Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

There were no "rich investors" so I'm not clear what you're talking about.
but there's really nothing to invest in, in North America.

Slaves perhaps? Certainly only some could afford these.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

Slaves perhaps? Certainly only some could afford these.

There were some in the North, mostly doing household work. In the South you have many more; and that's a big part of the Southern economy. The Northern states mostly abolish slavery at the time of the Constitution -- 1790 or so. Some did so immediately, others like New York did so gradually-- the last slave would have been free in 1827 in New York. No new slaves could be brought into the State, and anyone born after 1799 was free . . .

So slavery grows in the South, which is the poorest part of the country, then and now, but essentially disappears in the North within a generation.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

There were some in the North, mostly doing household work. In the South you have many more; and that's a big part of the Southern economy. The Northern states mostly abolish slavery at the time of the Constitution -- 1790 or so.

But how did the first owners got money to make such purchases?

Were they Britons bringing caches of Pounds? Or professionals, as you say, who miraculously saved up money?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

But how did the first owners got money to make such purchases?

Were they Britons bringing caches of Pounds? Or professionals, as you say, who miraculously saved up money?

The early settlers were religious colonists. They had some savings, but they weren't wealthy people. Sometimes their colonies were sponsored by a wealthy Englishman-- not for profit, but for religious liberty.

Nothing "miraculous" about saving money. People do it today when they're going to buy a house. Similarly, immigrants to the US today rely on their savings. So, for example, when you read about the Central American immigrants coming to the US on the Mexican border-- they've had to save a substantial amount of money in order to do so.

So, for example, in today's newspaper:

Originally Posted by New U.S. asylum rules bring confusion, fear and few options for immigrants

Pregnant, poor and afraid, Melanie felt out of options.

Her family had been targeted by one of the gangs that ruled the streets near her home in San José Pinula, Guatemala, she said. Last year, gang members had physically attacked her and her elder son. Since then, they had continued to harass the family — as they did to everyone who wasn’t in their ranks. She was so worried about her boys — Monteroso, 15 and Christopher, 11 — that she wouldn’t let them leave the house, in fear they would come across these “bad people,” she said.

Melanie, a high school teacher, made a drastic decision. She and her boys took their family’s savings — about $10,000 — and traveled through Mexico, crossing the Rio Grande River into Texas in April with the help of a “coyote.” They arrived days before the Trump administration began its short-lived policy of separating families at the border. (Melanie’s husband stayed in Guatemala because the money didn’t cover his trip.)
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/ca...214626840.html

. . . not that different a set of motivations from 250 years ago. People work, have savings, and spend them to try to get to a better place where they think they can make a better living.

They've always done that, nothing too surprising about it.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Nothing "miraculous" about saving money. People do it today when they're going to buy a house.

You couldn't save a billion this way.

Something strange about this "original capital accumulation," even Marx struggled with this.

Look at Latin American history -- people fight to get hold of land. Pizarro, discoverer of Peru, resisted the very Spanish King. Ostensibly because they had a mentality of conquest by force and the position of supreme warlord (caudillo) meant the owner of property (perhaps owner of the whole country).

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

You couldn't save a billion this way..

They didn't start with a billion dollars, obviously. None of the early American settlers were wealthy. Wealthy people stayed back in London . . . they had estates, social lives -- why would they head off into forests?

Recall that the British had to force people to the colonies in many cases-- that's how they populate Australia, but people don't tend to know that before American independence they were sending convicts to North America . . . roughly 50,000 of them in the 18th century.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Recall that the British had to force people to the colonies in many cases--

America (and Britain) is unique in its social system.

First, it avoided "ownership by force", escaping caudillismo.
Second, it also prevented direct democracy, somehow distributing capital among people unequally since the beginning.

Britons and Americans overturned everything Plato's said about the government -- they built oligarchy which neither slips into tyranny nor fragments into democracy.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

America (and Britain) is unique in its social system.

Again, you've got a lot of things wrong here.

The American colonies have a very different social structure than the UK; we're far closer to Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Losing the aristocracy changes a lot of things . . . the US was essentially something like what the Whigs wanted for Britain, but couldn't make happen fully in their own country.

In terms of a social structure, white America very closely resembles Australia. The big differences-- the US has racial issues that are much more pronounced than in Australia, and the role of religion is also much stronger than in Oz. But in other respects-- you go to a bar in Brisbane to watch the State of Origin, or a bar in Portland to watch the Super Bowl; basically the same people eating the same things, with very similar attitudes and occupations. I think Australians are more easygoing, but there's nothing much unique about the US, even though people like to say so . . .

[judy84]

How anyone can think a policy of "redistribution of wealth" will appeal to anyone but habitual spongers is beyond me. Sure, gross inequality is an issue, but there needs to be some or why would anyone bother to strive to improve their lot?
British governments had a form of socialism in the past with highincome tax rates.
Freddie Mills was a boxer who, in 1948 refused to defend a title because it simply wasn't worth risking concussion or a fractured jaw when the taxman took almost all of what he earned. I think, when asked, after a match he eyed the reporter from the canvas when he was all bloodied and said something on the lines of 'would you do this for a tanner in the £1'

Top rate of tax, under Labour was 98%. Those who could left the country. Those who couldn't just didn't work as hard as they could have done as they didn't think it worth the trouble to earn an extra £1.00 which after tax would leave them with 2p.

Definition of a Yorkshire socialist: someone with a knife and fork looking for someone else with a steak and kidney pudding to share with them.

[scoundrel]

I am in favour of the redistribution of wealth I suppose, but not as a policy; rather as a means to an end. In a civilised world, a minimum standard of social provision for the ordinary people is very important. As well as being a basic requirement of civilisation not to let people starve, rot or freeze, it also prevents civil unrest. Marie Antoinette cut her own throat when she turned her back on the poor, even if she never did say "Let them eat cake".

Communists thrive on poverty and social injustice. A well ordered and prosperous society tends to be bourgeois and moderate in its values, averse to violence and unwilling to rise up against authority. The values of moderation and social peace also require education and a culture of mutual respect.

I have always despised the radical right wing for their selfish and morally bankrupt approach to social policy. I will say though that they are much more honest than the communists, who deprive and ill treat the people even more brutally than any Republican or Tory, yet all the while talk about the dictatorship of the proletariat.