Fascism

[bripat9643]

No, Coyote is c
No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

No, Coyote is c
No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

What is the evidence that anyone starved before federal welfare programs existed?

 

[westwall]

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I've never seen any figures on slave life expectancy vs. the life expectancy of free men. Do you have a source? I'd like to see it.

You can't deny the fact that people left the farm and flocked to work in the factories. That's because the alternative is that many of them would end up dead in short order.

All the evidence I've seen is that life expectancy increased dramatically during the industrial revolution. Prior to it, 35 was about the average life expectancy. by the end of the 19th century it was up to 55. That's an increase of 20 years in a century.

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

Very much so - this was particularly so in the 20's and 30's and allowed a farmer to farm his own land without a minimum of workers or tenants, who were driven off the land.

We are discussing the industrial revolution, not federal farm policies or depression economics.

They are inter related though. That's the point. You are myopic in that you only look at one side of the equation. Equations have MULTIPLE variables. And that is especially true when dealing with governments, and people.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not a "carpet dance." Imbeciles like call any legitimate function right wingers expect the government to do "big government" so you can claim they believe in big government. Enforcing laws against murder and theft is not "big government." Enforcing the border is not "big government." Anyone who claims they are is a douche bag spouting propaganda.

Imbeciles is an apt description of hypocrites who bitch about government regulation until they need it. It doesn't matter if it's fucking LWers who whine about cops until they need one or fucking RWers who whine about too many government regulations until it hurts them personally to not have those regulations.

The best form of society with our current level of technology is a Constitutional Federal Republic, regulated capitalism and a socialist safety net for minors, elderly and infirm. The controversy isn't as much about this type of society as it is where to draw the lines.

Controlling the border is not government regulation. It's a fundamental function of government. The so-called "safety net" is nothing more than organized plunder. That's not an essential function of government. Your opinion on what's best for of society is bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I've never seen any figures on slave life expectancy vs. the life expectancy of free men. Do you have a source? I'd like to see it.

You can't deny the fact that people left the farm and flocked to work in the factories. That's because the alternative is that many of them would end up dead in short order.

All the evidence I've seen is that life expectancy increased dramatically during the industrial revolution. Prior to it, 35 was about the average life expectancy. by the end of the 19th century it was up to 55. That's an increase of 20 years in a century.

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

Very much so - this was particularly so in the 20's and 30's and allowed a farmer to farm his own land without a minimum of workers or tenants, who were driven off the land.

We are discussing the industrial revolution, not federal farm policies or depression economics.

They are inter related though. That's the point. You are myopic in that you only look at one side of the equation. Equations have MULTIPLE variables. And that is especially true when dealing with governments, and people.

They are "inter related" only to the extent that one crime against society was used to justify another. That's how government justifies it's unlimited growth.

 

[westwall]

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

What is the evidence that anyone starved before federal welfare programs existed?

Pellagra killed 1,300 in South Carolina in 1915. This is well documented. I think 110 died of starvation in New York during the Depression IIRC.

 

[westwall]

I've never seen any figures on slave life expectancy vs. the life expectancy of free men. Do you have a source? I'd like to see it.

You can't deny the fact that people left the farm and flocked to work in the factories. That's because the alternative is that many of them would end up dead in short order.

All the evidence I've seen is that life expectancy increased dramatically during the industrial revolution. Prior to it, 35 was about the average life expectancy. by the end of the 19th century it was up to 55. That's an increase of 20 years in a century.

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

Very much so - this was particularly so in the 20's and 30's and allowed a farmer to farm his own land without a minimum of workers or tenants, who were driven off the land.

We are discussing the industrial revolution, not federal farm policies or depression economics.

They are inter related though. That's the point. You are myopic in that you only look at one side of the equation. Equations have MULTIPLE variables. And that is especially true when dealing with governments, and people.

They are "inter related" only to the extent that one crime against society was used to justify another. That's how government justifies it's unlimited growth.

