Already seeing 'disastrous' consequences of Brexit, Richard Branson says

[Theodarzna]

Okay. You say you care about the british working class.

What, IYO, made the traditionnal british proletarian jobs disapear ?

The ones of the industrial revolution-garnment, shoes, steel, coal, shipbuilding. The EU ?

The push for Globalization, Part of that was Thatcher, whom herself was a believer in the European Project for much of her political life. To argue that Blairite's would be any different is somewhat of a fraud.

The issue isn't so much the loss of jobs, but the loss of a community, which nobody seems to think about in these policies.

In my view this drives a lot of the division. Liberals think fundamentally that the "people of Anatevka," want to be Urbane Bohemians too, to have the wealth and power, and certainly those are fine things but the Liberals are wrong. IMHO the Lefties, and the Righties currently in shock about the growth of nationalistic populism have fundamentally misunderstood what the Plebs want. They did not want their jobs, they wanted their towns.

Teyve does not miss his dairy farm or his cow, he wants Anatevka. From Brexit to Trump, imho this is the Shtetl defending itself from annihilation.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes the global village, and the educated who don't see the problems with 'creative destruction'.

Creative Destruction is always some abstract thing.

I hit on this in a discussion I had with Connal. In the end their is this paradoxical expectation that since Free Trade is a net positive globally, the working classes should just be fine with it, BUT ALSO they need to vote in their self interests. Though resisting Globalization and Free Trade would seem to be in their interests, but I suppose in that case they should be self sacrificing for the cause?

IMHO the issue is that these well meaning Lefties misunderstand what the Working Class wants. Nobody really wants their job. Only a handful of very well off people have jobs they genuinely like. In the end they want "Anatevka," they want their community to exist and continue on.

[Deleted]

Okay. You say you care about the british working class.

What, IYO, made the traditionnal british proletarian jobs disapear ?

The ones of the industrial revolution-garnment, shoes, steel, coal, shipbuilding. The EU ?

No actually the problem is that since the UK uses a FPTP system, the labour party is an abomination of left wing culturalists (marxists, cultural marxists...) and the working class's representatives.
The working class does not like immigration, and especially not 'disruptive' immigration (immigrants who wont integrate into the community) and they also don't really like free trade.
The culturalists see borders as an injustice, and that the nation state (those communities) are racist for not wanting to change fundamentally to no longer offend the new people who hate everything about this society.
So they don't like migration - how can they stop it? well they cant, but they did get a vote to get out of the EU...
In short, The EU gets blamed for shit it really doesn't have anything to do with, presumably because the EU is filled with people who annoy the aforementioned people, sometimes for no point whatsoever.
Like the various, completely powerless, committees of the European parliament, that sometimes like making reports and disseminating them to the public (a public that are generally unaware that those committees are powerless).

- - - Updated - - -

I hit on this in a discussion I had with Connal. In the end their is this paradoxical expectation that since Free Trade is a net positive globally, the working classes should just be fine with it, BUT ALSO they need to vote in their self interests. Though resisting Globalization and Free Trade would seem to be in their interests, but I suppose in that case they should be self sacrificing for the cause?

But that's the dumbest thing ever.
Yes, free trade is undoubtedly in the worlds interest, quite possibly in all the states interests, but a perfectly functioning market would essentially rejigger global GDP/capita to be roughly equal.
It would be worldwide socialism - It would be an economy for economists, and not an economy for the people.

IMHO the issue is that these well meaning Lefties misunderstand what the Working Class wants. Nobody really wants their job. Only a handful of very well off people have jobs they genuinely like. In the end they want "Anatevka," they want their community to exist and continue on.

yeah, that's true.
This might be one of the biggest divides in the west soon.
In most countries, people have largely stopped moving to cities, from the country.
Soon the cities will be full with people with no understanding of smaller communities.
Cities don't really have communities after all, so they will never get, say not liking the change that migration brings to the community.
Often because they are neatly ensconced in a suburb where the mortgage payments exclude all but the very, very integrated immigrants.

[THE Bigzoman]

Just saw your tag

i love it

I apologize. I forgot I had that. I'll remove it.

- - - Updated - - -

I think what the Working Class laments, and defiantly clings to, is their communities and their secure traditional ways of life. I mean traditional in that they are stable and usually give a rhythm to life an a town.

