MIKE PENCE SAYS 'FREEDOM, NOT SOCIALISM, ENDED SLAVERY,' DOESN'T MENTION WHAT STARTED SLAVERY

[applegrove]

MIKE PENCE SAYS ‘FREEDOM, NOT SOCIALISM, ENDED SLAVERY,’ DOESN'T MENTION WHAT STARTED SLAVERY

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/mike-pence-slavery-socialism-war-1349324%3famp=1

By Jason Le Miere at Newsweek

"SNIP.....


Vice President Mike Pence continued the Republican attacks on what they claim is socialism infiltrating the Democratic Party, making the dubious claim Friday that it was “freedom, not socialism, that ended slavery and won two World Wars." Pence, speaking at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, did not mention what started slavery in the United States.

“It was freedom, not socialism, that ended slavery, won two World Wars and stands today as the beacon of hope for all the world.”

If it was freedom that ended slavery then presumably it was also freedom that allowed it, with a provision written into the Constitution that specifically referred to slaves and the “three-fifths compromise,” whereby they were counted as less than free people. Moreover, Southern states continued to argue for the freedom to keep slavery in place as the country descended into the Civil War. It was also not capitalism, which Pence appeared to be referring to, when he said it was freedom that ended slavery. Indeed, many historians have noted the explicit links between slavery and the birth of American capitalism. 

Pence’s claim about the ending of the World Wars is also historically questionable. The Soviet Union, under communist control, played a crucial—to some historians the most crucial—role in defeating Nazi Germany in World War II. The country also paid the heaviest price during the war as it battled Germany on the Eastern Front, losing an estimated 26 million people, including about 11 million soldiers.

.....SNIP"

What does he think warfare is if not socialism? The civil war was government money against government money.

[msongs]

1. slave trade run by...white christians. hmmm nt

[applegrove]

2. Private enterprise.

[TheBlackAdder]

30. In the Antebellum South, What Turned the Citizens from Abhoring Slaveholders to Honoring Them?

.

Christianity!

This is an oversimplified detail of Southern Paternalism.

Back in the antebellum South, slaveholders were abhorred and seen as pariahs in their community. This did not really change until the 1820s-1840s, a byproduct of the revivalist tours, when the Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian ministers from the North were offered money, daughters, property, and slaves of their own from the slaveholders to promote them as virtuous. Within 10 years, the concept of Southern Paternalism was formed, where slaveholders were seen as offering Christianity to people who would never be exposed to it. The pastors held two services, one to sell the white community on the benefits of slavery, and how slaveholders were doing God's work. There was another service for the slaves, telling them that they need to be good servants. That while life is hard, they will receive eternal salvation in heaven upon their death.

.

[heckles65]

3. I'm no apologist for the Soviet Union, but -

they lost 27 million people in World War II. They also accounted for 75-80% of the Germans killed in the war, and gave the Germans far more "oh s__t!" moments than the Western Allies did.

They did the dirty work in that war, and this American will admit it any day of the week.

[applegrove]

4. Plus any war between two or more states is socialism. Government pays. Government

plans. Government recruits and orders.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

16. Stalin's stupidity and incompetence is why they lost so many lives

The people of the Soviet Union kicked Hitler's troops out in spite of Stalin, and at a greater cost because of Stalin.

[Igel]

17. And among those, it was Belorusians and Ukrainians who had the hardest hits.

Lots of Slavs died. Others, not so much. And most of the fighting happened outside of Russia proper.

Which those peoples find not so amusing when Putin claims it all for Russia.

They also forget Lend-Lease, a US-British effort to keep Russia from being overrun by Germans after Stalin's wonderful policies managed to get his subordinates so afraid that they lied about military hardware production numbers. "Send this tank battalion to the front" would yield a dead general when he said, "Um, sorry, didn't actually get built."

Let's also not forget that the USSR and Hitler had a little love fest going when they divvied up Poland and signed a nifty non-aggression pact that gave Hitler the option to clear up the little problem called "France" on his Western border, and both sides insisted on subjugation by mass murder. Stalin's pre-emptive occupation of the Baltic states because they didn't acknowledge his need to use their territories for the USSR's protection.

They did much of the dirty work, often using shovels from the US and Britain, and mostly because they happened to be on the land that Hitler wanted. (Of course, the Russians also helped in the Holocaust in an almost accidental way. Because of old tsarist policies expressing considerable Jew hatred, the Jewish populations of Russia had been concentrated along the Western periphery, territory which a century or two later just happened to be the territories that Hitler's troops would occupy. The USSR's Jew-hating policies didn't help them to spread out very much from where they'd been shoved by the "much worse" feudal tsars.)

