tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post1847856740847508036..comments2024-03-13T02:17:39.644-07:00Comments on Restating the Obvious: Book Review 359: SpectacleHarry Eagarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-85975835566319599812016-03-10T07:26:32.174-08:002016-03-10T07:26:32.174-08:00“Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great...“<b>Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man</b>. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.” — Walter E. WilliamsHey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-67495264473144840952016-02-12T12:29:08.269-08:002016-02-12T12:29:08.269-08:00Take it up with history.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo" rel="nofollow">Take it up with history</a>.<br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-64422523627568556622016-02-12T11:51:53.489-08:002016-02-12T11:51:53.489-08:00You keep referring to something that didn't ex...You keep referring to something that didn't exist, the 'Belgian Congo.'<br /><br /><br /><br />Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-24365339340366360212016-02-11T23:51:02.159-08:002016-02-11T23:51:02.159-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-32501816648749859102016-02-11T22:50:44.832-08:002016-02-11T22:50:44.832-08:00Harry, that's wonderful for you, that you are ...Harry, that's wonderful for you, that you are branching your pronunciamentos out into the exciting and fun new world of making up your own definitions. (And IIRC, this is the second time you have done so; the last one was nothing like this.)<br /><br />But for the rest of us, definitions are like facts: you don't get to have your own. <br /><br />Which is why you won't provide an accepted definition, because it would become immediately apparent, perhaps even to you, about how woefully inadequate it is.<br /><br />And you don't get to reject inconvenient facts, either. The Belgian Congo was a creature of King Leopold, and would not have existed otherwise. So the concept you are really looking for is colonialism. I know that doesn't allow you to scratch your marxist itch. Sorry.<br /><br />Oh, and "Link: Adam Hochshield ..." is as worthless as your definition.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-3387714703484423092016-02-11T20:04:00.618-08:002016-02-11T20:04:00.618-08:00Link: Adam Hochshield, "King Leopold's Gh...Link: Adam Hochshield, "King Leopold's Ghost.'<br /><br />You are flailing. I defined capitalism as issuing shares in exchange for ownership. That business about kings: You added that. It is meaningless.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-32980903875221337242016-02-11T06:33:21.975-08:002016-02-11T06:33:21.975-08:00I believe any definition of capitalism that has co...<i>I believe any definition of capitalism that has complexified beyond medieval methods ... </i><br /><br />I am sure you believe that, because it is convenient for you to make stuff up.<br /><br />So, as before before, how about supplying an accepted definition of the word capitalism that not only includes shares issued by a King who is the principal shareholder, but also annexed territory as a personal colony.<br /><br />No squirrels, no supersonic goalposts, just the definition.<br /><br /><i>The international recognition, by the way, was one country (guess which) that passed a law based on bribery of a racist senator. </i><br /><br />Oh for pete's sake. Stop it with these silly guessing games and point hiding -- provide a link.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-5921051774678977292016-02-09T15:12:00.536-08:002016-02-09T15:12:00.536-08:00So, even Wiki says it wasn't part of the Belgi...So, even Wiki says it wasn't part of the Belgian state.<br /><br />I believe any definition of capitalism that has complexified beyond medieval methods will include shares issued in exchange for investment money. I don't know any definition that says kings cannot invest. Queen Juliana would be most surprised.<br /><br />The international recognition, by the way, was one country (guess which) that passed a law based on bribery of a racist senator.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15785581082018177620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-47487846314238792602016-02-09T09:47:04.252-08:002016-02-09T09:47:04.252-08:00I see you read only the first 3 words of the Wiki ...