New and Improved version(With more sources)
Putnam Study debunking
It looked like a distinctly inconvenient truth, when the famous sociologist Robert Putnam conducted a study in 2000 which revealed that diversity undermines cohesion in communities. Specifically, he found that it makes people less trustful of each other and less inclined to form friendships or do voluntary work. Basically, as Putnam concluded on the basis of a staggering 30,000 interviews, it makes them "pull in like a turtle."
Shocked, he put off releasing his findings for years. When they were finally published in 2007, the effect was — predictably — akin to dropping a bombshell. Hailed as one of the most influential sociological studies of the century, Putnam's research was cited in countless newspapers and reports, and up until this very day he's the goto source for politicians who doubt the benefits of a multicultural society.
There's only one problem. Putnam's findings were debunked years ago.
A later retrospective analysis of 90 studies found no correlation whatsoever between diversity and social cohesion. Not only that, as sociologists Maria Abascal at Princeton University and Delia Baldassarri at New York University discovered, Putnam had made a critical error. He hadn't taken account of the fact that African Americans and Latinos report lower levels of trust, regardless of where they live. When you adjust for this, Putnam's shocking discovery crumbles to dust.
So, if diversity isn't to blame for the lack of cohesion in modern day society, what is? The answer is simple: poverty, unemployment, and discrimination. "It is not the diversity of a community that undermines trust," conclude Abascaland Baldassarri, "but rather the disadvantages that people in diverse communities face."
More on that from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-diversity-create-distrust/
<In a society where one Shares the same language and culture, how much trust does a multiracial society have?
ACCENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN RACE IN GUIDING CHILDRENS PREFERENCEShttps://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/soco.2009.27.4.623
==THE DIFFERENCE IN TRUST BETWEEN A 100% WHITE NEIGHBOURHOOD AND A 1% WHITE NEIGHBOURHOOD WHERE NEIGHBOURS TALK WITH EACH OTHER
I.E SHARE THE SAME LANGUAGE AND CULTURE IS 0.08 OUT OF 3 THAT IS ONLY A 2.6% CHANGE IN TRUST FROM 100% TO 1%.==https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00717.x
<Economy is important in determining trust, materialists proved correct again.
> Ziller (2015) analyzed changes in trust in 22 European countries between the years 2002 and 2010. Cross-sectionally, nations with higher levels of ethnic diversity and non-Western immigrants had lower levels of trust. However, changes in these variables did not predict changes in trust over time.>Longitudinal changes in general immigration levels did, suggesting an effect of immigrants qua immigrants, regardless of race. However, this effect was only negative when the economy was not growing. At levels of economic growth above zero, the effect of immigrants on trust was positive and statistically insignificant.https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/93/3/1211/2332107?redirectedFrom=fulltext
<More studies proving that the effect of diversity on trust is negligible.
>Finally, Kikergaard (2017) analyzed data on 3,100 US counties while looking at how ethnic diversity related to a county socioeconomic status. This analysis found that the relationship between ethnic diversity and SES goes away after controlling for cognitive ability.https://rpubs.com/EmilOWK/racial_homogeneity_study_2017
>Alesina and Ferrara (2002) looked at the relationship between racial diversity, ethnic diversity, and income inequality, with trust. Income inequality and racial diversity each correlated weakly at -.1 with trust, while ethnic diversity correlated even more weakly at -.03.https://scholar.harvard.edu/alesina/publications/who-trusts-others
>Guest et al. (2008) looked at 3 measures of social capital. While diversity had a statistically significant effect in a multivariate model, it explained less than 1% variation in various measures of social capital.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098007087333
>Lipford and Yandle (2009) find that a 10% increase in diversity RAISES volunteerism by 1 per 100 people. A 10% increase in people with a college degree increases volunteerism by 5-6 people per 100.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053535708001741
>Fieldhouse and Cutts (2010) look at both subjective ratings of trust in an area and objective participation in voluntary associations. Diversity is found to have a smaller effect than poverty in the US, though the same was not true in the UK. That being said, the impact of diversity in the UK was only significant for one of two measures of social capital.https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/does-diversity-damage-social-capital-a-comparative-study-of-neigh
>Dincer (2011) calculated racial diversity based on 6 ancestry categories. Diversity was found to have a U shaped relationship with trust, with trust peaking when diversity equals .34.Other variables were found to have a linear relationship with trust. A 10% increase in the proportion of people with college degrees predicted a 10% increase in the proportion of people who have a high level of trust. A 10% decrease in income inequality predicted a 15% increase in trust. Etc.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804763
>Alesina and Ferrara (2002) looked at the relationship between racial diversity, ethnic diversity, and income inequality, with trust. Income inequality and racial diversity each correlated weakly at -.1 with trust, while ethnic diversity correlated even more weakly at -.03.https://scholar.harvard.edu/alesina/publications/who-trusts-others
Bro, this is /edu/, not /b/
USA site ranking 05-04-2021 Past 90 days Alexa rank
WSWS # 11070
Jacobin # 9601
Amren # 46,000
Counter Currents # 140,058
VDARE # 33,169
DSA membership over time
Simping for pol bait might as well be a /b/ threadaccelerationAcceleration
So one of the main reasons /pol/tards are so resistant to Marxist ideas is the fact that they believe in race realism and similar "scientific" ideas. I will attempt to debunk three of the most crucial race realist tenets in this thread.
a. Ethnic diversity(With the same culture even) causes societal trust to decline.
b. Blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes.
c. There is a genetic IQ gap between races.
