources is to seize them from others.

The consequence of agglomeration of population was – as Marx states – political centralization, with independent but loosely connected provinces lumped together into nation-states. Means of production also developed, creating capitalism. Both urbanization and centralization led to dehumanization of the society and concentration of political power. The process however did not stop at nation-states or even states. It has continued throughout 19th, 20th and 21st century, with current state of massive, overarching, utterly undemocratic and inhumane supranational organizations. Instead of nation-states which provided safe havens for ethnic groups in increasingly connected world, politics are increasingly dominated by supranational and international organizations that leave both group and individual bare naked towards elements of a globalized world.

International and supranational groups have influence, but this is by no means a new thing, with the most obvious example being religion. However, it bears noting that while they are more common today then ever before, that doesn't translate to them being more powerful than before, what little authority they possess is useless once states decide they want to do something else. The most recent example (aside of course from the perpetually toothless and useless UN) of this being the NGO "search and rescue" groups that were in reality little more than a globalist immigration scheme. Nation states caught onto that fact, and crushed them in short order.

Modern industry had led – for the first time in history – to an epidemic of overproduction. This then necessitated propaganda and thought control, transformation of a human being into a consumer. Individual, culture and society itself have come to service the machine of production. More than that, it has come to destroy the culture, replacing it with an artificial construct of machinery, so that products from one place can be sold all over the world. Globalist capitalist has created “equality” and other ideals of the modern Left so as to accomodate the people to him instead of accomodating himself to the people.

This is, again, straight from Marx himself: "Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells". He, and you, get it wrong. Overproduction is a strength of the capitalist system, not a flaw. Mass manufacture makes shortages less likely/impossible, drives prices down via economies of scale (most firms will actually produce more than then can sell, as a result of targetting production numbers based on manufacturing efficiency and not sales), and allows greater choice by customers as they can pick between not just different, competing products and pick the one that suits them best, but pick the best item amoung it's type (this is particularly important with food. Overproduction means consumers have access to the best fresh food, rather than "well, we have enough apples for everyone, but someone's get stuck with the bag full of bruised ones).

As for the notion that capitalists have sought to mind control people into becoming mindless consumers for their own nefarious purposes....um, no? if that was true, they would not overproduce to the point they can not only have unsold inventory, but that they expect to do so and have to spend yet more money to manage the excess. Futhermore, you would expect that prior to the era when this became possible and the mind control was not needed because production was limited, advertising would be different because the customers would have a differant mindset that needed to be appealed to....but this doesn't seem to be the case, we have examples of advertising from ancient rome that are still recognizable and oddly similar to contemporary adds.

The divorce of the capital from the land has led to modern slavery in sweatshops of China and Indonesia, where workers are – more than ever before – appendages of the machine. This situation is nothing new, Marx himself has already noted it. What is new is the transnational nature of capital, which is able to run away whenever presented with demands. As a consequence, improvement in conditions of workers is nearly impossible. Large corporations are also capable of destroying, squeezing out most of small local competition, thus destroying the last vestiges of humanity in the economy. And new developments threaten the existence of humans at all. If artificial intelligence ever achieves human intellect, human workforce will become superfluous and may well be exterminated.

This isn't true, at all. Yes, capital is more mobile than land, but that's going from "immobile" to "mobile at considerable cost". You can't just pick up and move an entire factory or the like every time the locals get uppity, factories are expensive investments that you can't just write off, nor are they easily sold at anything approaching what they actually cost. This is backed up by what happens in actual international trade, where demands by local nation states that international companies take certain actions to improve work conditions result in the companies improving working conditions. Granted, they do it on the cheap and as little as they can get away with, but they still do it rather than run. Nor are their operations a net downside to the local workers, in fact it's the opposite....which only makes sense. If the international factory was worse than local competition, no one would work there, and if the international firm tried getting clever by being better at first and then exploiting people once the local competition was gone, then they're screwed in the long run. Once you get a reputation for doing that, no one else will let you build a factory in thier country.

Also, the 1% will just murder us all and replace us with machines....really?

Immigration steals strength from the people, as it destroys the common ground of origin, heritage and culture which they require to organize. Even trade unions become impossible. What is left under the spectre of “civic nationalism” are the institutions, and these are inevitably under control the capitalists. Any form of large-scale organization thus becomes impossible, and what is left is merely an individual, vulnerable, broken and alone. Marxism, with its misunderstanding of history and non-understanding of culture, had helped prepare the ground for the victory of its enemy. Even the economic crises, on which Marx had so relied, merely help the capital in concentrating wealth and power in its hands – after each new crisis, people are poorer and capitalists wealthier. Small businessmen do not have the capital to survive the crises and thus become victims of large capitalists, with the end result of constriction of competition and establishment of socialism for large corporations as they use mechanisms of democracy to subvert the state to their needs.

While I have issues with elements of modern immigration, this isn't one of them. There are plenty of countries in the world with fairly open immigration polices, strong national identities, and unions. Europe being the obvious example. You are correct in that throwing open the floodgates and letting in anyone and everyone is not a good idea because a flood of new arrivals risks eroding the host nation's norms and culture. The answer to that is slower, more controlled immigration that lets people in at a rate that ensures they assimilate into rather than replace the host culture. Not "no immigration ever".

But revolutions never created anything successful. Rather, they always destroyed the existing structures and ushered in new tyranny. And in any case, in modern society there can be no “Communist revolution”: working class is a minority, and is in any case not revolutionary in its nature. Left relies on large capitalists, uneducated university students and equally uneducated professors, and on idealists with no idea of reality. It has been wholly subverted and coopted by the international business class, to whom the only true danger is the traditional Right: not the conservative civic-nationalist center, but rather the traditionalist, ethnonationalist and religions Right.

Excuse me?
american-revolution-hero.jpg


Yes, revolutions don't always succeed, but that's not the same as "never".

As for the intenational business class and who can threaten it.....the uneducated college class that has a tagential at best relationship to reality got AOC elected. Whereas based on what you've written here, your definition of the "traditional right" sounds fairly close to what the rest of us call fascism, and the fascists are nowhere close to having power no matter what MSNPC says.