<i>I see you read only the first 3 words of the Wiki article. A littler further on, you'd have seen the words <b>'personal account'</b> and the date '1908.' </i><br /><br />So we can add reading comprehension to your list of logical and definitional problems.<br /><br />Pro-tip: in a web page, you can find the occurrences of a word or phrase by hitting ctrl-f, and then typing the search term.<br /><br />Which I did, after reading, and failing to notice the words 'personal account'.<br /><br />No wonder. Ctrl-F, [personal account] = null. (How appropriate.)<br /><br />However, the third sentence does contain the sentence <i>Their ambivalence resulted in Leopold's creating a colony on <b>his own account</b>.</i><br /><br />Which has a specific meaning you may very well try, but fail, to abuse beyond recognition. Never mind that -- your professional dedication to factual accuracy is on prominent display.<br /><br />The next sentence? <i>With support from a number of Western countries, Leopold achieved international recognition for a <b>personal colony</b>, the Congo Free State, <b>in 1885</b>. </i><br /><br />Emphasis for glaringly apparent reasons.<br /><br />As before, I'm standing by for an accepted definition of the word capitalism that not only includes shares issued by a King who is the principal share holder, but also rules a personal colony.<br /><br />When are you going to stop digging?Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-27957870758347914922016-02-09T08:20:48.435-08:002016-02-09T08:20:48.435-08:00I see you read only the first 3 words of the Wiki ...I see you read only the first 3 words of the Wiki article. A littler further on, you'd have seen the words 'personal account' and the date '1908.'<br /><br />Leopold died in 1909. Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-71450026069753906182016-02-09T06:34:04.737-08:002016-02-09T06:34:04.737-08:00First, it wasn't the Belgian Congo.
History ...<i>First, it wasn't the Belgian Congo. </i><br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo" rel="nofollow">History</a> says otherwise.<br /><br /><i>So, with that factual background, the answer is, no 'Belgian Congo' would not have existed 'without shares.' Had it been a colony, it would have had courts, public administration, an army or constabulary, perhaps a civil service etc. </i><br /><br />Here is where again you miss the point entirely, while assuming as true that for which you have no proof. The Belgian Congo could not possibly have existed as it did without colonialism in general, and King Leopold in particular. <br /><br />As I have noted above, and you haven't responded to, you do not get to have your own definition for capitalism. If you can find a commonly accepted definition that includes "personal colony", or untwist the word salad that is <i>The shares were not issued by the king but by the companies, of which he was chairman and principal shareholder</i> (Translated, the King owned the companies) and fit all that in, then by all means, do so.<br /><br />Until then, you are engaging in self-fluffery.<br /><br />(Oh, and I can't help but notice that <i>Had it been a colony, it would have had courts, public administration, an army or constabulary, perhaps a civil service etc. </i> is an excellent example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.)<br /><br />The Congo Free State, recognized as such in 1885 would not have existed without King Leopold wielding the power of government in an era of colonialism. <br /><br />Worse, your "classification" gains you nothing. It doesn't explain why British colonialism, far more commercial than Leopold's, was so relatively enlightened, the Spanish, not commercial, was more brutal, or the Soviet Union was far more brutal, for longer: how was Ukraine not a colony?<br /><br />I tried real hard to find a definition of capitalism that includes shares issued by a King who is the principal share holder.<br /><br />Couldn't manage it.<br /><br />I'm sure you can help. If not, and I'm going with not, you are heavily engaged in the intellectually vacuous exercise of thinking you are winning and argument based upon stuff you have made up.