A: There are two types of diversity
-Diversity of culture and language
-Diversity of race>It is found that diversity of race when culture and language are the same does not effect trust significantly(2% difference at most) thus proving Civic nationalists correct.
>Diversity of culture and race causes a minor but significant decline in trust, however the effect is not seen in a good economy but a bad one. Also poverty still has a greater effect on trust than even this kind of diversity.
B. Now it is true that in the USA race is a stronger predictor of criminality than poverty. However single motherhood is another factor which is stronger than race.>Also the racial crime gap between Hispanics and whites seem to have closed" Declines in disparities were more pronounced when considering jail inmates of both sexes between 2005 and 2018 with the ratio of disparity per capita declining from 4.8 to 3.2 between blacks and non-Hispanic whites and 1.6 to 1.0 between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. ">Another factor is inequality which drives homicide rates.>over a 20-year period, the American states that had the greatest inequality in visible expenditure—spending on items such as clothing, jewellery, cars, and eating out—also suffered the most from violent crime. So if you’ve got it, don’t flaunt it—especially if your neighbours don’t have it as well.
However let us look at other countries.>In Brazil the Non-white homicide rate is double that of the white rate.>But their poverty rate is also double that of whites.
Finally the UNDOC(UN department on drugs and crime) statistics completely dismantles this argument.
The Homicide rate of Africa as a whole is 13.5
>However if we look at poor countries without any inequality or active conflicts we see that the homicide rate is ridiculously low, Dirt poor countries like Malawi, Benin, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Sao tome and Principe, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau have rates between 1-3.
>The countries which have high homicide rates in Africa are horribly unequal like S.Africa and friends or have an active conflict going on like CAR or the DRC or Mali.
>Finally we have the middle countries with rates between 3-8? Good rates but still slightly uncomfortable, the Horn of Africa all seem to share maybe it's due to the low-intensity conflict that is there or maybe something else.https://www.statista.com/statistics/867757/homicide-rate-brazil-ethnicity/https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-stark-relationship-between-income-inequality-and-https://www.commitmentoequity.org/publications_files/Brazil/CEQ_WP60_Pereira_Nov23_2016.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
C. I've looked into this topic, and It's too complex for me to unravel, however I would like to point a few things out.
>The famous IQ map of the world I posted Is wrong.>The famous IQ researcher Richard Lynn who made the map used the IQ of mentally retarded children in spain to come up with the numbers for E.Guinea, and many other such "mistakes"(Probably deliberate).>Another famous IQ researcher Eysenck has had his papers retracted or accepting money from tobacco companies I think.>But In the end this topic requires many more lines than what I'm capable of.
Against social Darwinism
<A persons IQ can fluctuate by 13 points in a few months thanks to wealth and poverty.
>In a series of experiments, the researchers found that pressing financial concerns had an immediate impact on the ability of low-income individuals to perform on common cognitive and logic tests. On average, a person preoccupied with money problems exhibited a drop in cognitive function similar to a 13-point dip in IQ, or the loss of an entire night’s sleep.
>To better gauge the influence of poverty in natural contexts, between 2010 and 2011 the researchers also tested 464 sugarcane farmers in India who rely on the annual harvest for at least 60 percent of their income. Because sugarcane harvests occur once a year, these are farmers who find themselves rich after harvest and poor before it. Each farmer was given the same tests before and after the harvest, and performed better on both tests post-harvest compared to pre-harvest.https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/08/29/poor-concentration-poverty-reduces-brainpower-needed-navigating-other-areas-life
This copypasta thread is very useful/
This has nothing to do with Marxism whatsoever
I'm a Socialist who was a right-winger once, and I would like to offer a powerful set of arguments against Ethnic nationalism grounded in historical materialism. Ethnic nationalism or fascism today is traditionalist, looking back to the past in a cowering fashion, as opposed to yesteryears fascists especially the Italian fascists who were modernist and futuristic and this age's communists who are futuristic and forward looking. This point will be crucial.
CRISPR: One of the fundamental principles undergirding ethnic nationalism is people with genetic affinity forming a close knit community. Ethnic nationalism stresses the role, importance and immutability of genetics. However here the liberal cliché wrong side of history holds true, with the advancement of gene editing technology ,Ethnic nationalism becomes Outdated as genetics become more fluid and less important.
Your enemy and Internationalism: Most people here are red pilled on the fact that International Capitalism is their enemy and it's least harmful effects(Yes least). But thus the conclusion should be reached that to destroy international capitalism an effort must be international. Even if the whole of Britain became an Ethnostate, it would be doomed if capitalism would be allowed to continue in the rest of the world, why?(for more info visit r/collapse)
The Fate of merry England: Even if England were to become a "Socialist" Ethnostate tomorrow it would be doomed in 80 years if capitalism in the whole earth did not stop and the whole of Europe turned into tundra and taiga thanks to the failure of the Gulf stream due to climate change. If England and Europe are to be saved action would have to be taken on an international scale.