Of course. That's called "human nature". Ignore it at your peril.

 

[bripat9643]

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

What is the evidence that anyone starved before federal welfare programs existed?

Pellagra killed 1,300 in South Carolina in 1915. This is well documented. I think 110 died of starvation in New York during the Depression IIRC.

Pellegra is not starvation. If you have some evidence that anyone starved to death during the depression, feel free to post it.

 

[bripat9643]

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

Very much so - this was particularly so in the 20's and 30's and allowed a farmer to farm his own land without a minimum of workers or tenants, who were driven off the land.

We are discussing the industrial revolution, not federal farm policies or depression economics.

They are inter related though. That's the point. You are myopic in that you only look at one side of the equation. Equations have MULTIPLE variables. And that is especially true when dealing with governments, and people.

They are "inter related" only to the extent that one crime against society was used to justify another. That's how government justifies it's unlimited growth.

Of course. That's called "human nature". Ignore it at your peril.

No, that's called government and it's inherent drive to perpetuate itself.

 

[westwall]

Very much so - this was particularly so in the 20's and 30's and allowed a farmer to farm his own land without a minimum of workers or tenants, who were driven off the land.

We are discussing the industrial revolution, not federal farm policies or depression economics.

They are inter related though. That's the point. You are myopic in that you only look at one side of the equation. Equations have MULTIPLE variables. And that is especially true when dealing with governments, and people.

They are "inter related" only to the extent that one crime against society was used to justify another. That's how government justifies it's unlimited growth.

Of course. That's called "human nature". Ignore it at your peril.

No, that's called government and it's inherent drive to perpetuate itself.

Government is the people involved in it. You are starting to sound like a caricature. Government is a tool. Just like a gun. It is no better or worse than the person using it.

 

[westwall]

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

What is the evidence that anyone starved before federal welfare programs existed?

Pellagra killed 1,300 in South Carolina in 1915. This is well documented. I think 110 died of starvation in New York during the Depression IIRC.

Pellegra is not starvation. If you have some evidence that anyone starved to death during the depression, feel free to post it.

Pellagra was a nutritional disease. So, while they were getting food, they weren't getting food that would feed them. Kind of like getting sawdust when you're supposed to be getting bread.

 

[bripat9643]

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

What is the evidence that anyone starved before federal welfare programs existed?

Pellagra killed 1,300 in South Carolina in 1915. This is well documented. I think 110 died of starvation in New York during the Depression IIRC.

Pellegra is not starvation. If you have some evidence that anyone starved to death during the depression, feel free to post it.

Pellagra was a nutritional disease. So, while they were getting food, they weren't getting food that would feed them. Kind of like getting sawdust when you're supposed to be getting bread.

That was due to ignorance, not because they didn't have access to sufficient food.

 

[Coyote]

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

I am not sure that was entirely free choice as much as they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Many became the share croppers and the tenant farmers who, when the farms became mechanized, were driven off and headed north to cities like Detroit or to California (the Okies). I just finished a fascinating book (A Square Meal) which discussed some of this. As share croppers/tenant farmers - they were not anymore well treated than the factory workers in the north. They depended on the farmer owner for food and sustenance in exchange for working the land in what was increasingly a monoculture such as cotton. At best they were allowed a small family garden, but not always enough daylight to tend it. The landowner's philosophy was if you keep a person hungry they'll work harder. Typical rations consisted of cornmeal, molasses, saltpork and coffee. It wasn't too different than the mining company store - everything in and out went through the landowner. When the drought hit the delta cotton area - just prior to the Depression, relief was funneled through the landowner and kept extremely minimal. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases such as pellagra and rickets were endemic. So better than the factory workers? Not really, just different.

Factories did draw people from rural areas with the promise of better wages and living conditions and in fact, it was somewhat better. The textile factories allowed poor white tenant farmers to aspire to the "middle class" and those jobs were only open to whites. Blacks filled the cleaning jobs, janitorial, and servants to the new "middle class". So those factory jobs were a step up for rural southern whites.