Communists are by nature internationalists. As Marx had written: “1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independent of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle for the working class against the burgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole”. They deny the value of individual self-determination, as for nations so for individuals: individual property is to be abolished: “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”. True, this is supposed to only hold true for the capital, or rather economic property as opposed to private one. But that means abolishment of the small enterpraneuer, and thus the possibility of an individual rising with his own skills. On the other hand, free trade can be and is dangerous, but not for the reasons Marx has considered it dangerous. It is dangerous because it increases the scope of the capital and its reach: divisions which will have appeared in a nation-state are, thanks to the global free trade, multiplied and increased to unimaginable levels. Unlike the capitalist free trade and Communist no trade (abolition of trade), fettered traders of the Middle Ages were productive while not being disruptive. It was only when free trade was pushed that trade became dangerous: Venetians, in their pursuit of the free trade, used Crusaders to sack Constantinople and thus opened up first Anatolia and then the Balkans to invasion by armies of Islam. This sin was not and could not be erased by Venetian participation in symbolically important but strategically meaningless Battle of Lepanto.

Pinning the sack of Constantinople just on Venice and ignoring all of the other factors that lead up to it sounds like a dangerously oversimplified narrative. Secondly, trade in the middle ages was enormously disruptive to the established order, it simply lacked the power to force the issue until the black death crippled the older order and weakened their political and military power.

Abolition of family is another notion which Marx put forward that is accepted by modern-day progressives. To Marx, family is based on capital, on private gain. He does not accept – and may not even understand – the psychological, sociological, educational and cultural value of family. In attempting to do away with family, Marx has – once again – appropriated one of the most destructive aspects of modern capitalism. He correctly saw that the industry of his age was destroying the family, but instead of defending the family, he opted to join the destruction.

I'd like to know why you believe the contemporary destruction of the family is rooted in the industrial revolution rather than sexual revolution, which is what I've seen get blamed far more often.

And as already noted, family is not the only traditional social structure which Marx wanted to abolish. He stated that “workingmen have no country”, but that is blatantly false: country, with its borders, its tariffs, its customs and its political elite positioned within the reach of the masses, is the only possible defense working class has against international capitalists and financial elites. His following statement, that “National differences and antagonisms between peoples are vanishing gradually from day to day, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.”, is nothing short of hilarious considering that it was followed – not seventy years later – by two devastating global wars, which were caused in large part precisely thanks to the freedom of commerce and the global market. Nor is antagonism between nations driven by antagonism within nations, else both empires of old and today’s Western states – all highly multicultural – would have been engaged in constant warfare. Thus, contrary to Marx’s statement, exploitation between individuals has no causal connection to exploitation between states.

As I said before, international trade will not prevent war, but your system will ensure it.

Marx’s rejection of permanent patterns of all societies is rather idiotic. Ideas which are common to all societies are common because they are required for functioning of the society. Destruction of these patterns will not – as Marx posits – be either result or the cause of the end of class antagonisms. Rather, their destruction will lead to destruction of human society itself.

Patterns like greed and unlimited desires and wants being universal across all observed cultures, perhaps?
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
I don't think this is true, there are plenty of people and groups on the left that are very focused on ethnicity, race, the importance of culture, etc. There's something of a marxist influence on that focus in that they have a habit of framing everything in terms of oppression by external parties and hating traitors to the ethnical/racial/etc cause, but the view of the left diverges considerably from marxism itself.

There are, but they always translate that into class terms ("white people oppressed Africans") and so on. You never get anything about uniqueness of culture etc. from them, everything is coached in class terms, even when they are talking about race.

I'm not sure how you're getting "unlike what Marx states" at several points here, such as the bolded line, because that's exactly in line with what Marx has said: "The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.......Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him."

That part related exclusively to the next sentence. So basically, his conclusion was not wrong, but the way he reached it was.

The traditional defense/justification for globalism is not "it's humanitarian aid", it's that global trade is a net benefit to everyone in the long run by leverage comparative advantage on an international scale (with the traditional criticism being that everyone generally better off doesn't address the issue of the few people that are specifically worse off). The underlined bit is confusing, it's an accepted and well documented fact in economics that human wants are unlimited because that's simply the nature of man, not because of some side effect of colonialism.

The bolded bit, however, I find truly objectionable. Very few states are self sufficient, and those are have only emerged in the modern era, when technology and widespread education allowed truly massive nation states to form and be effectively controlled and administered. Before that point (and still today, just to a moderately lesser degree) international trade for resources lacking in one area was essential and has never not been the case, with some of the most well documented early international trade dating back to the bronze age. It is true that trade does not ensure peace, it merely makes war and conflict less likely. But an ideological demand that states be fully self-sufficient ensures war, as the only way to gain needed resources is to seize them from others.

There is a difference between trade and globalization. Global trade always existed, but it was between the states. Globalization aims at making global trade and contact into everything there is. So I don't have a problem with trade, but rather with modern supranational institutions which promote said trade.

International and supranational groups have influence, but this is by no means a new thing, with the most obvious example being religion. However, it bears noting that while they are more common today then ever before, that doesn't translate to them being more powerful than before, what little authority they possess is useless once states decide they want to do something else. The most recent example (aside of course from the perpetually toothless and useless UN) of this being the NGO "search and rescue" groups that were in reality little more than a globalist immigration scheme. Nation states caught onto that fact, and crushed them in short order.

EU is hardly toothless, at least in relation to its own member states.

This is, again, straight from Marx himself: "Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells". He, and you, get it wrong. Overproduction is a strength of the capitalist system, not a flaw. Mass manufacture makes shortages less likely/impossible, drives prices down via economies of scale (most firms will actually produce more than then can sell, as a result of targetting production numbers based on manufacturing efficiency and not sales), and allows greater choice by customers as they can pick between not just different, competing products and pick the one that suits them best, but pick the best item amoung it's type (this is particularly important with food. Overproduction means consumers have access to the best fresh food, rather than "well, we have enough apples for everyone, but someone's get stuck with the bag full of bruised ones).