An era of disturbance: This is an era of reaction, reaction to the ravages of neoliberal capitalism in Europe the Far-right might rise while in Latinoamerica the Left is rising, there is a Marxist-Leninist predicted to win the elections in Peru and in Chile Communist party won a victory and will take a prominent role in drafting it's constitution. In the USA it looks like there will be civil unrest between the emerging Left(Socialists and Communists) and the right(ethnic nationalists) in which the left will probably prevail .https://www.livescience.com/gulf-stream-slowing-climate-change.htmlhttps://insh.world/science/what-if-the-gulf-stream-stopped/https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/leftist-castillo-builds-lead-over-fujimori-ahead-peru-presidential-vote-poll-2021-05-23/https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/w/communists-score-major-victory-in-chilean-constitutional-convention-electionshttps://victimsofcommunism.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/10.19.20-VOC-YouGov-Survey-on-U.S.-Attitudes-Toward-Socialism-Communism-and-Collectivism.pdf
I would suggest using a stable, non-controversial site like leftypedia to store answers to common questions, but I think they're currently migrating so I would hold off for a month until things are more certain.
We need some covid related stuff
Right wingers are just insane about it, but libs are actively working against a decent global vaccination programtranshumanismTranshumanism
Maybe because it's a bad fucking idea to make untested drugs globally enforced? Look up the CDC website and find the VAERS data base. Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System. It’s climbing over 6300 deaths as a result of the covid19 experimental vaccine. And it’s estimated that it only captures between 1 and 10% of adverse effects and deaths. So you could conservatively multiply that number by 10. To contrast with other approved vaccines…. that’s more deaths and adverse effects than all other vaccines combined in the last 30 years. The FDA and CDC themselves noted numerous extreme and fatal symptoms from the vaccine but were pressured by the government and corporations to accept the drugs.
These vaccines are not made to nor do they prevent transmission, as was repeatedly said by the manufacturers, the CDC, NHS and Dr. Fauci. They only reduce it somewhat but not enough (up to 30%), depending on circumstances. Not so much with new variants. UK and IL reports from last week have the same conclusions.
According last week's AAP report (p.20), over 18 months a total of 335 children deaths with Covid out of 4 million official cases (however the 4 million may actually be exaggerated givene that hospitals have economic incentive - insurance money - to label anyone dead as a covid victim rather than a less profitable cause of death).
Even taking the 4 million at face value, that's 1/2 the 600+ annual child deaths from influenza
Not permitting someone to work in your home country is coercion (that's kind of a big deal when pondering the most basic medical ethics) While risks are officially "low", it is already known they're far from zero, and long term effects are unknown. You are talking forcing someone take a new kind of drug for which there is absolutely no long term safety data, in animals or humans. All produced by companies with long histories of unethical medical practices, and who are protected on a federal (and now global) level from any and all attempts to sue them in court for injury and death caused by their products. I won't even go into how the US government repeatedly spread Syphilis and radiation poisoning to people by claiming mandatory vaccines - (Tuskegee anyone?).
As a side note I found this post while scrolling a user named https://www.reddit.com/user/swordsaintzero/
out of a morbid curiosity of his acidic and legitimately toxic posts.
Apparently this guy is a long-winded smart-ass who thinks being constantly condescending and writing lengthy diatribes makes him smart… unfortunately reddit mods seem to agree. I'd think he was a bot (because he posts nearly everywhere) but I have yet to see an A.I. pull off such a good impression of a snooty 1990s college professor. Something of note is that at least one of their posts is a long anecdotal rant about how farmers and city boys (workers) are all entitled retards and that liberalism is the best thing ever! - or something along those lines. The sheer nose-raised condescension and utter disregard for the knowledge and thoughts (and anecdotes) of others is ironic beyond belief, considering that this same user constantly berates people for stating their experiences and belittles and dismisses anyone's concerns or thoughts.
TL;DR: Don't be like this scunt; In the words of a good man, "Everyone you ever meet has a full life worth of experiences, teachings, and fears that are all different from yours. No one fears something for "no reason", but ignoring the reason for their fear is a sure-fire way to make sure they keep fearing it."
What do you expect us to do about it? If someone doesn't realise that post is fake then I don't see how we can change their mind.
Shit I don't know, we used to have threads calling out such posts are fake for X and Y reasons.
don't argue with people who aren't receptive to arguments. If someone doesn't want to be convinced (e.g. most /pol/yps) don't waste time trying to convince them.
Some /pol/yps ARE receptive to Marxist thought, but they are few and far between. Making fun of "wagies" that defend their bosses is a useful strategy. Describe how ideology ultimately comes from material changes (e.g. multiculturalism being the product of economic globalization).
Remember: Only plant the seeds of Marxist thought in fertile grounds.
Can anyone confirm how true this story is? It sounds so inanely fantastical, that a South Korean Director would be kidnapped to make movies, I don't know whether to believe it or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abduction_of_Shin_Sang-ok_and_Choi_Eun-hee
>>6431>that pic>vaccine manufacturers aren't immune from liability in the UK
fuck. I just checked and that's right.
But previously I saw on the gov's website and an NHS worker told me that vaccine manufacturers *are* liable. Did they lie to me?egalitarianismEgalitarianism
>>6528>Did they lie to me?<Did the capitalist porkies lie to me?
I think you've answered your own question - personally I take anything a capitalist country claims with a hefty portion of salt until I can check and confirm how honest it is.
While I'm glad the mods appreciated by comment I've had the opportunity to talk with some more non-liberal trans people and read comments and social media of trans people.