You are absolutely correct. Share cropping was merely another form of slavery. As is the modern welfare system.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

What is the evidence that anyone starved before federal welfare programs existed?

Pellagra killed 1,300 in South Carolina in 1915. This is well documented. I think 110 died of starvation in New York during the Depression IIRC.

Pellegra is not starvation. If you have some evidence that anyone starved to death during the depression, feel free to post it.

Pellegra can kill however, and it's caused by dietary deficiencies often related to poverty.

I'm not sure how many actually starved to death during the depression - but many were hospitalized and diagnosed with severe malnutrition. In fact, when things started ramping up to WW2, the US was seeing Germany as a global competitor and started ramping up it's own military machine and passed the selective service act. Fewer than 40% of the men qualified - the rest did not do to being underweight or suffering diseases related to malnutrition.

 

[Coyote]

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

What is the evidence that anyone starved before federal welfare programs existed?

Pellagra killed 1,300 in South Carolina in 1915. This is well documented. I think 110 died of starvation in New York during the Depression IIRC.

Pellegra is not starvation. If you have some evidence that anyone starved to death during the depression, feel free to post it.

Pellagra was a nutritional disease. So, while they were getting food, they weren't getting food that would feed them. Kind of like getting sawdust when you're supposed to be getting bread.

That was due to ignorance, not because they didn't have access to sufficient food.

No, it was due to lack of access to the sufficient food as well as the right food. Rations for poor families typically consisted of salt pork, beans, cornmeal, molasses, coffee.

 

[westwall]

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

I have mixed feelings there - partly because, before the modern welfare system, relief agencies, both private and municipal, were overworked, underfunded and could not provide the needed relief. Starvation and severe malnutrition were real. I would not call the modern welfare system slavery - that is an insult to those who suffered under slavery. The modern welfare system is malfunctioning.

What is the evidence that anyone starved before federal welfare programs existed?

Pellagra killed 1,300 in South Carolina in 1915. This is well documented. I think 110 died of starvation in New York during the Depression IIRC.

Pellegra is not starvation. If you have some evidence that anyone starved to death during the depression, feel free to post it.

Pellagra was a nutritional disease. So, while they were getting food, they weren't getting food that would feed them. Kind of like getting sawdust when you're supposed to be getting bread.

That was due to ignorance, not because they didn't have access to sufficient food.

Ignorance and the wealthy simply not caring what was happening to the lower classes.

 

[kaz]

Overlapping criteria. They all represent authoritarian/totalitarian extremes.

They are all socialist regimes. If you disagree, then the term "socialism" is absolutely meaningless. It's a unicorn that exists only in your fantasies.

You can't even define socialism correctly

Your claims essentially amount to - "because I say so" and then, when that fails, you have to resort to personal attacks.

Here's what the socialists say about their ideology:

What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.


But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.


In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.


Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

Etc.​

Of course while it sounds fine in principle, it doesn't work well in reality but that is essentially what socialism is. End of class structure, common ownership of private property and means of production.

It doesn't matter what the socialist say. I'm talking about economics. When you boil down all the socialists schemes they resolve to one thing: government control of the economy. All your blather about democracy and other socialist lies are political propaganda. What matters in economics is whether private individuals make their own decisions about what is to be produced and how it is to be produced, or whether government makes that decision.

If anything, democracy makes socialism even more impractical. They are in practice mutually exclusive. The more government controls the economy, the lesser role voters have in the process. It's virtually impossible to make decisions about how to run a factory or a productive enterprise with a majority vote. Every time it has been tried the result is absolute collapse. There's a reason all attempts at socialism have devolved into totalitarian dictatorships. That's because state control of productive enterprises requires it.

Socialism isn't just an economic system. Neither is fascism. And no - democracy and socialism is not mutually exclusive. There are socialist democracies.