As for the notion that capitalists have sought to mind control people into becoming mindless consumers for their own nefarious purposes....um, no? if that was true, they would not overproduce to the point they can not only have unsold inventory, but that they expect to do so and have to spend yet more money to manage the excess. Futhermore, you would expect that prior to the era when this became possible and the mind control was not needed because production was limited, advertising would be different because the customers would have a differant mindset that needed to be appealed to....but this doesn't seem to be the case, we have examples of advertising from ancient rome that are still recognizable and oddly similar to contemporary adds.

And as I have pointed out, in the post itself I think, Marx is often correct in identifying issues - but then he either misunderstands their causes, or offers solutions which simply do not work.

And you are, again, misunderstanding my point. It is not that overproduction, by itself, is bad. What is bad is that overproduction has led to consumerism replacing basically the entirety of the culture and tradition with an artificial world, artificial reality, which fails to fulfill any human needs other than material ones. Progressivism is not an enemy of modern capitalism, it is capitalism's necessary product, because it fills the human need for spiritual which capitalism itself has emptied.

This also extends to the second part: capitalists themselves are not mind-controlling the people. They are not even trying to (or at least, they weren't, until the appearance of the tech companies). But nature of capitalism makes it an inevitability. It is easier to mass-produce and sell the same stuff all over the world than it is to adjust yourself to local culture. The entire world has Westernized, because it makes sales easier.

This isn't true, at all. Yes, capital is more mobile than land, but that's going from "immobile" to "mobile at considerable cost". You can't just pick up and move an entire factory or the like every time the locals get uppity, factories are expensive investments that you can't just write off, nor are they easily sold at anything approaching what they actually cost. This is backed up by what happens in actual international trade, where demands by local nation states that international companies take certain actions to improve work conditions result in the companies improving working conditions. Granted, they do it on the cheap and as little as they can get away with, but they still do it rather than run. Nor are their operations a net downside to the local workers, in fact it's the opposite....which only makes sense. If the international factory was worse than local competition, no one would work there, and if the international firm tried getting clever by being better at first and then exploiting people once the local competition was gone, then they're screwed in the long run. Once you get a reputation for doing that, no one else will let you build a factory in thier country.

Except "picking up and moving an entire factory" has been done. Repeatedly. Nike and Adidas are moving from China to Vietnam. Now that may not be a bad thing, if it helps development, but question is still open whether foreign factories truly help local development.

Also, the 1% will just murder us all and replace us with machines....really?

If they can, why wouldn't they?

While I have issues with elements of modern immigration, this isn't one of them. There are plenty of countries in the world with fairly open immigration polices, strong national identities, and unions. Europe being the obvious example. You are correct in that throwing open the floodgates and letting in anyone and everyone is not a good idea because a flood of new arrivals risks eroding the host nation's norms and culture. The answer to that is slower, more controlled immigration that lets people in at a rate that ensures they assimilate into rather than replace the host culture. Not "no immigration ever".

European strong national identities are called "riots". The only reason why it still works, to an extent, is because immigration has only lasted for a short time so far - all European countries still have solid majority of a single ethnicity. Even France:
World-Data-ethnic-composition-pie-chart-France.jpg


Once that changes, however, riots will be the least of the problems they will be encountering.

Successful integration takes centuries. Not decades, and definitely not years. Problem isn't necessarily immigration on its own, problem is that it is happening far too quickly.

Yes, revolutions don't always succeed, but that's not the same as "never".

As for the intenational business class and who can threaten it.....the uneducated college class that has a tagential at best relationship to reality got AOC elected. Whereas based on what you've written here, your definition of the "traditional right" sounds fairly close to what the rest of us call fascism, and the fascists are nowhere close to having power no matter what MSNPC says.

My "traditional right" means "monarchy + as little government as possible", which is the exact opposite of fascism. Issue is that "as little government as possible" has some rather strict prerequisites to be practical. You cannot have next-to-no government if you have ten different cultures and twenty ethnicities living within a single state, unless state itself is extremely decentralized and each ethnicity has essentially its own autonomous area (look at what happened to both Yugoslavias, as well as the entirety of Africa thanks to idiotically drawn colonial and postcolonial borders). They simply will not have common ground nor common language necessary to reach consensus, which means that government will need to manage the society, which then means large government and top-down authority - that is, tyranny.

Pinning the sack of Constantinople just on Venice and ignoring all of the other factors that lead up to it sounds like a dangerously oversimplified narrative. Secondly, trade in the middle ages was enormously disruptive to the established order, it simply lacked the power to force the issue until the black death crippled the older order and weakened their political and military power.

It is not only Venice, but Venice is what caused it. The rest were merely enablers.

I'd like to know why you believe the contemporary destruction of the family is rooted in the industrial revolution rather than sexual revolution, which is what I've seen get blamed far more often.

Sexual revolution itself is one of consequences of industrial revolution. It was industrial revolution which started the process of weakening family ties, by basically forcing the parents to work all day. It still happens today in some places, and if parents aren't lucky enough to live with their own parents, then children are left to either their own devices, or to state care. Both of which is bad.

Last thing you want to do is to give a foreign entity - either the state or the media - exclusive power over raising your own children.

As I said before, international trade will not prevent war, but your system will ensure it.

War is not the worst that can happen. And I never was against international trade. But international trade =/= destruction of national sovereignity.

Patterns like greed and unlimited desires and wants being universal across all observed cultures, perhaps?

Greed is the basis of modern society. If not for greed and desires, we would still be in caves. But they cannot be allowed to have exclusive rights to human soul, hence why tradition and traditional culture are absolutely necessary.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
There are, but they always translate that into class terms ("white people oppressed Africans") and so on. You never get anything about uniqueness of culture etc. from them, everything is coached in class terms, even when they are talking about race.

The classism in that example there is only implicit, and other examples of that same framing are explicitly not about class. Something like White Fragility is very clearly written for the average white middle class liberal, and it labels them as racist along with the elite. Let alone the openly hostile atitude the left can take toward poor and uneducated whites, which doesn't align with marxist thought.