A good comment from one of these people in regards to "transphobia" and other such things is the following: >Most people don't hate women or minorities, they just hate the (overbearing) activists>The majority of people don't hate the black family living in the South Side of Chicago just doing their part to try and get by, they hate the jerk activists who razed a bunch of small businesses to the ground because they could.*>People don't hate the woman who was abused by her ex-husband and is trying to move forward with her life, people hate the rude activists who hate men and blame anything and everything wrong in their lives on some vague "patriarchy". >People don't hate the 20-year-old transgender person who struggled with gender identity disorder and is now living a happy life with their new identity, people hate the militant transgender activists with crappy personalities and a screwed-up idea of social justice. >Some people are jerks and are worthy of our rage. Just make sure that we are directing your rage at the right people.
Also in regards to 'trans kids' >liberal idealogue: "Do you feel like you're a boy or a girl?"<5 year old kid with little to no conception of sexuality: "I don't know" >lib idealogue: "OK that means you're non binary and probably trans"
So-called activists forget that minority people are individuals, not voting blocks. You can’t lump gays in with Blacks and Muslims and say everything is hunky dory because “look at how marginalized they all are!” It’s this morbid fetish activists have of either simplifying groups or complicating individuals’ identities for the sake of power.
*As a comment on this comment, before people go batshit about it being action or whatnot - the burning of buildings during the BLM protests and the raiding of small businesses (not talking about Target here) were wholly uncalled for, it was just smashing shit for the sake of it, and then using a cry of "revolution" to justify themselves, this is an inherent part of any social movement and the more liberal and capitalist-funded a movement may be, the more likely this will occur. The Bolshevik communists despite their estrangement from capitalism did have groups and members engaging in pointless vandalism and banditry but the Communist movement did not leave these people uncriticized or unpunished for discrediting the name of the Revolution with their actions. This same principle is not applied by the movements in the USA.
amerikaner sind so lost lol
The thinking where "only certain people can become Marxists" reeks of brainwashing and indoctrination. Nazis believe anyone, regardless of colour and creed, can become a Nazi and believe in Nazi ideology. There is no concept of "susceptibility."
I mean it's highly unlikely that one could convince, say, a former SS officer to become a leftist (or just not be a rightoid) but you're definitely right that this kind of "only some can be communist, and fuck those who aren't" is ideological nonsense that ironically resembles the kind of rightoid propaganda that anti-communist people like to yammer on about.
>>6641>I mean it's highly unlikely that one could convince, say, a former SS officer to become a leftist
because it's literally logically impossible. There is only one truth. For example, if the sky was blue, then the truth would be that the sky is blue. The sky isn't grey or black, piss yellow or babyshit green. It's blue. Truth is a singular concept; there is no such thing as "multiple truths."
In that same vain, lets try to place various political beliefs - that being answers to the question of "How do we reduce human suffering in a society?" - on a left-to-right spectrum. Notice how there's no real acceptance that there's an "absolute" Socialism. There's no belief that's 100% Leftist, specifically. It becomes a fractal of beliefs at that point. Is Marxism more Left than Leninism? Is it more left to have a strong, central government or a communal decision making process? Etc. etc.
On the right, there's nothing further right than Fascism. Fascism has it's own distinct flavours, sure. But nobody questions their status as "the furthest of Far-Right." Is British Fascism more far right than Nazism or Italian Fascism? Even though Mosley's beliefs took a lot from Syndicalism, nobody ever has questioned the status of British Fascism as being equally right-winged as every other ideology. It's a subconscious recognizing of Fascism or Nazism or whatever as "The Truth." It's singular, there are no fractals of what's more right-wing, just a simple matter of the fine details.
>>6642>There is only one truth
Philosophy101 shit>The sky isn't grey or black, piss yellow or babyshit green. It's blue. Truth is a singular concept; there is no such thing as "multiple truths." In that same vain, lets try to place various political beliefs - that being answers to the question of "How do we reduce human suffering in a society?" - on a left-to-right spectrum.
How can a simple left to right spectrum encapsulate political thought? Nevermind that, how tf is whether the sky is blue in any way comparable to political thought? If anything, it's marxism that is "the sky is blue" of politics.>Is Marxism more Left than Leninism?
…can you define what you think either one of things are? Because you are speaking nonsense>On the right, there's nothing further right than Fascism. Fascism has it's own distinct flavours, sure. But nobody questions their status as "the furthest of Far-Right." It's a subconscious recognizing of Fascism or Nazism or whatever as "The Truth."
Setting aside the ridiculous premise that whether something is considered left or right is in any way indicative of reality or any universal truth, how is that something exclusive to fascism? If you asked any random person, would they not correctly say that communism is as far left as you can go? Would not any communist consider themselves as such too? Even completely different tendencies, from Maoism to Leftcom to Anarchism, do they not all uphold Marxism as an universal truth? Is the far right itself not divided on multiple issues, from race to economics? It honestly scares me that a person wrote all that thinking he was saying something of worth. If you are a fascoid, then I can't say I'm surprised you have such a basic kindergarden understanding of politics and reality in general.>>6634
Are you illiterate? That's not what his point. He's saying some people are more receptive than others to certain ideas, which is a fact. Parable of the sower my guy.
>>6642>there is no such thing as "multiple truths."