I think I will use a song from a musical/movie to illustrate this point:


Teyhva and the people of Anatevka do not lament the loss of their shitty jobs, or the strict material aspects of their lives, they lament the death of a community, a world they knew, that their parents knew, that they hoped their children would know. They, like for example the Ohio or Pennsylvania Steel Worker laid off and stranded in a dying town where he once knew his neighbors, worked with them and shared a bond of community with, faces an uncertain future as a stranger in a strange place. You may be able to sooth the economic loss with welfare, but you cannot restore what was taken by Globalization and Free Trade. What Neo-Liberalism has taken from them cannot be replaced by mere welfare.

Anatevka is what the villagers wanted.

While this video is about Trump voters, the parallales with Brexiters and Trump voters are there.


I could envision the sad lament of Anatevka being song by any of these people, be they British or American, whose towns and villages face an agonizing disintegration. Liberals IMHO don't care because increasingly they have a cosmopolitan outlook, and in their world, Anatevka has no place.

I'm curious if @Yvaelle has any thoughts on this post.

It's not that they or conservatives don't care. They just don't want to appease to the minority at the majority's expense.

It's one thing to refuse to evolve. That's fine. Do you. It's another thing entirely to demand that the economy and society by extension remain stagnant to keep your way of life in tact, which is pretty much the final solution to your Marxist flavored interpertations.

[Theodarzna]

It's not that they or conservatives don't care. They just don't want to appease to the minority at the majority's expense.

It's one thing to refuse to evolve. That's fine. Do you. It's another thing entirely to demand that the economy and society by extension remain stagnant to keep your way of life in tact, which is pretty much the final solution to your Marxist flavored interpertations.

"Evolve," comes with a vary nasty Social Darwinist mindset within itself.

These are not forces necessarily happening as acts of God, willed from on high by an "invisible hand," these are forces directed by men. These are human created policies, these are actions taken by governments, this is policy, and the policy has a bad side for others.

Teyve also could be said to having to "evolve," except he was directly pogromed from his community.

[THE Bigzoman]

"Evolve," comes with a vary nasty Social Darwinist mindset within itself.

These are not forces necessarily happening as acts of God, willed from on high by an "invisible hand," these are forces directed by men. These are human created policies, these are actions taken by governments, this is policy, and the policy has a bad side for others.

Teyve also could be said to having to "evolve," except he was directly pogromed from his community.

But a lot of it is an invisible hand, only with new players through developing nations finally getting a stake on the board. Nobody wants to buy more exapnsive shit from these plants. On the beneficary's side, the Indonesian girls don't want to suck dick for a living. So what would you have us do, hit the brakes on what's really just global redistribution because of butthurt steel workers?

[Theodarzna]

But a lot of it is an invisible hand, only with new players through developing nations finally getting a stake on the board. Nobody wants to buy more exapnsive shit from these plants. On the beneficary's side, the Indonesian girls don't want to suck dick for a living. So what would you have us do, hit the brakes on what's really just global redistribution because of butthurt steel workers?

What invisible hand? Did the trade policies of the EU and the US get written by some God and thus forced us to obey?

Now I get you "Hey, sure we made sacrifices but think of the Indonesian girl we helped!" and I'd believe you if it was YOUR job and community being sacrificed for this cause. See that is when your point falls apart, nobody asked the Steel Worker if HE/SHE wanted to make that sacrifice, Other people made him the sacrifice and just so happen to be the primary beneficiary of that Sacrifice.

It is one thing for a town to chose to be poor so the Indonesian will be less poor, it is another for a few folks in New York City to decide that that town should be poor primarily to enrich themselves and it might incidentally help the Indonesian as a happy side effect.

You and I both know Globalization isn't some crusade to help that poor Indonesian girl, its a cause primarily to enrich a small class of people, and it might incidentally benefit in a positive way the rest of the planet in a net benefit sort of way.

Nobody is going to pat your back for sacrificing some people to primarily make oneself rich and maybe help a few others.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Anyone who supported either leave or remain that crows vindication this early in the game is clearly suffering from confirmation bias. The long term effects of this decision have yet to manifest themselves. Seeing as Article 50 has not even been invoked, much less enforced, any activity in bond and other markets is merely a manifestation of the emotions the various financial players had in the result. How people choose to do business with the UK in the long term will be driven not by sentimentality, but the potential for profit vs loss. Hold off on the prognostications long enough for us to see what Brexit actually means before you start crowing to us about how right you were.