There is a difference between trade and globalization. Global trade always existed, but it was between the states. Globalization aims at making global trade and contact into everything there is. So I don't have a problem with trade, but rather with modern supranational institutions which promote said trade.

Private parties have always engaged in trade, sometimes under state authority and sometimes explicitly as a private individual. It's just done on a wider scale

EU is hardly toothless, at least in relation to its own member states.

Yes it is. The EU has no police (at least, no police with any real power), no army, no means to actually enforce it's directives against a member state that decides to resist.

And you are, again, misunderstanding my point. It is not that overproduction, by itself, is bad. What is bad is that overproduction has led to consumerism replacing basically the entirety of the culture and tradition with an artificial world, artificial reality, which fails to fulfill any human needs other than material ones. Progressivism is not an enemy of modern capitalism, it is capitalism's necessary product, because it fills the human need for spiritual which capitalism itself has emptied.

This also extends to the second part: capitalists themselves are not mind-controlling the people. They are not even trying to (or at least, they weren't, until the appearance of the tech companies). But nature of capitalism makes it an inevitability. It is easier to mass-produce and sell the same stuff all over the world than it is to adjust yourself to local culture. The entire world has Westernized, because it makes sales easier.

Ok, so why are intact advertisements from before the era of overproduction (hundreds or thousands of years before) functionally the same as those we have today, if overproduction resulted in a fundamental shift in the relationship between buyers and sellers? You say progressivism is trying to fill a spiritual gap, but religious groups have existed in capitalist societies since before we had a word for capitalism, why not just keep doing that?

As for firms not adapting themselves to the local market.....no? I have a business degree, including international marketing courses, and the need to adapt to local markets was stressed repeatedly. Is the internal marketing community intentionally sabotaging itself by filling it's training material with lies?

Except "picking up and moving an entire factory" has been done. Repeatedly. Nike and Adidas are moving from China to Vietnam. Now that may not be a bad thing, if it helps development, but question is still open whether foreign factories truly help local development.

I didn't say that factories can never be moved, I said there are costs to it and that firms cannot move them around for trivial reasons.

Successful integration takes centuries. Not decades, and definitely not years. Problem isn't necessarily immigration on its own, problem is that it is happening far too quickly.

Centuries? That's absurd.

My "traditional right" means "monarchy + as little government as possible", which is the exact opposite of fascism. Issue is that "as little government as possible" has some rather strict prerequisites to be practical. You cannot have next-to-no government if you have ten different cultures and twenty ethnicities living within a single state, unless state itself is extremely decentralized and each ethnicity has essentially its own autonomous area (look at what happened to both Yugoslavias, as well as the entirety of Africa thanks to idiotically drawn colonial and postcolonial borders). They simply will not have common ground nor common language necessary to reach consensus, which means that government will need to manage the society, which then means large government and top-down authority - that is, tyranny.

"The state should ideally be composed of a single people competing with other states for resources with no organizations or power above and outside the state, under the control of a single leader that embodies the state" is literally fascism.

Sexual revolution itself is one of consequences of industrial revolution. It was industrial revolution which started the process of weakening family ties, by basically forcing the parents to work all day. It still happens today in some places, and if parents aren't lucky enough to live with their own parents, then children are left to either their own devices, or to state care. Both of which is bad.

Last thing you want to do is to give a foreign entity - either the state or the media - exclusive power over raising your own children.

The industrial revolution did the exact opposite of what you claim, up that point it was expected that everyone would work, the idea of the man working and the women staying at home not working and taking care of the children originated in the industrial revolution.

War is not the worst that can happen. And I never was against international trade. But international trade =/= destruction of national sovereignity.

If war isn't the worst thing, it's pretty close to the list, and "well, it could be worse" is not a good reason to support a system that encourages war. Also, globalization has not damaged national sovereignty, as demonstrated by, funnily enough, war. The traditional final response to an outside entity's demands is the old retort if "You and what army?" (Louis XIV famously had a slightly classier sounding version of that cast into the barrels of his cannons). It's notable that in modern disputes, nation states remain the only power able to answer that challenge, and retain ultimate authority over how they conduct their affairs.

Greed is the basis of modern society. If not for greed and desires, we would still be in caves. But they cannot be allowed to have exclusive rights to human soul, hence why tradition and traditional culture are absolutely necessary.

The only difference between modern and traditional societies is that we have the technology to make more stuff, traditional cultures are just as greedy as we are. We know this because when given the choice, people from traditional cultures not exposed to anything from modern society other than it's consumer goods, will desire those goods just as much as we do.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Private parties have always engaged in trade, sometimes under state authority and sometimes explicitly as a private individual. It's just done on a wider scale

And again, I do not have problems with private trade. I have problems with free trade being forced onto countries which do not want it / cannot be competitive in it.

Ok, so why are intact advertisements from before the era of overproduction (hundreds or thousands of years before) functionally the same as those we have today, if overproduction resulted in a fundamental shift in the relationship between buyers and sellers? You say progressivism is trying to fill a spiritual gap, but religious groups have existed in capitalist societies since before we had a word for capitalism, why not just keep doing that?

As for firms not adapting themselves to the local market.....no? I have a business degree, including international marketing courses, and the need to adapt to local markets was stressed repeatedly. Is the internal marketing community intentionally sabotaging itself by filling it's training material with lies?

Overproduction didn't change economic relationship between buyer and seller so much as social and cultural relationships. This is what I'm talking about:
5811696b39f00a3fb3bf3651e626fb2d.jpg


Food is the same, clothes are the same, work conditions are similar...

I didn't say that factories can never be moved, I said there are costs to it and that firms cannot move them around for trivial reasons.

Except they are. And for firms, "oh, shit, standards of living are increasing here" is hardly a trivial reason.

Centuries? That's absurd.

Serbs have not integrated into Croatia in a meaningful sense despite having lived here since 16th century and under Croatian authority since 17th century. As a result, they have basically served as a fifth column for anyone who wanted to keep Croatia under control, be it Austria-Hungary, both Yugoslavias, or Slobodan Milošević.