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-49266794979241468092016-02-08T08:29:07.225-08:002016-02-08T08:29:07.225-08:00First, it wasn't the Belgian Congo. It was a s...First, it wasn't the Belgian Congo. It was a set of interlocking private companies. The shares were not issued by the king but by the companies, of which he was chairman and principal shareholder. But this was his personal property, not part of the crown estate. (Just as Queen Elizabeth's riches are legally separate between her personal wealth and those held by the duchy of Lancaster.)<br /><br />Originally, there was so little 'state' there that it didn't even have a name. Congo Free State came later as a PR subterfuge.<br /><br />So, with that factual background, the answer is, no 'Belgian Congo' would not have existed 'without shares.' Had it been a colony, it would have had courts, public administration, an army or constabulary, perhaps a civil service etc.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-15814681111893425952016-02-08T02:23:49.814-08:002016-02-08T02:23:49.814-08:00Wow, it is difficult to unpack all the misapprehen...Wow, it is difficult to unpack all the misapprehensions in that sentence. First, it would have been the USSR -- not the gulags -- just as it was King Leopold, not the Belgian Congo.<br /><br />Second, as usual, you miss that what you call capitalism has nothing to do with capitalism. In capitalism, what entity issues shares? Pro-tip: it isn't the king.<br /><br />And continuing to compound your errors, you have an obsessive focus on irrelevant detail -- shares -- and utterly fail to see what really was going on: colonialism. And I doubt anyone would think "shares" as being a meaningful difference between the gulag and the Belgian Congo.<br /><br />Which, as ever, is the problem with your continual bunking of the term "capitalism". You invent a definition that doesn't even amount to a caricature, then in application prove it is meaningless, because it explains nothing.<br /><br />Would the Belgian Congo not have existed without "shares"?Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-58163621346259141312016-02-07T13:10:35.877-08:002016-02-07T13:10:35.877-08:00I'm pretty sure the gulag didn't issue sha...I'm pretty sure the gulag didn't issue shares in exchange for infusions of capital and pay dividends, so, no, not just the sameHarry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-84171719220940124232016-02-06T02:08:00.099-08:002016-02-06T02:08:00.099-08:00One more thing ...
Your schema would apply just a...One more thing ...<br /><br />Your schema would apply just as well to the Soviet Gulag. That's as sure a sign as is possible that you are completely blinkered.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-21095982317307026412016-02-05T23:09:42.783-08:002016-02-05T23:09:42.783-08:00... resources from the Congo.
... resources from the Congo.<br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-33598995963105898522016-02-05T22:43:58.315-08:002016-02-05T22:43:58.315-08:00I already have: it was a colony, a creature of go...I already have: it was a colony, a creature of government, under the control, and existing at the pleasure of the government, which awarded a monopoly to extract resources from the government.<br /><br />It was colonialism, pure and simple.<br /><br />Your insistence upon this as an example of capitalism, rather than what it was, colonialism means you have created an artificial distinction with all the rest of colonialism, instead of saying anything useful, all it does is to, in your mind anyway, advance an ideological point.<br /><br />Worse, than that, your definition is so worthless, it encompasses anything -- it isn't worth having because it does nothing useful. <br /><br />Proven by your inability to anything useful with it.<br /><br />Which is of a piece with your definition of "many Americans". It is both wrong, and useless.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-47579854078791182382016-02-05T17:40:50.012-08:002016-02-05T17:40:50.012-08:00Why do I have to reply? I never said it consisted ...Why do I have to reply? I never said it consisted solely of a government monopoly.<br /><br />You have yet to tell me what about Leopold's business was not capitalist.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-90951139865168962192016-02-05T15:32:49.929-08:002016-02-05T15:32:49.929-08:00Harry replies with: [crickets]Harry replies with: [crickets]Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-73777605540242561672016-01-31T10:24:14.806-08:002016-01-31T10:24:14.806-08:00Coulda fooled me.