Oh, and by the way, whether you were correct or not is immaterial. The British people spoke, and spoke emphatically. More people voted for Brexit than have voted for any single thing in Great Britain's history. If you think any government who acts as though that decision is not binding will stay in power, you've lost it. As for me, I rather admire the Brits for reasserting their sovereignty, even if it costs them economically. To quote Alexander Hamilton, "a nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."

[THE Bigzoman]

What invisible hand? Did the trade policies of the EU and the US get written by some God and thus forced us to obey?

Now I get you "Hey, sure we made sacrifices but think of the Indonesian girl we helped!" and I'd believe you if it was YOUR job and community being sacrificed for this cause. See that is when your point falls apart, nobody asked the Steel Worker if HE/SHE wanted to make that sacrifice, Other people made him the sacrifice and just so happen to be the primary beneficiary of that Sacrifice.

It is one thing for a town to chose to be poor so the Indonesian will be less poor, it is another for a few folks in New York City to decide that that town should be poor primarily to enrich themselves and it might incidentally help the Indonesian as a happy side effect.

You and I both know Globalization isn't some crusade to help that poor Indonesian girl, its a cause primarily to enrich a small class of people, and it might incidentally benefit in a positive way the rest of the planet in a net benefit sort of way.

Nobody is going to pat your back for sacrificing some people to primarily make oneself rich and maybe help a few others.

God damn

1). Like or it not, the trade deals opened up avenues for international commerce. They're not as much the guiding hand as they are the ones that enable the hand to go beyond what they originally could.

2) the intention to help the Indonesian girl has fuck all to do with it. The concept of markets dating back To Adam Smith was to channel negative and selfish desires into positive societal results. Nothing less, nothing more.

3) the steel workers say about it is irrelevant, that's why nobody asked them nor should they. The only thing they control is what they do with their labor. They can't force buyers of labor to only engage with them. That's fucked. You're not entitled to your job nor way of life. You're just not.

[Theodarzna]

.... which is pretty much the final solution to your Marxist flavored interpretations.

I think I should respond to this on its own. The charge of Marxism is a rather odd one since I neither believe in Secular Enlightenment Progressiveism, and indeed I say progress is a myth, and once more I do not believe social progress exists really or is a trend. Indeed my entire view of history is one of rhythmical, cyclical or trendless movements of social processes rather than a linear progression or a Hegelian view or even a belief in which "the universe comes to know itself." This alone makes me considerably not Marxist in that I neither advocate for, nor believe it worthwhile to pursue a Marxist revolution.

I say that I for sure borrow my rhetoric and class focus from Marx, but that is by far a cosmetic or aesthetic choice.

If anything you would be better at arguing I was a fanatical romantic, or a medievalist, some sort of traditionalist conservative might be more accurate than a Marxist.

Where me and the Marxists meet is largely thematic and in a complete distrust in the value of Capitalism.

[Kallisto]

What invisible hand? Did the trade policies of the EU and the US get written by some God and thus forced us to obey?

Now I get you "Hey, sure we made sacrifices but think of the Indonesian girl we helped!" and I'd believe you if it was YOUR job and community being sacrificed for this cause. See that is when your point falls apart, nobody asked the Steel Worker if HE/SHE wanted to make that sacrifice, Other people made him the sacrifice and just so happen to be the primary beneficiary of that Sacrifice.

It is one thing for a town to chose to be poor so the Indonesian will be less poor, it is another for a few folks in New York City to decide that that town should be poor primarily to enrich themselves and it might incidentally help the Indonesian as a happy side effect.

You and I both know Globalization isn't some crusade to help that poor Indonesian girl, its a cause primarily to enrich a small class of people, and it might incidentally benefit in a positive way the rest of the planet in a net benefit sort of way.

Nobody is going to pat your back for sacrificing some people to primarily make oneself rich and maybe help a few others.

And guess what that 1 indonesian girl is entitled to EVERYTHING 1 western girl was born with. I'm not even going to apologize for my views but saying that x has more rights to things than y by place of birth is absolutely abhorrent. If some Polish guy can come in and do the job of a natural born person better and doesn't charge as much the local born person needs to adapt. It's that clear.

I don't give a fucking shit about lower, working, middle, upper, super high god saiyan classes. It's down to individuals and that person 5 doors up the road is no different than someone half the world away. He is entitled no more job rights (or less they are both entitled to high standards) and just because he is born here I am under NO obligation to think he should get a job over someone else from outside some line on the damn map.