So yes, centuries.

"The state should ideally be composed of a single people competing with other states for resources with no organizations or power above and outside the state, under the control of a single leader that embodies the state" is literally fascism.

And when exactly have I advocated that? The only part I have advocated is the bolded part, because multiculturalism doesn't work, and supranational institutions are by definition unaccountable and unresponsive to local requirements. Rest of it you just made up. And even "power above the state" is not a hard rule, as long as a) said power can also be held accountable and b) it does not interfere in internal workings of the state.

Less power the state has, the better, but that doesn't mean replacing the state with something worse.

The industrial revolution did the exact opposite of what you claim, up that point it was expected that everyone would work, the idea of the man working and the women staying at home not working and taking care of the children originated in the industrial revolution.

On farms, everyone worked, yes. But everyone worked together, and they had time for social activities.

If war isn't the worst thing, it's pretty close to the list, and "well, it could be worse" is not a good reason to support a system that encourages war. Also, globalization has not damaged national sovereignty, as demonstrated by, funnily enough, war. The traditional final response to an outside entity's demands is the old retort if "You and what army?" (Louis XIV famously had a slightly classier sounding version of that cast into the barrels of his cannons). It's notable that in modern disputes, nation states remain the only power able to answer that challenge, and retain ultimate authority over how they conduct their affairs.

Worst thing is unaccountable, unopposable government, no matter its form. Supranational institutions are not (yet) unopposable, but they very definitely are unaccountable.

The only difference between modern and traditional societies is that we have the technology to make more stuff, traditional cultures are just as greedy as we are. We know this because when given the choice, people from traditional cultures not exposed to anything from modern society other than it's consumer goods, will desire those goods just as much as we do.

And I said that - humans were always greedy. Which is why something emotionally intense is required to counterbalance that - be it nationalism, religion, or both.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
And again, I do not have problems with private trade. I have problems with free trade being forced onto countries which do not want it / cannot be competitive in it.

Free trade is what allows nations that otherwise would have no viable means to interact with the international market to do so in a competitive manner, that's the entire point behind comparative advantage. As for being forced into it.....no, I don't think that's the case? No one has the power to compel nations to engage with the international market if they don't want to.

Overproduction didn't change economic relationship between buyer and seller so much as social and cultural relationships. This is what I'm talking about:
5811696b39f00a3fb3bf3651e626fb2d.jpg
5811696b39f00a3fb3bf3651e626fb2d.jpg


Food is the same, clothes are the same, work conditions are similar...

That's actually not the case, firms like MacDonald's do adapt themselves to different markets (for example, Indian MacDonald's have no beef on the menu). The operation of the chain is very similar, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a downside or flaw, any business above a certain size will standardize for the sake of efficiency, even it's only a national rather than international firm.

Except they are. And for firms, "oh, shit, standards of living are increasing here" is hardly a trivial reason.

That's not what your article said, what it said was that chinese factories had upgraded and improved themselves over the years, and are switching over to producing more complicated, expensive shoes, so firms where moving elsewhere to produce the cheaper ones. You're also misunderstanding the nature of the move here, Nike isn't dismantling it's factory and moving elsewhere, it's changing suppliers to buy it's shoes from another factory, the people at the old one still work thier, making other, different shoes, because Nike didn't own that factory nor does it own the new one.

Serbs have not integrated into Croatia in a meaningful sense despite having lived here since 16th century and under Croatian authority since 17th century. As a result, they have basically served as a fifth column for anyone who wanted to keep Croatia under control, be it Austria-Hungary, both Yugoslavias, or Slobodan Milošević.

So yes, centuries.

I think you need more than one example from one part of the world to prove that relatively swift assimilation and integration is always impossible.

And when exactly have I advocated that? The only part I have advocated is the bolded part, because multiculturalism doesn't work, and supranational institutions are by definition unaccountable and unresponsive to local requirements. Rest of it you just made up. And even "power above the state" is not a hard rule, as long as a) said power can also be held accountable and b) it does not interfere in internal workings of the state.

Less power the state has, the better, but that doesn't mean replacing the state with something worse.

Competing with other states for resources: You said that states should seek to be self sufficient rather than depending on trade, and when I pointed out that would mean wars over those resources would become more common, your response was "could be worse" not "no, it wouldn't", implicitly accepting my counterpoint.

Powers above and outside the state: An entity that is accountable to the state is within the state, and if it doesn't interfere with the state it's not a power at all.

Single leader that embodies the nation: That's a very common sentiment and idea regarding monarchs, one shared by both monarchs and subjects.

On farms, everyone worked, yes. But everyone worked together, and they had time for social activities.

The family lives of non farmers were not more or less stable than those of farmers, according to what I can find, and both farming and non farming families had leisure time, as did families during and after the industrial revolution.

Worst thing is unaccountable, unopposable government, no matter its form. Supranational institutions are not (yet) unopposable, but they very definitely are unaccountable.

You're advocating for monarchy, a system that is infamous for poor accountability and opposition. Supranational organizations are not unaccountable, they are still subject to the laws of the nation they operate within, or to another organization that states control.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Free trade is what allows nations that otherwise would have no viable means to interact with the international market to do so in a competitive manner, that's the entire point behind comparative advantage. As for being forced into it.....no, I don't think that's the case? No one has the power to compel nations to engage with the international market if they don't want to.

This is what I'm talking about:

That's actually not the case, firms like MacDonald's do adapt themselves to different markets (for example, Indian MacDonald's have no beef on the menu). The operation of the chain is very similar, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a downside or flaw, any business above a certain size will standardize for the sake of efficiency, even it's only a national rather than international firm.

All I know is that I haven't seen any McDonalds anywhere offer any traditional food. Same menu in the US as in Croatia as in Germany.