Not quite, there are singular objective truths (very hard to dinf in history and politics), but everyone has perspectives that are true to them.>fascism is right wing's extreme
Well yes, and? A person isn't born a fascist, not Hitler, nor Himmler nor anyone. People are almost never born evil, or fascist, but we can condemn the behavior of an adult, but we can also understand that while it is extremely hard to to make someone change what they believe to be true, it is possible, just as it is possible for a communist or leftist to become a fascist or nazi, because people can change. A social experiment called Third Wave demonstrated that people can become caught up in monstrous ideologies or ideas or acts and only understand their wrong doing after being forced to consider the objective truth of their act. Otherwise, why would fascists dehumanize their victims? Because they try to justify this to themselves because most still have ethics and morals, and so they still have a chance to be saved from themselves, which is why the German Wehrmacht and people were not executed or attacked en masse for Nazi warcrimes. The Nazis and killers were punished, but many were rehabilitated. It's a complex ethical and moral question which most people frankly do not want to go into because it is so much easier to say "fascists are subhumans to be killed" rather than to try and stop and save these deluded people. The same applies to those who allow such dogmatism, because it is easier to believe such ideas as right and to let it occur than attempt to gainsay such ideologues and risk being a victim of theirs as well.
TL;DR: Nazis are victims of their own lack/suppression of empathy through dehumanization, and by rejecting the possibility that a reactionary may be rehabilitated and so saved, we engage in the same dehumanization by labeling them as sub-human monsters. A reactionary member of the working class is still a part of the working class, merely ones who are not class conscious or have lost faith in class consciousness. People rarely fight, kill or promote monstrous acts and ideologies out of sadistic desire, they usually do so because they want material benefits to live in peace and to gain betterment for themselves and their kin. After all, few people truly fight for or against an ideology, but for what that ideology represents for them. People wouldn't hate communism is they didn't think
it would harm them and their family, just as they would hate capitalism is they truly understood how it does harm them and their family. At the same time, it's is the system one must hate not necessarily the non-class-conscious people who live in it, even if you must fight them to free them. >>6643>saying some people are more receptive
I think the point made is that you can't tell unless you make a sincere and significant effort. The USSR did execute and imprison anti-communists, but also tried to put some effort in rehabilitating people.
Post copypastas and take your arguments elsewhere
Nice quads, but technically to expect each copy-paste to go unquestioned and unargued is absurd
>>6634>only certain people can become Marxists
That is not what I said. I was saying that it is a waste of resources trying to convince people who don't want to be convinced. Only try to class-pill people if your audience has an open mind and wants to learn something.
>>6643>How can a simple left to right spectrum encapsulate political thought?
It doesn't. Do you have assburgers because honestly it seems like you have problems with abstraction and making connections between two concepts to aid the understanding of another concept.>Marxism is all the same!
Then why do you people have large scale arguments over so many different things? From hatred of tankie "dudebros", to the role of gays, to central or decentralized authority, there's so many divided issues on the political left. On the right, we just hate gays, want ethnic homogenity, and a few other things. There's generally an overarching singular belief where - once again - finer details like economic policy or how to deal with the transition from our current society into our ideal society are to be handled.>>6659>entire argument is based on the idea that "FASHISM EVULLLLLLLLLLL"
wrong, incorrect even.
>>6685>entire argument is based on the idea that "FASHISM EVULLLLLLLLLLL"
Nice strawman faggot, good job with your awful reading comprehension, since morality of fascism wasn't the point at all. However since you bring it up; fascism ideologically is based on hateful or flawed principles that are justified with shallow platitudes. Historically fascism has only caused misery, stagnation and death for the majority of those who experience it - especially in the long-run - part-taking in unethical and criminal behavior in 'achieving' this.
>There's generally an overarching singular belief
Not that anon, but yes, we are aware of this, dumbass, if you lurked moar, you'd see this come up in discussion on the site. >we just hate gays, want ethnic homogenity
That's staggeringly incorrect, given that there are plenty of literal fags and transhumanists in the rightoid ranks as well. That's also not the biggest part or problem of your "groups" because the main issue is the promotion of socio-economics systems that are illogical, inefficient and finally ethically abhorrent. >inb4 'no u' with "muh gorillions"
Don't even start this shit.
>>6686>Historically fascism has only caused misery, stagnation and death for the majority of those who experience it - especially in the long-run - part-taking in unethical and criminal behavior in 'achieving' this.
Proofs? idk man seems pretty telling when it takes literally fucking everyone to take out a country the size of texas and only actually taking them out when they started running out of resources to deal with the fact everyone was dogpiling on them.>That's staggeringly incorrect, given that there are plenty of literal fags and transhumanists in the rightoid ranks as well. That's also not the biggest part or problem of your "groups" because the main issue is the promotion of socio-economics systems that are illogical, inefficient and finally ethically abhorrent. >literal fags and transhumanists
we don't accept them.
also why are you socalist when iphone 5 communism 600,000,000?
>>6689> literally fucking everyone to take out a country the size of texas
Holy kek your understanding of WW-II is fucking middle-school tier.
Germany started WW-II and general expansionism because its economy was close to collapse and relied on pillaging others for resources because trade wasn't cutting it. As for "literally everyone" Germany had the economic resources and support of all of Western Europe with significant funding and support from companies like Ford, GM, General Electric, Rockafeller's Standard Oil Co (which continued to provide oil to German submarines until 1942), IBM and MANY more. The British Royal family literally gave away gold to the Nazi German economy to support it and promoted Hitler. The German economy on average was actually worse in Nazi Germany and relied on the War to keep it functioning at all, a literal military-industrial complex run on slave labor of Osterbeiters and workers paid worse wages than in the shitty Weimar Republic.
Source is pdf related (among other things). >we don't accept them
Lurking on /pol/ has revealed quite the opposite for me>why are you socalist when iphone 5 communism 600,000,000
Now I know you're baiting, I applaud you, you got me seriously replying up to this point, kek.