[Theodarzna]

God damn

1). Like or it not, the trade deals opened up avenues for international commerce. They're not as much the guiding hand as they are the ones that enable the hand to go beyond what they originally could.

2) the intention to help the Indonesian girl has fuck all to do with it. The concept of markets dating back To Adam Smith was to channel negative and selfish desires into positive societal results. Nothing less, nothing more.

3) the steel workers say about it is irrelevant, that's why nobody asked them nor should they. The only thing they control is what they do with their labor. They can't force buyers of labor to only engage with them. That's fucked. You're not entitled to your job nor way of life. You're just not.

1) I don't deny that they do. I simply point out that the "hand," is the hand of men making decisions.

2) Yet why is one negative acceptable and not the other? Why is the fate of the Indonesian girl any more relevant than the fate of the steel worker? Why is sacrificing others primarily for your own enrichment fine? Is it fine as long as it helps the most abjectly destitute in some marginal way? Do we ignore that the primary motivator was ones own enrichment? Do we hand wave away the harm done to the Steel Worker? Why do we do it?

3) Then why let them vote?

- - - Updated - - -

And guess what that 1 indonesian girl is entitled to EVERYTHING 1 western girl was born with. I'm not even going to apologize for my views but saying that x has more rights to things than y by place of birth is absolutely abhorrent. If some Polish guy can come in and do the job of a natural born person better and doesn't charge as much the local born person needs to adapt. It's that clear.

I don't give a fucking shit about lower, working, middle, upper, super high god saiyan classes. It's down to individuals and that person 5 doors up the road is no different than someone half the world away. He is entitled no more job rights (or less they are both entitled to high standards) and just because he is born here I am under NO obligation to think he should get a job over someone else from outside some line on the damn map.

I didn't say X has more rights than Y,

I said Z shouldn't sacrifice X mostly to enrich Z's self and maybe incidentally help Y as well. I think if you pursue policy which harms X, X should be compensated for the harm.

More over I believe that if Z believes so firmly in the value of this enterprise, why is Z not personally sacrificing? Why is it X who must bare the burden?

[Thessik-Irontail]

This is nothing more then globalist fear-mongering.

The British people will be just fine, no godzilla, no giant meteor, etc..

[THE Bigzoman]

1) I don't deny that they do. I simply point out that the "hand," is the hand of men making decisions.

2) Yet why is one negative acceptable and not the other? Why is the fate of the Indonesian girl any more relevant than the fate of the steel worker? Why is sacrificing others primarily for your own enrichment fine? Is it fine as long as it helps the most abjectly destitute in some marginal way? Do we ignore that the primary motivator was ones own enrichment? Do we hand wave away the harm done to the Steel Worker? Why do we do it?

3) Then why let them vote?

- - - Updated - - -



I didn't say X has more rights than Y,

I said Z shouldn't sacrifice X mostly to enrich Z's self and maybe incidentally help Y as well. I think if you pursue policy which harms X, X should be compensated for the harm.

More over I believe that if Z believes so firmly in the value of this enterprise, why is Z not personally sacrificing? Why is it X who must bare the burden?

Those few men opened the gate. The firms just decided to take the opened way to greener pastures. And you keep implying that the "elite" just arbitrarily deemed things as they are; as if consumer trends weren't taken into account at all.

Denying them godlike market power isn't stripping their vote. They're free to (and are doing right now if your thesis is correct) supporting policymakers who promise to make their desires a reality. That's their right, but I'm going to call a spade a spade and call them selfish dumbfucks every step of the way.

Why is one acceptable and the other isn't? Because it's what the expanding market (not just firms) deemed. Maybe it'll shift back. Who knows? It's an everchanging institution.

[Theodarzna]

Those few men opened the gate. The firms just decided to take the opened way to greener pastures. And you keep implying that the "elite" just arbitrarily deemed things as they are; as if consumer trends weren't taken into account at all.

Denying them godlike market power isn't stripping their vote. They're free to (and are doing right now if your thesis is correct) supporting policymakers who promise to make their desires a reality. That's their right, but I'm going to call a spade a spade and call them selfish dumbfucks every step of the way.

Why is one acceptable and the other isn't? Because it's what the expanding market (not just firms) deemed. Maybe it'll shift back. Who knows? It's an everchanging institution.