That's not what your article said, what it said was that chinese factories had upgraded and improved themselves over the years, and are switching over to producing more complicated, expensive shoes, so firms where moving elsewhere to produce the cheaper ones. You're also misunderstanding the nature of the move here, Nike isn't dismantling it's factory and moving elsewhere, it's changing suppliers to buy it's shoes from another factory, the people at the old one still work thier, making other, different shoes, because Nike didn't own that factory nor does it own the new one.

OK.

I think you need more than one example from one part of the world to prove that relatively swift assimilation and integration is always impossible.

That was the least "flammable" example I could find. You also have Basques and Catalans in Spain, entirety of Africa, most of Middle East (basically anywhere where you have ruler-straight postcolonial borders that were drawn regardless of ethnic composition of the area), southern United States (one criminal dead and half the US in flames, just because of the colour of his skin) and so on.

Competing with other states for resources: You said that states should seek to be self sufficient rather than depending on trade, and when I pointed out that would mean wars over those resources would become more common, your response was "could be worse" not "no, it wouldn't", implicitly accepting my counterpoint.

Powers above and outside the state: An entity that is accountable to the state is within the state, and if it doesn't interfere with the state it's not a power at all.

Single leader that embodies the nation: That's a very common sentiment and idea regarding monarchs, one shared by both monarchs and subjects.

Link to the post itself next time, because I have not found it. What I did find is this:
There is a difference between trade and globalization. Global trade always existed, but it was between the states. Globalization aims at making global trade and contact into everything there is. So I don't have a problem with trade, but rather with modern supranational institutions which promote said trade.

And yes, there are worse things than wars, but when I said that I wasn't referring to trade.

State needs to be accountable to the people, not to the supranational institutions. If a country cannot be accountable, then just subdivide it until each subdivision can be held accountable to the people, and each next level to those levels immediately below it.

Monarch is a necessity because a state with minimal government needs a symbol to help unify it.

The family lives of non farmers were not more or less stable than those of farmers, according to what I can find, and both farming and non farming families had leisure time, as did families during and after the industrial revolution.

From what I have found, in the 1800s, many Europeans and Americans worked seventy hours or more per week. And children often worked as well. Between this and squalor of the cities, latter never managed to sustain themselves: they were demographic traps which only survived thanks to mass immigration from countryside.

I would say that extremely long work week in highly difficult and often physically dangerous conditions and environment which made maintenance of population impossible is rather far from "family lives of non farmers were not more or less stable than those of farmers".

You're advocating for monarchy, a system that is infamous for poor accountability and opposition. Supranational organizations are not unaccountable, they are still subject to the laws of the nation they operate within, or to another organization that states control.

You are confusing various forms of medieval monarchy with early- to mid- -modern absolute monarchy. Medieval, and even modern non-absolute monarchy, was pretty much the opposite of "poor accountability and opposition". Reason why monarchy is "infamous for poor accountability and opposition" is because absolute monarchy is typically seen as the typical form of monarchy, combined with the fact that modern people are uninformed and brainwashed with "demokrazy is da best sistam evah". Yes, democracy has its advantages, but that doesn't mean every other system is automatically bad. And many monarchical systems had rather strict accountability applied to the monarch - and that was a consequence of a balance of power within the system itself. Meanwhile, accountability in democracy relies on the hope that media aren't lying and that masses are capable of rational judgement... neither of which can be relied on, from what I have seen.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
This is what I'm talking about:

The companies that created banana republics did so with the cooperation and military's force of the United States Government, which in turn supported the companies because their continued profitability and growth served the interest of the state. Larger, more powerful states exploiting weaker ones is not a new development, it's how things have always worked in history.

All I know is that I haven't seen any McDonalds anywhere offer any traditional food. Same menu in the US as in Croatia as in Germany.

Well, duh. McDonalds doesn't sell traditional food, just like traditional and local chains don't sell mcnuggets.

That was the least "flammable" example I could find. You also have Basques and Catalans in Spain, entirety of Africa, most of Middle East (basically anywhere where you have ruler-straight postcolonial borders that were drawn regardless of ethnic composition of the area), southern United States (one criminal dead and half the US in flames, just because of the colour of his skin) and so on.

Several of those examples don't quite fit your claim. Post colonial borders aren't a problem of immigrants refusing to integrate, they're a problem of a third power attempting to force two different cultures together arbitrarily, which is an entirely different matter. The US's racial issues are not an issue of integration either, for all their other faults both sides do see themselves and the other as Americans.

And yes, there are worse things than wars, but when I said that I wasn't referring to trade.

State needs to be accountable to the people, not to the supranational institutions. If a country cannot be accountable, then just subdivide it until each subdivision can be held accountable to the people, and each next level to those levels immediately below it.

Monarch is a necessity because a state with minimal government needs a symbol to help unify it.

No country on earth is accountable to supranational institutions, the closest you have is something like the UN, but everyone knows the UN is toothless unless the great powers decide to use the UN to enact their own agendas, and that when the great powers goals and the UN's goals conflict, the UN always loses.

From what I have found, in the 1800s, many Europeans and Americans worked seventy hours or more per week. And children often worked as well. Between this and squalor of the cities, latter never managed to sustain themselves: they were demographic traps which only survived thanks to mass immigration from countryside.

I would say that extremely long work week in highly difficult and often physically dangerous conditions and environment which made maintenance of population impossible is rather far from "family lives of non farmers were not more or less stable than those of farmers".

I wouldn't. You're talking about working conditions, not stability. What was the divorce rate, the rate of teenage or out of wedlock pregnancies, how many single parent households existing in one group vs the other (and that's single parent because one parent left or was never there, not because one parent got caught in a wheat thresher or something).

You are confusing various forms of medieval monarchy with early- to mid- -modern absolute monarchy. Medieval, and even modern non-absolute monarchy, was pretty much the opposite of "poor accountability and opposition". Reason why monarchy is "infamous for poor accountability and opposition" is because absolute monarchy is typically seen as the typical form of monarchy, combined with the fact that modern people are uninformed and brainwashed with "demokrazy is da best sistam evah". Yes, democracy has its advantages, but that doesn't mean every other system is automatically bad. And many monarchical systems had rather strict accountability applied to the monarch - and that was a consequence of a balance of power within the system itself. Meanwhile, accountability in democracy relies on the hope that media aren't lying and that masses are capable of rational judgement... neither of which can be relied on, from what I have seen.