>>6698>As for "literally everyone" Germany had the economic resources and support of all of Western Europe with significant funding and support from companies like Ford, GM, General Electric, Rockafeller's Standard Oil Co (which continued to provide oil to German submarines until 1942), IBM and MANY more.
proofs? not reading your book, you need to provide the evidence in a way that's clear and concise.>Lurking on /pol/ has revealed quite the opposite for me
literally any actual group of online nazis hate gays. if me and like 400 other people walked on here and started spouting out about how the holocaust is good, and jannies didn't get rid of those posts, and then I say you guys support the holocaust, that wouldn't really mean you support the holocaust. In that same vein, the anonymity of 4chan provides an easy way to astroturf a belief that usually is only reflected on /pol/. Homofascists don't fucking exist, Fascists exist. It's nothing more than an online persona.>Now I know you're baiting, I applaud you, you got me seriously replying up to this point, kek.
not b8ing, just saying that as a simple way to question why so many technological advancements happened in nations that allowed for the free exchange of goods with private ownership as opposed to socialist nations?>inb4 ___ was made by the soviets or some shit
>>6703>proofs?<I can't read
NTA but isn't this pretty much a well known fact?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust>why so many technological advancements happened in nations that allowed for the free exchange of goods with private ownership as opposed to socialist nations?
You might want to provide proofs or elaborate more on this statement, because from film montage and the first film school, to unprecedented speeds of industrialization, to the first nuclear reactor, to fucking space travel and etc., I sure as fuck remember the 20th century a lot different. The first mobile phone was literally developed in the USSR, so yes, socialism is when iphone. But I guess if you prefer capitalist innovation, I'll leave you to your Boss Baby 2™ and Freedom Phone™.
>>6703>Not reading your book
Too bad then, given that the book is pure economics that explains it clearly and concisely >literally any actual group of online nazis hate gays
And proceed to also crossdress and behave like sexually ill retards this has been true since Nazi Germany itself pic 1 and 2 related as EXAMPLES of a widespread behavior, also private discords of nazi transhumanists I've seen both personally or screenshotted by others. There's literally a famous photo of that one neo nazi in drag sitting on a Nazi flag and Seig Heiling. >as opposed to socialist nations
The USSR accounted for more than 50% of the patents of its time, and that was just registered ones. Literally the first cellular phone was created by a Soviet innovator in the 1950s and was available in limited usage. The list of Soviet inventions is so long you literally could fill a book just listing them.
And no free market innovation is not better because market pressures ensure that most products are just consumerist gadgets for the most part that don't actually have much utility, shit like the slap-chop, shamwow and other garbage that is just reselling existing products under new brand names ad nauseum.
Pic 3 related
Then you're ironically one of the most ignorant people I've seen, which given modern trends isn't saying much.
For your 600 gorillion see link related as I'm tired of repeating this ad nauseum. If you're going to say you won't read an already simplified explanation, Imma tell you to learn to read and stop living off meme formats and shitty infographics. But if you're too lazy, see pic 1https://archive.is/XjX2k
KekI'll admit it's been a REALLY long time since that shit came up. Pic 2 and 3 related. Also since you want to use analogies - complaining about iphones is like a king telling a merchant-peasant revolt that they can't use the pitchforks and carts made under feudalism. in summaary there is no ethical consumption under capitalism because there is no way for you to actually feasibly ensure that, say the coffee you drink to stay up at work isn't being farmed by child slaves in South America or the cotton clothing or nylon clothing isn't woven in 3rd world sweatshops.
Now for iphones specifically
Capitalism did not, in fact, make the iPhone. Labor did. The ‘-ism’ merely determines who gets paid. Also, most of the technology present in the iPhone actually originated in the State sector, not the so-called ‘free market.’ The only capitalist part of the iphone, is its marketing. Its actual design, components etc. etc. are government funded and researched thus making the phone itself a product of the state. Making it a publicly sold item doesn't make it a capitalist creation, it is a capitalist use of a non-capitalist creation.
As Mariana Mazzucato writes in an article for New Scientist, “In [Apple’s] early stages the company received government cash support via a $500,000 small business investment company grant. And every technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone owes its vision and funding to the state: the internet, GPS, touchscreen displays and even the voice-activated smartphone assistant Siri all received state cash. The US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) bankrolled the internet, and the CIA and the military funded GPS. So, although the US is sold to us as the model example of progress through private enterprise, innovation there has benefited from a very interventionist state.”
It is not the case even in theory that capitalism or ‘the free market,’ made the iPhone. At least, not the sort of capitalism people who make this argument usually advocate for.
Steve Jobs, just like his contemporaries like Musk and Bezos and Gates was a trust-fund kid. Rich parents with rich corporate connections, so he had no trouble taking Steve Wozniak's creations and making them big,.
I would also like to mention that slave labor is used to mine cobalt in the Congo, which eventually makes its way into iPhone batteries. So you can claim (falsely) credit to capitalism for the iphones tech and take the L for its use of slave labor OR admit that it has nothing to do with capitalism and is just a product within a system and the most capitalist part of the phone is the various social media apps and it's planned obsolescence that promotes consumerism.
Oh and I don't use iphones and never have, they're garbage, like all Apple products have been since the 2010s.