[FBaggins]

5. Huh? Warfare is socialism?

“Government money” does not equal “Socialism”

[applegrove]

6. Government control over things people could do themselves (violence)

is socialist. The defence department is socialist. Why it is always government run. It works better. Just like healthcare works better when it is government run.

[FBaggins]

7. Sorry, that is in no sense the definition of socialism.

By that notion all governments are socialist and distinctions are nonexistent.

[applegrove]

8. It is a part of government. The defence industry is socialist. The things

that can't be done efficiently or equitably by private industry and are then done by government are socialist. Look at firemen. They used to be cooperative bucket brigades. Then technology and pump trucks came along and firehouse were private. You put a plaque on your house according to which horse pulled pump you wanted to put out the fire in your house. Then whole cities started burning as people lived closer together. And fighting fire became a public good and now firefighting is public. And socialist.

[FBaggins]

9. Repeating an incorrect claim doesn't improve the argument

That simply isn’t the definition of socialism.

[applegrove]

10. It is socialist policy. I don't care what definition you are looking at for socialism as a whole .

The means of production of war and defence are in the control and ownership of the government with some private involvement. So is the VA. How is that different than single payer? Fact is government has a monopoly on violence as a whole, legally. Except for boxing.

[former9thward]

14. You have the most bizarre definitions of socialism I have ever seen.

"I don't care what definition you are looking at for socialism as a whole " Yes, we can see that...

[applegrove]

15. No i don't. The defence department is given as an example of socialism the GOP likes

all tge time.

[FBaggins]

18. The means of production of war???

If you've ever taken an econ course, you may want to consider asking for your money back.

The means of production of war and defence are in the control and ownership of the government with some private involvement.

"Means of production" means things like factories, raw materials, plant equipment. Those are not "in the control and ownership of the government". They are owned by the shareholders of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Gruman (etc. etc. etc.)

So is the VA.

Actually... that's the first example you've given that IS socialism.

How is that different than single payer?

Substantially different. While single-payer would be closer to socialism than the current system is, single payer is about insurance. Truly socialist healthcare would mean that doctors and hospitals are part of the government.

[applegrove]

20. The means of production of soldiers are owned by the government.

Flight school for fighter pilots. Research often is.

[FBaggins]

25. There's no "means of production" for soldiers

Unless you count their mothers I suppose.

[Girard442]

11. I've seen that thinking before.

1. Socialism is bad.

2. We do X.

3. X isn't bad.

4. Therefore X isn't socialism.

Then you tie yourself in knots trying to explain why a government-run medical system is socialism but a government-run fire department isn't.

[applegrove]

12. Yes.

[FBaggins]

19. Just the opposite actually

1 - Socialism is good
2 - We do X
3 - X is good
4 - Therefore X is socialism.

Then you tie yourself in knots trying to explain why a government-run medical system is socialism but a government-run fire department isn't.

No knots necessary... because "socialism" doesn't mean "any government service". If it did, there would be no such thing as a non-socialist country... because all governments provide services.

[applegrove]

21. The world economies are mixed markets. All of them except for North Korea.

That is the point. All countries practice a little socialism.

[FBaggins]

26. Generally true, but that doesn't help your position

It still doesn't mean that anything a government does directly is "socialism". You won't find a definition in any dictionary or econ textbook that comes close to that.

[applegrove]

29. Oh I give up. When markets fail to do some things well, government steps in and that

is a social program. All economies except for North Korea are mixed markets. That means a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

[FakeNoose]

13. Pence is rewriting history, and nary a peep from the Repukes?

World War I was extremely unpopular here, and almost no Americans wanted to fight in that war. It if weren't for conscription (the opposite of freedom) we would never have had enough troops ready to send in time. World War II would have been the same were it not for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Most Americans wanted to stay away from the fighting in Europe but we got sucked into fighting Japan. I don't see how "freedom" was a factor in either war.

I do see one common thread though - it was Democratic Presidents that got us through both of those terrible trials.

[DavidDvorkin]

22. Neither, Mike. It was federal vs. state sovereignty that ended slavery.

[edhopper]

23. The State dictated the lives of Slave owners

and told them their "property" was no longer theirs.

Sounds like Socialism to me.

[a la izquierda]

24. Wtf does that even mean? Nt

[shanny]

27. Gotta wonder who he's talking to.

I'm guessing a large part of the base has No Problem with slavery.

[DinahMoeHum]

28. What Trump thinks of Pence. . .