Monarchs in the period you're describing were accountable to lesser nobles, the church, etc, but that was because the necessary bureaucratic infrastructure to administer their territory themselves didn't exist and they needed to work with those people in order to run the state. As soon as that bureaucratic infrastructure developed, power began to centralize under the monarch, which is what would happen today.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
The companies that created banana republics did so with the cooperation and military's force of the United States Government, which in turn supported the companies because their continued profitability and growth served the interest of the state. Larger, more powerful states exploiting weaker ones is not a new development, it's how things have always worked in history.

Banana republic is a state which relies on a single export. That can happen easily without military involvement.

Well, duh. McDonalds doesn't sell traditional food, just like traditional and local chains don't sell mcnuggets.

Which is why its popularity is a problem.

Several of those examples don't quite fit your claim. Post colonial borders aren't a problem of immigrants refusing to integrate, they're a problem of a third power attempting to force two different cultures together arbitrarily, which is an entirely different matter. The US's racial issues are not an issue of integration either, for all their other faults both sides do see themselves and the other as Americans.

And how mass immigration is not a case of "forcing two different cultures together arbitrarily"?

US racial issues very much show that integration doesn't work.

No country on earth is accountable to supranational institutions, the closest you have is something like the UN, but everyone knows the UN is toothless unless the great powers decide to use the UN to enact their own agendas, and that when the great powers goals and the UN's goals conflict, the UN always loses.

Not UN specifically. Mandatory "solidarity" mechanism. Brussel's right to force member states to take in refugees.

Immigration impacts internal makeup of the state (and can lead to state fracturing, in extreme examples - Roman Empire was not conquered militarily). Thus it should be under authority of national government, no matter what. Yet EU is trying to legally force immigration quotas, and those who do not accept face sanctions.

I wouldn't. You're talking about working conditions, not stability. What was the divorce rate, the rate of teenage or out of wedlock pregnancies, how many single parent households existing in one group vs the other (and that's single parent because one parent left or was never there, not because one parent got caught in a wheat thresher or something).

How can you have functional family if all members of family work all day? In such conditions, family can easily be physically together yet not function as one.

Monarchs in the period you're describing were accountable to lesser nobles, the church, etc, but that was because the necessary bureaucratic infrastructure to administer their territory themselves didn't exist and they needed to work with those people in order to run the state. As soon as that bureaucratic infrastructure developed, power began to centralize under the monarch, which is what would happen today.

They were also accountable to cities. And it was not just bureocratic infrastructure that ended it, but also development of cannon.

But if infrastructure was all that was important, we would today be living in a global absolute dictatorship (though we may be heading that way - COVID itself may not be artificial, but political elites are milking it for all it is worth so as to remove limitations on their power).
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Banana republic is a state which relies on a single export. That can happen easily without military involvement.

That's not quite the correct definition, as the page you cite says. And while there are countries that are dependent on a single or small number of exports, to my knowledge they are exclusively poor countries that went from having next to no trade, to trading one thing.

Which is why its popularity is a problem.

It's a problem because? Last I checked, MacDonald's hasn't been going around, wiping out the traditional cuisine of every country it operates in.

And how mass immigration is not a case of "forcing two different cultures together arbitrarily"?

US racial issues very much show that integration doesn't work.

Immigrants are people that leave their country to join another one, rather than being their own culture that another culture attempts to forcibly assimilate.

Cite a single source saying most black people don't consider themselves americans.

Not UN specifically. Mandatory "solidarity" mechanism. Brussel's right to force member states to take in refugees.

Immigration impacts internal makeup of the state (and can lead to state fracturing, in extreme examples - Roman Empire was not conquered militarily). Thus it should be under authority of national government, no matter what. Yet EU is trying to legally force immigration quotas, and those who do not accept face sanctions.

You should have done more research. Brussel's asserted it's "right" to "force" members to take in refugees, winning a court case on the matter. After losing the case, Hungary proceeded to do whatever it wanted anyway, because as it turns out the EU cannot force Hungary to do anything that it doesn't want to do, because they have no capacity to actually compel Hungary to act. Your first article hits the same notes. Brussel's can screech all it wants about it's dictates being mandatory and required and so on, but calling something doesn't make it so, the EU cannot actually compel it's member states to follow those demands.

How can you have functional family if all members of family work all day? In such conditions, family can easily be physically together yet not function as one.

And the evidence proving that is....where, exactly? I asked you for evidence, not more unproven claims.

They were also accountable to cities. And it was not just bureocratic infrastructure that ended it, but also development of cannon.

They were "accountable" to cities in the sense that they had to keep their center of government from revolting against them, but that doesn't translate into the people of that city holding the government accountable, they could at best prevent it from taking certain actions. And yes, cannons helped end the feudal system, by giving states an effective monopoly on force. A monopoly that central government have not lost.

But if infrastructure was all that was important, we would today be living in a global absolute dictatorship (though we may be heading that way - COVID itself may not be artificial, but political elites are milking it for all it is worth so as to remove limitations on their power).

Limited bureaucratic infrastructure prevented the limited rulers you idealize from becoming absolute ones, but once it was built up they used that infrastructure to take as much power as they could hold, with the only limit being other states that had done the same. They didn't conquer the globe because other powers stopped them, but they took as much control as they possibly could. The British Empire covered a quarter of the globe, do you think they stopped there because they decided it was a nice number, or because they lacked the means to seize the rest?
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
That's not quite the correct definition, as the page you cite says. And while there are countries that are dependent on a single or small number of exports, to my knowledge they are exclusively poor countries that went from having next to no trade, to trading one thing.

Having next to no trade may be better in some cases, provided country has the potential to develop enough to start trading in multiple areas.

It's a problem because? Last I checked, MacDonald's hasn't been going around, wiping out the traditional cuisine of every country it operates in.

