Diamond and Silk: Socialism Will "Drive Us Back to the Days of Slavery"



Well. If there was one thing the Antebellum American South was known for it was the workers owning the means of production.



Venezuela is just filled with freedom


So these two women are really just a vaudeville act playing for the money. Makes perfect sense.


Yes, these women must be gold-diggers, that is the only possible explanation.

Women, after all, do not have any depth to their political opinions. Their thoughts are determined only by superficial things. They are not like black male intellectuals who have real ideas informed by real books, ideas which must be taken seriously.



I think you mean Uncle Toms; the minstrel shows were performed by white people in blackface.

But I hear you! They can not possibly have any basis for their opinions beyond profit; they are, after all, mere women.


@3 We do know for a fact that Venezuela is filled with oil. The largest proven oil reserves in the world to be told, right in America's backyard. hmmmmm .....


@3 We do know for a fact that Venezuela is filled with oil. The largest proven oil reserves in the world to be told, right in America's backyard. hmm ..... Whose daddy did Maduro try to kill?


@3 and there was so much “freedom” in the free market paradise of Pinochet’s Chile? Or in the free-market paradise of Argentina under successive dictatorships?

You understand Venezuela, despite the foolish excesses of Chavez is still a market economy, right? And the central issue is 80% of Venezuela GDP comes from one export - petroleum. They pinned everything on one export during an extremely volatile period.

Besides it’s not like when Venezuela was another free market paradise it was doing so hot. Considering it was the successive banking collapses and thieving regimes of the 1990’s that lead directly to Chávez’ populism.

Ironically Trump is more like Chávez than the right could ever admit.


@5 I think you mean shills; Gold-diggers are people who engage in romantic relationships for money rather than love.

But I hear you! It’s completely possible that people can exploit politics for personal gain regardless if they hold deep convictions or not. Even mere women are capable of that sort strategic venality.



Yes! Exactly! Men are capable of developing and expressing political opinions, yet men are also capable of endorsing views simply for profit; so if these were men, we would consequently be unable to determine the motivation behind their words.

But these are merely women, incapable of forming true political opinions; thus it follows logically that they must be saying these things only for profit.


@5 it's not the only possible explanation but it is a probable one. And it's not just women, almost all people involved in peddling propaganda for the man are mostly motivated by money.


@11 Nobody here was saying that women have no right to express opinions, or that women couldn't think or any of the bullshit claims you've implied people were making. There's a massive difference between those strawpeople and the reality that it makes no sense for women of color to support capitalism when capitalism can only immiserate the vast majority of human beings, INCLUDING women of color.



Ah yes, the logical impossibility of pro-capitalist American black people.

This was of course mathematically proven by Marxists over 100 years ago, but ever since then the majority of black Americans have rejected Marx, many of them even going so far as to express outright enthusiasm for Capitalism on the radio, in the papers, in the streets, all over the place.

We do have an explanation for this, though-- Anti-Capitalists assure us that American blacks are so weak-willed that they (unlike the enlightened white men offering the explanation) are easily swayed by simplistic propaganda produced by The Capitalists.

They are like women in this way-- pliant, easily swayed by bright colors and pleasing noises.



If women were capable of political thought, then the most likely explanation would be that these women really do have their very own political ideas and opinions, and are opposed to socialism because that position follows from those political ideas and opinions.

But this, obviously, is unthinkable.


@15: Well, they are black, so liberal racists get to decide what they are allowed to think, say, do, and why.

Otherwise, they are just uppity Uncle Tom's who need to remember their place and get back in line, like commentators #4, #6, and #13 believe.


@15 You already said that several times, and you ignored half of my statement about all conservatives propagandists being as often motivated by money (not just women) You are boring.


@15 Not just women:


Once you see the media allow people to denigrate women and minorities you can't un-see it. They do it right in front of your face all of the time and because of dissociation you and the entire staff and ownership are blind. There is no diversity of thought among any of you. That's what a bi-weekly is worth, about half what it was.


Whatever the reason behind their schtick — money, true belief, or both — they are giving cover to a president who has stoked racism from the day he first announced his candidacy. Accusing them of just being in it for the money doesn’t suggest they are too dumb to form their own beliefs, rather that wealth and/or adulation are more valuable to them than their convictions.



Yes, you've got it -- they are either incapable of true political thought or lack strong wills; thus they seek profit over behaving in a manner true to any supposed "political beliefs."


@21, No.

Based on the available evidence one could credibly accuse these women of being greedy liars betraying their own race (see @4, 6, 12), or that they actually believe in Trump’s message despite or perhaps because of its inherent racism (see @me, right now). Neither of these accusations have anything to say about their intelligence or their ability to think for themselves; it’s a question of character.

They could have deeply held convictions that are in direct conflict with their stated beliefs, but they set them aside because they see an opportunity to make a shit ton of money. Or they may be of that minority of a minority who support a president who uses animosity towards their own kind to his advantage. I don’t think either of these options are particularly flattering but neither of them require these women to be incapable of independent thought or lacking in will.



When you say a person is willing to say things for profit that contradict their political beliefs, you are just using different words to say that they have no political conviction, that they lack the willpower to resist profit and be true to what they believe. Ergo they must lack either will or true political beliefs.

This is a tautology, an inescapable matter of definition: this is a simple application of what it means to have (or to lack) real political beliefs.