They made a policy decision, that was not some will of god, but the actions of men, and the consequences for others fall on the policies hands and not Gods hands.

You call them "selfish dumbfucks," which I suppose is weird considering you accuse me of Marxism but believe firmly that they should be self-sacrificing for this great cause, though I suspect YOU are not expected to endure hardship for this grand cause. They must be self-sacrificing for a cause they did not choose, and the people who have chosen it will give nothing and gain everything. In ultimate ironies I am turning against the collectivist value Utilitarianism which you seem to be espousing and actually advocating a much simpler view of just compensation for those wronged.

There is no "Expanding Market," that is just an abstraction, an illusion, you might as well have told me it was Gods Will.

It reminds me a priest, bitching to a screaming sheep that knows its about to be slaughtered, it doesn't care that the harvest might be stronger for its death, it just knows YOU are sacrificing IT, for YOUR gain.

[THE Bigzoman]

I think I should respond to this on its own. The charge of Marxism is a rather odd one since I neither believe in Secular Enlightenment Progressiveism, and indeed I say progress is a myth, and once more I do not believe social progress exists really or is a trend. Indeed my entire view of history is one of rhythmical, cyclical or trendless movements of social processes rather than a linear progression or a Hegelian view or even a belief in which "the universe comes to know itself." This alone makes me considerably not Marxist in that I neither advocate for, nor believe it worthwhile to pursue a Marxist revolution.

I say that I for sure borrow my rhetoric and class focus from Marx, but that is by far a cosmetic or aesthetic choice.

If anything you would be better at arguing I was a fanatical romantic, or a medievalist, some sort of traditionalist conservative might be more accurate than a Marxist.

Where me and the Marxists meet is largely thematic and in a complete distrust in the value of Capitalism.

A lot of the stuff you say can be interepted as Marxist on a fundamental level. There is one core difference though. Marx beloved that the ruling class would always hinder economic and technological advancement for their benefit at the worker's expense. You on the other hand are taking a position where some of the working class are hindering advancement at everyone else's expense.

[Theodarzna]

A lot of the stuff you say can be interepted as Marxist on a fundamental level. There is one core difference though. Marx beloved that the ruling class would always hinder economic and technological advancement for their benefit at the worker's expense. You on the other hand are taking a position where some of the working class are hindering advancement at everyone else's expense.

No, it really can't. The view on history and time is purely anti-Marxist since I do not adhere to a view that advancement is even a thing that happens. The belief in progress or that progress is possible is core to Marxism, thus I could not be a Marxist in that I do no dream of a bright future that will come, I do not believe in it.

I am also not advocating "Hindering advancement," I am merely advocating just compensation.

If you wrong someone, you must make amends. Fuck if anything I am advocating a down right Medieval sense of justice and redress of grievances. The problem for Globalists is they want it all on the cheap. They don't want to compensate the displaced workers, or pay for any of the problems Globalization causes. They just expect those people to sacrifice for the "Greater Good." Heck, in a very Soviet like system the ones ordering the self-sacrifice on the part of others are not themselves sacrificing a thing and are reaping the greatest reward.

The biggest beneficiary of Globalization is the Walton Family, The Silicon Valley Tycoons, the Indonesian girl may have benefited some, but it was not at the expense of globalists.

Heck, Irony of Ironies you are even engaging in a very Social Justice Warrior type mindset. "Well those people are privileged so they should pay to help X, Y, Z group." ignoring that it merely pits on group of the poor against another.

[THE Bigzoman]

They made a policy decision, that was not some will of god, but the actions of men, and the consequences for others fall on the policies hands and not Gods hands.

You call them "selfish dumbfucks," which I suppose is weird considering you accuse me of Marxism but believe firmly that they should be self-sacrificing for this great cause, though I suspect YOU are not expected to endure hardship for this grand cause. They must be self-sacrificing for a cause they did not choose, and the people who have chosen it will give nothing and gain everything. In ultimate ironies I am turning against the collectivist value Utilitarianism which you seem to be espousing and actually advocating a much simpler view of just compensation for those wronged.

There is no "Expanding Market," that is just an abstraction, an illusion, you might as well have told me it was Gods Will.

It reminds me a priest, bitching to a screaming sheep that knows its about to be slaughtered, it doesn't care that the harvest might be stronger for its death, it just knows YOU are sacrificing IT, for YOUR gain.