It may not be intentionally doing it, but it has been the effect. And it is not just McDonalds itself - McDonadlization has affected every portion of society, leading to systematization, impersonalization and bureocratization of the society as such. We have become a mentally and socially sick society.

Immigrants are people that leave their country to join another one, rather than being their own culture that another culture attempts to forcibly assimilate.

Cite a single source saying most black people don't consider themselves americans.

Doesn't matter whether they consider themselves americans when they are a) still distinct and b) aware of that. Fact is that people in general can only properly function with like people. FFS, children will beat up each other over what shoes they wear. What do you think will result from racial/ethnic/religious etc. differences?

iu


New Hampshire is the safest state, and what do you know?

Of course, you don't need racial divisions to create a hellhole. Cultural divisions are more than enough:
muslim%2Bas.png

iu


You should have done more research. Brussel's asserted it's "right" to "force" members to take in refugees, winning a court case on the matter. After losing the case, Hungary proceeded to do whatever it wanted anyway, because as it turns out the EU cannot force Hungary to do anything that it doesn't want to do, because they have no capacity to actually compel Hungary to act. Your first article hits the same notes. Brussel's can screech all it wants about it's dictates being mandatory and required and so on, but calling something doesn't make it so, the EU cannot actually compel it's member states to follow those demands.

And that is how it should stay. Question is whether it will stay that way. If you look at history of EU from beginning until now, it has been progressively centralizing.

And the evidence proving that is....where, exactly? I asked you for evidence, not more unproven claims.

Personal experience. My own, and few other people I have talked to.

They were "accountable" to cities in the sense that they had to keep their center of government from revolting against them, but that doesn't translate into the people of that city holding the government accountable, they could at best prevent it from taking certain actions. And yes, cannons helped end the feudal system, by giving states an effective monopoly on force. A monopoly that central government have not lost.

"Preventing government from taking certain actions" is literally the basis of accountability.

Limited bureaucratic infrastructure prevented the limited rulers you idealize from becoming absolute ones, but once it was built up they used that infrastructure to take as much power as they could hold, with the only limit being other states that had done the same. They didn't conquer the globe because other powers stopped them, but they took as much control as they possibly could. The British Empire covered a quarter of the globe, do you think they stopped there because they decided it was a nice number, or because they lacked the means to seize the rest?

Which means that democracy is going to die (it mostly has, already), and it is no use pretending otherwise.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Having next to no trade may be better in some cases, provided country has the potential to develop enough to start trading in multiple areas.

Developing and expanding industries generally requires money, and lots of it, which is often best (or only) able to be aquired via international trade.

It may not be intentionally doing it, but it has been the effect. And it is not just McDonalds itself - McDonadlization has affected every portion of society, leading to systematization, impersonalization and bureocratization of the society as such. We have become a mentally and socially sick society.

When I said "McDonald's hasn't been running around, wiping out traditional food", what I meant was "I checked for sources to back up your claim, and didn't find any".

As for your cited article, find something better than a two page essay written by some rando, that claims McDonalds has altered our very perception of eating.

Doesn't matter whether they consider themselves americans when they are a) still distinct and b) aware of that. Fact is that people in general can only properly function with like people. FFS, children will beat up each other over what shoes they wear. What do you think will result from racial/ethnic/religious etc. differences?

Statistically speaking, very little. Most of the violence and murder in the US is due to drugs and drug related gang violence, the overwhelming majority of which is intraracial.

Of course, you don't need racial divisions to create a hellhole. Cultural divisions are more than enough:

Your second image there says one of the most sexual harrassment prone nations in the EU is Sweden, a country that could be politely described as a monocultural ethnostate.

And that is how it should stay. Question is whether it will stay that way. If you look at history of EU from beginning until now, it has been progressively centralizing.

At the rate they're going, the EU will become a centralized federal state sometime between "when the sun explodes" and "never".

Personal experience. My own, and few other people I have talked to.

I don't want anecdotes, I want data.

"Preventing government from taking certain actions" is literally the basis of accountability.

No, accountability is about being answerable for all of your actions and being expected to justity all of them, not just being limited in some capacity.

Which means that democracy is going to die (it mostly has, already), and it is no use pretending otherwise.

.....No, that's not what it means at all.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Developing and expanding industries generally requires money, and lots of it, which is often best (or only) able to be aquired via international trade.

But that trade has to be regulated at least to an extent, else money will simply flow out of the country.

When I said "McDonald's hasn't been running around, wiping out traditional food", what I meant was "I checked for sources to back up your claim, and didn't find any".

McDonalds is a fast food chain. What about fast food is traditional, exactly? If I make a claim that we breathe air and not gasoline, do I really need to provide sources? Food isn't just about what you eat but also how you eat it. Fast food is fast food, if it were a proper meal it wouldn't be fast, no matter what it contained.

And you obviously didn't check sources, considering two-minute Google search turned out this:

Statistically speaking, very little. Most of the violence and murder in the US is due to drugs and drug related gang violence, the overwhelming majority of which is intraracial.

I am aware. I am also aware that gang membership is mostly Hispanic and Black, despite those two groups being net receivers of social aid.

Intraracial and intraethnic violence may be the most obvious way in which diversity damages society, but it is far from the only one. It weakens social cohesion, which means increased violence in general. And that is the main problem.

Your second image there says one of the most sexual harrassment prone nations in the EU is Sweden, a country that could be politely described as a monocultural ethnostate.

Look, if we are going to have any discussion, try and not make up claims out of thin air. Especially when they are so easily disproven. 20% of Swedish population are foreign-born, and a total of 25% have a foreign background. That is not monocultural ethnostate.

At the rate they're going, the EU will become a centralized federal state sometime between "when the sun explodes" and "never".

Again, compare current EU with how EU was after it was just formed. It has centralized.

I don't want anecdotes, I want data.

In that context, data will be based on anecdotes.

No, accountability is about being answerable for all of your actions and being expected to justity all of them, not just being limited in some capacity.

I said "basis", not the "full extent". If government can do what it wants, how can you hold it accountable?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top