I hate this filter
>>6705>film montage and the first film school
literally "who the fuck cares" moment>unprecedented speeds of industrialization
they happened in socialist nations to try to bridge themselves with the developed world; to no fault of said socialists, might i add. it is very impressive how both the Soviets and Chinese industrialized so quickly, but the latter clearly paints that there was definitely more than a few caveats.>to the first nuclear reactor
only one you had>to fucking space travel
who the fuck cares when you got people starving>>6706>The list of Soviet inventions is so long you literally could fill a book just listing them
then fill the fucking reply>all that shit going "NO UR GAY"
Let's start with David Thorstad, a political activist born in 1941. Active in Trotskyist politics, even going so far to become a member of the Upper West Side branch of the Socialist Worker's Party, even becoming a staff writer for their newspaper, the Militant. In 1973 however, he left, citing the lack of action towards the gay liberation movement. He later became the president of the Gay Activists Alliance.
He later went on to found NAMBLA, a literal group of pedophiles.
This is well documented behavior, versus a post that literally could've been made by you, yes, you specifically for the sake of making me think "oh well he's right." The second one, eh nothing shows up in reverse image search, and if this really was a true nazi, do you know how many fucking articles I'd find with that shit plastered all over?>>6708>Capitalism did not, in fact, make the iPhone. Labor did.
My body did not make my shit. The food did. My body has absolutely nothing to do with the production of poop.
anyways yeah fuck the feds, but it was the capitalist system that encouraged the slamming of those different ideas together.
>>6715<film>literally "who the fuck cares" moment
I take it you don't watch movies at all? Because Soviet advances in film were groundbreaking and changed the medium forever. We still use techniques today first invented in Soviet film. And in case you haven't realized, going "who cares" when you get proven wrong only makes you look like a child, which you probably are.>they happened in socialist nations to try to bridge themselves with the developed world
No shit? Both Russia and China and the entire eastern bloc were decades and decades behind the west when the revolutions happened, and yet they not only managed to catch up, but surpass them. In China's case, they not only ended famine in a country where they had 1800 famines in 2000 years, but they also raised their life expectancy faster than any other country in history. My country literally went from neo-feudalist agrarian state to fully industrialized in just a couple decades, meanwhile a couple decades of capitalism damn near fuckin de-industrialized us kek.>only one you had>you got people starving
Now you're just making up shit because you have no argument, cope<space travel>w-who cares!!!!
And here it is, the biggest COPE I've ever seen. Communism put humanity into space, meanwhile the best achievement fascoids have is losing every war they fought and getting hung upside down, LMAO.
>>6715>My body did not make my shit. The food did. My body has absolutely nothing to do with the production of poop
Imagine having such a retarded false equivalency because you have no argument>it was the capitalist system that encouraged the slamming of those different ideas
The government already assessed the idea of putting the technologies together but found little practical use for it and shelved it for later, and again this combination of things already existed repeatedly before the iphone but because the people who created them were trust-fund kids, they didn't have the marketing capital to make it big money, and that's ON TOP of the GOVERNMENT FUNDING AND SUPPORTING STEVE JOBS. >then fill the fucking reply
Ok retard; here's a VERY abridged list of major inventions and innovations:
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics_in_the_Soviet_Union >David Thorstad, a political activist born in 1941. Active in Trotskyist politic
Imagine shifting goalposts this hard to "we're not gay!" to "You're the gay" while addressing nothing about what I said.
Trotskyists and American leftist groups and idpol groups like NAMBLA and GAA are a bunch of faggots who can pose as socialists all they like, that doesn't make them socialist. >Documented
AND!? None of these have any relevance to the USSR or actual socialism. Hell Faggots like your example were literally funded by the CIA, Trotsky spend time touring fascist Italy during a time when Mussolini was persecuting and imprisoning 'communists'. I wonder why the fuck he got a free pass? Maybe it was because he got kicked from the USSR for nationalistic, fascistic ideology? HMMMMM!!!!
There is lots of literature documenting Nazi homoshit as well, so you're not proving anything by saying "N-no u">nothing shows up in reverse image search
Then you're lying because I saved that photo from a public article and there are many of them
So yeah cope harder.
Not that anon, but>socialist nations to try to bridge themselves with the developed world
LOL, the USSR was literally under a Gold Blockade since the mid 1920s and could only export wood and grain to buy anything, they literally had medieval level agriculture, no industry and the country had just fought a Civil war with losses comparable to WW1, especially since The USA, Britain, France Japan and many more attempted a foreign intervention using guns, bombs, gas and more against people armed with old rifles and salvaged cannons as well as some other old equipment. And yet within a decade the standard of living jumped to a modern level and with fewer losses than during the 100+ years of the Western Industrial Revolution. >only one you had
The USSR innovated liquid metal and fast neutron reactors, created reactors much smaller than their contemporaries and had more nuclear power than the USA. >who the fuck cares when you got people starvin<TFW the CIA reports in 1973 that Soviet people on average ate more calories than the USA<TFW the CIA reported the same thing in the 80s and that the USSR did not lack for food even in the 1950s<TFW the USSR was the first to stop using food ration cards after WW-2 in 1947
Seethe meme-fag see pis 1-3
don't care about movies.>country where they had 1800 famines in 2000 years
literally proven to be caused by retards trying to stop birds>And here it is, the biggest COPE I've ever seen. Communism put humanity into space, meanwhile the best achievement fascoids have is losing every war they fought and getting hung upside down, LMAO.
well shit we sure as hell aren't going back because we need to stay here and focus all our attention on the poor little blacks who can't seem to get a goddamn job or whateverthefuck. Ironically enough, the only people who are still going into space today are private interests. What a fucking shock! Didn't see that one coming!>>6730>Imagine having such a retarded false equivalency because you have no argument
explain how the production of feces requiring both the body and the food is not comparable to the production of product requiring both the capital and the labour.>here's a VERY abridged list of major inventions and innovations:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_inventions
here's ones from America.