If you're talking about the left/right paradigm, the economic aspects are the only thing relevant. That's what it measures, the degree of government control you endorse. The rest is political propaganda that proves nothing and never can prove anything.

And, yes, government control of the economy and democratic government are mutually exclusive. It can't work and always devolves to totalitarian dictatorship whenever it's tried.

Bu-bu-bu Obama said he cares about me. You mean he doesn't?

 

[bripat9643]

What is the evidence that anyone starved before federal welfare programs existed?

Pellagra killed 1,300 in South Carolina in 1915. This is well documented. I think 110 died of starvation in New York during the Depression IIRC.

Pellegra is not starvation. If you have some evidence that anyone starved to death during the depression, feel free to post it.

Pellagra was a nutritional disease. So, while they were getting food, they weren't getting food that would feed them. Kind of like getting sawdust when you're supposed to be getting bread.

That was due to ignorance, not because they didn't have access to sufficient food.

Ignorance and the wealthy simply not caring what was happening to the lower classes.

Why should the wealthy be required to care about the less wealthy?

 

[kaz]

Overlapping criteria. They all represent authoritarian/totalitarian extremes.

They are all socialist regimes. If you disagree, then the term "socialism" is absolutely meaningless. It's a unicorn that exists only in your fantasies.

You can't even define socialism correctly

Your claims essentially amount to - "because I say so" and then, when that fails, you have to resort to personal attacks.

Here's what the socialists say about their ideology:

What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.


But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.


In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.


Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

Etc.​

Of course while it sounds fine in principle, it doesn't work well in reality but that is essentially what socialism is. End of class structure, common ownership of private property and means of production.

It doesn't matter what the socialist say. I'm talking about economics. When you boil down all the socialists schemes they resolve to one thing: government control of the economy. All your blather about democracy and other socialist lies are political propaganda. What matters in economics is whether private individuals make their own decisions about what is to be produced and how it is to be produced, or whether government makes that decision.

If anything, democracy makes socialism even more impractical. They are in practice mutually exclusive. The more government controls the economy, the lesser role voters have in the process. It's virtually impossible to make decisions about how to run a factory or a productive enterprise with a majority vote. Every time it has been tried the result is absolute collapse. There's a reason all attempts at socialism have devolved into totalitarian dictatorships. That's because state control of productive enterprises requires it.

Socialism isn't just an economic system. Neither is fascism. And no - democracy and socialism is not mutually exclusive. There are socialist democracies.

Correct! They are socio-economic systems. European socialism is what you are talking about and while their politicians are "democratically" elected, the bureaucracy's are entrenched, and it is they who actually run the countries involved.

Yep. Having recently spent nine months working in the Netherlands, I can say you nailed it

 

[kaz]

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

Show where Hitler said he abhorred socialists, tool

You mean besides executing them?

Moving the goalposts. A true admission you lost

 

[kaz]

No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

Now you're playing word games. Both socialism and fascism have an elite political class. You're pretending the socialist elite political class doesn't exist when it clearly does

Defacto - yes, but I'm talking about just the ideology not how it ended up working with real human beings. Just like capitalism without regulation actually stifles competition and has no moral compass.

You're using "regulation" as a euphemism for government control, and that's not capitalism it's socialism. There is no need for "regulation" and it doesn't exist. Regulation is government controlling companies in advance.

What we do need are civil and criminal courts for when they do wrong. That's not what you are talking about. You're talking about controlling wages, controlling benefits, controlling healthcare, telling companies what they are allowed to do ... socialism ...

 

[kaz]

Capitalism can exist under fascism -
Which doesn't occur in fascism.

Sure capitalism can occur in fascism/socialism. However, it's not real capitalism, it's only what government decides to allow. That your mother lets you in the yard doesn't mean you were free to go in the yard at your own discression

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Something you're completely unqualified to provide as what you want in "regulation" is socialism.

What you are arguing is corporatism, which is another form of socialism. Corporations get government to control the economy in their favor. Free people cannot be held in sweatshops. You're arguing against yourself