Belief on the market isn't similar to a blind belief in God. markets--buyers, sellers, and their decisions--are observable. God isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it really can't. The view on history and time is purely anti-Marxist since I do not adhere to a view that advancement is even a thing that happens. The belief in progress or that progress is possible is core to Marxism, thus I could not be a Marxist in that I do no dream of a bright future that will come, I do not believe in it.

I am also not advocating "Hindering advancement," I am merely advocating just compensation.

If you wrong someone, you must make amends. Fuck if anything I am advocating a down right Medieval sense of justice and redress of grievances. The problem for Globalists is they want it all on the cheap. They don't want to compensate the displaced workers, or pay for any of the problems Globalization causes. They just expect those people to sacrifice for the "Greater Good." Heck, in a very Soviet like system the ones ordering the self-sacrifice on the part of others are not themselves sacrificing a thing and are reaping the greatest reward.

The biggest beneficiary of Globalization is the Walton Family, The Silicon Valley Tycoons, the Indonesian girl may have benefited some, but it was not at the expense of globalists.

Heck, Irony of Ironies you are even engaging in a very Social Justice Warrior type mindset. "Well those people are privileged so they should pay to help X, Y, Z group." ignoring that it merely pits on group of the poor against another.

So your positon is that we should compensate people for intangible losses?

[Theodarzna]

Belief on the market isn't similar to a blind belief in God. markets--buyers, sellers, and their decisions--are observable. God isn't.

You are absolutely embracing a God, ignoring the role of laws and policy in deciding how the game of "Market," is played. Akin to a board game maker forgetting her wrote the rules to the very game he plays.

Those decisions are made in the context of laws, rules and society.

- - - Updated - - -

So your position is that we should compensate people for intangible losses?

Yes.

Because your alternative is to tell them to "Get FUCKED!" and hope it all just goes away. You cannot enact policy that ruins communities, disintegrates the social fabric of vast swathes of many countries and then sit from within ones posh urban capital city and tell the plebs "Don't you get it, we are building something GREAT!!!!"

That is the ultimate "Let them eat cake!" answer and from it you will get Brexit, Trump, and every other horrible demon and it will be justly deserved on.

[THE Bigzoman]

You are absolutely embracing a God, ignoring the role of laws and policy in deciding how the game of "Market," is played. Akin to a board game maker forgetting her wrote the rules to the very game he plays.

Those decisions are made in the context of laws, rules and society.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes.

Because your alternative is to tell them to "Get FUCKED!" and hope it all just goes away. You cannot enact policy that ruins communities, disintegrates the social fabric of vast swathes of many countries and then sit from within ones posh urban capital city and tell the plebs "Don't you get it, we are building something GREAT!!!!"

That is the ultimate "Let them eat cake!" answer and from it you will get Brexit, Trump, and every other horrible demon and it will be justly deserved on.

Severence packages are a thing. But if you don't think that's enough, have fun quantifying intangibles, attaching monetary values to them, and bending over backwards to ensure said monetary values compensate the losers' subjective losses.


It must be fun talking to me. Since I'm certainly no liberal, your claims of hypocrisy have no effect since my belief is fundamentally different from the liberal posters.

[Theodarzna]

Severence packages are a thing. But if you don't think that's enough, have fun quantifying intangibles, attaching monetary values to them, and bending over backwards to ensure said monetary values compensate the losers' subjective losses.

It must be fun talking to me. Since I'm certainly no liberal, your claims of hypocrisy have no effect since my belief is fundamentally different from the liberal posters.

Severance packages do not restore or keep a community alive.

These are losers created by direct policy. If I am going to flood a town do I not owe the towns people for their loss?

I am not accusing you of being a Liberal, if anything I love that for once its not a Liberal saying these things. But I am finding it funny that you and Liberals use the exact same words and the exact same mindset. Curiously though you call me Marxist, they call me Fascist.

Your belief is from my perspective indistinguishable from it. Both of you are seeking the same basic world and reaching for the same basic project. I am merely questioning the ethics of what that project is and the ethics of its "Creative Destruction." Also much like the Liberals you feel you must justify this with some poor beleaguered girl in the Third world, you still essentially coach your argument the same as a valiant Social Justice Warrior would do, calling up the benefits for the PoC, and using crude Utilitarian logic to justify it all.