You fooled yourself. Let me h...<i>Coulda fooled me. </i><br /><br />You fooled yourself. Let me help you with some personal debunking:<br /><br /><i>capitalism never consists <b>solely</b> of a government created monopoly. </i><br /><br />BTW, I am not a libertarian precisely because of free-rider problems. I am also not a progressive because I am not analytically, numerically, or reading impaired.<br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-80799583858279822932016-01-31T10:14:17.451-08:002016-01-31T10:14:17.451-08:00'capitalism never consists solely of a governm...'capitalism never consists solely of a government created monopoly.'<br /><br />Coulda fooled me. I guess as a libertarian (free rider) you don't cotton to no patents and copyrightsHarry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-71355776074885227802016-01-31T05:02:23.813-08:002016-01-31T05:02:23.813-08:00I did respond. You didn't like the answer. I c...<i>I did respond. You didn't like the answer. I cannot help that. </i><br /><br />Here is what you said in the OP: <br /><br /><i>Still, she holds up a mirror and <b>many an American of today</b> should see himself in it and burn with shame. </i><br /><br />Your justification:<br /><br /><i>some of the leading institutions of today — including the American Museum of Natural History, the New York Zoological Society, the Smithsonian Institution and elite universities from Chicago to Dartmouth — are still lying, covering up and distorting their shameful part in the affair. </i><br /><br />Ok, let's take that as completely true.<br /><br />And I walk down the streets of any, or every, city in the US. How likely am I to run into anyone from some of the leading institutions today?<br /><br />Approximately zero.<br /><br />According to my dictionary, many means a large number of. <br /><br />Of course, as a journalist you are apparently no more beholden to word meaning and tense than you are to factual accuracy.<br /><br />But for the rest of us, "some of the leading institutions of today" doesn't even come close to "many Americans".<br /><br />Of course, you <i>could have</i> written the sentence to convey accurate meaning. But you didn't.<br /><br />Just like you could use an accepted definition for capitalism, in which case it wouldn't apply to the Belgian Congo, or any other instance of colonialism because capitalism never consists solely of a government created monopoly.<br /><br />Socialism does -- that whole nationalized means of production thing. But no matter how bad socialism's record is, or how much closer colonialism was to socialism that capitalism, no one who is even remotely objective attribute colonialism's manifest abuses to socialism.<br /><br />And if you think the definition I supplied is geographical rather than situational, then your analytical deficits are even worse than I imagined. The second sentence in that definition? Take it on board.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-61050374066364787872016-01-30T18:01:22.835-08:002016-01-30T18:01:22.835-08:00I did respond. You didn't like the answer. I c...I did respond. You didn't like the answer. I cannot help that.<br /><br />As for colonialism, you've been grasping at straws for a while now. There are, obviously, non-capitalist forms of colonialism; as there are capitalist ones. Colonialism, by my definition and the one you quote, is geographical. <br /><br />You could move Leopold's methods back to Brussels and it would no longer be colonialism but it would still be capitalism. Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-15558928197978512122016-01-30T12:54:49.395-08:002016-01-30T12:54:49.395-08:00Also, colonialism isn't a definition of an org...<i>Also, colonialism isn't a definition of an organizational principle ... </i><br /><br />Lemme see, hmmm, you accuse me of a definition of an organizational principle, when nothing in what I said had anything to do with organization at all.<br /><br />But there's no need to believe me. <br /><br /><i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism" rel="nofollow">Colonialism</a> is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population. </i><br /><br />That describes the Belgian Congo, the Spanish exploitation of the New World, and on, and on, and on. Even better, it is a definition with explanatory power. Colonialism no longer exists, but capitalism does. If the predations were due to capitalism, then those predations would still exist. <br /><br />But they don't. Therefore, the causes must lie elsewhere. At best, you are the one quibbling over an organizational detail. Colonialism certainly didn't depend on capitalism for its existence, since, even using your tortured definition, there were plenty of colonies that weren't <b>"</b>capitalist<b>"</b>. (Scare quotes bolded for not nearly sufficient emphasis.)<br /><br />But it's worse than that. You insist that the Belgian Congo was capitalism in its purest form. <br /><br />That's funny, I can't find where government awarded monopoly to dominate another country is found anywhere in any definition of capitalism.<br /><br />Like I said, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own dictionary.<br /><br />And I take it, from your utter lack of response, that your assertion that many an American today should burn with shame over something that happened 100 years ago is bollocks, and destroyed another one of your hats.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6666208467022745303.post-88269618171582582242016-01-29T10:16:09.169-08:002016-01-29T10:16:09.169-08:00That's really funny. If capitalism isn't e...That's really funny. If capitalism isn't explanatory for Congo, then it isn't for anything and you can stop contrasting it to whatever you like to contrast it to -- collectivism for example.<br /><br />Also, colonialism isn't a definition of an organizational principle, which capitalism is. You have it just backwardHarry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.com