There's a total of 777 American inventions, while there's only 181 soviet inventions. The Soviet Union achieved 2.63 inventions per year. The United States, however, achieved 3.17 new inventions per year. Fucking retard, do your goddamn maths.>Imagine shifting goalposts this hard to "we're not gay!" to "You're the gay" while addressing nothing about what I said. >addressing nothing
already addressed it. please show me the post that has a particular lack of not-addressing-shit. Highlight it in a big, piss yellow brush on MS Paint, then come back to me.
also none of the soldiers were identified. so fuck off, faggot.>TFW the CIA reports in 1973 that Soviet people on average ate more calories than the USA
so the cia is now a trustable source? literally 12 seconds ago you were like "CIA BAD FOUNDED NAZI TROTSKY" or some shit.
>>6731>the only people who are still going into space today are private interests>>the only people
Fucking cope kek>explain how the production of feces requiring both the body and the food is not comparable to the production of product requiring both the capital and the labour.
Key word capital, not capitalism. Obviously, a worker needs a factory, and a factory needs a worker, but the capitalist having private ownership of the factory doesn't fulfill any purpose except being a useless middleman. Using your fucked up broken analogy, imagine a guy owning your body, getting to dictate what you consume.>The Soviet Union achieved 2.63 inventions per year. The United States, however, achieved 3.17 new inventions per year. Fucking retard, do your goddamn maths.
Does that math take in account that one of them was literally fucking demolished not just by two world wars, but also by being invaded by every imperial army on Earth, while the other could comfortably sit on its ass and count the money it made on the backs of the rest of the world? No shit the wealth capital of Earth could afford to do more than a country that was a backwater agrarian shithole just decades prior, and yet those numbers are very close, despite the comparison itself being completely dishonest. What would happen if you were to compare the USSR to countries similar stages of development, I wonder? >so the cia is now a trustable source?
Wait, you're telling me the CIA is lying in its internal documents? I think you might genuinely be braindead lmao
I'd also like to point out that this entire thread is you getting BTFO with charts and evidence, and you haven't been able to provide anything except cheap gotchas. You've even had to latch on to the US because not even you can name a single good thing fascoids have provided to the world K E K. Not sure what you're even trying to argue at this point.
>>6731 >don't care about movies
Then you're a brainlet>explain how the production of feces
No, I won't because your comparison doesn't make any sense or parallel the argument made, you fucking retard, you're just deflecting the argument because you can't disprove the fact that every step of iphones being created, from the technologies made, to it being combined, to it being funded, to the resources to produce them being acquired and to these resources being processed and put together into a phone, is all the result of labor and the only capitalist part of the phone is it's planned obsolescence and marketing and which are both negative aspects. >here's ones from America <From wikipedia, the site that is based in America and run by biased pro-American mods
I cited wikipedia as an example of basic list of things, from a biased standpoint. I can't list every invention from the USSR because that's the same thing as saying "just write an entire book". >only 181 soviet inventions
Imagine not reading what I wrote about it being abridged>do de maths<proceeds to show some bullshit numbers based on examples of innovations rather than the full list
Again, are you retarded? Or do you not understand what ABRIDGED and BIAS means? I'm not even going into the fact that the USSR didn't join international patenting until later. Moreover that's American inventions over the entire history of the USA, which was around since the 18th century, so 2 centuries more with at least 1 extra century as an industrialized country.
An actual list closer to the full list (even though it doesn't take into account soviet innovations of things like basic construction) is https://alpinabook.ru/catalog/book-izobreteno-v-sssr/ >already addressed it
You addressed nothing>show me
I can't show what isn't there>none of the soldiers were identified
Imagine reaching this hard, SEETHE AND COPE>CIA BAD FOUNDED NAZI TROTSKY
This is not a dichotomy, the CIA funded liberal movements under a "sochulust" LARP and fascists to use as provocateurs to muddy the water, this does not mean that their internal reports of the USSR are untrustworthy when their reports are their source of information based on which they make tactical decisions, you absolute ignoramus. Imagine having such a lack of nuance on how subterfuge works.
>>6735>unga bunga it doesn't make sense
stop being a retard and then you'd understand my poop-based economy insights.>I cited wikipedia as an example of basic list of things, from a biased standpoint. I can't list every invention from the USSR because that's the same thing as saying "just write an entire book".
And it'd be the same for me.>it's abridged!!!
do you think the american list isn't abridged too you dishonest fuck? Do you genuinely believe that Wiki-fucking-pedia's list of soviet inventions is perfectly small because of everything BUT soviet failure to develop due to socialism discouraging making new ideas for personal gain? But the american list? I'd be sure as hell glad to hear you say in 3 months the list is 100% full, nothings cut out or shortened.>I'm not even going into the fact that the USSR didn't join international patenting until later.
Does your retarded ass think that Wikipedia editors seriously thought about international patents? I'd be more willing to believe that they just went through developments at the time completely separate from their legal patenting.>Moreover that's American inventions over the entire history of the USA, which was around since the 18th century, so 2 centuries more with at least 1 extra century as an industrialized country.
Why do you think I adjusted the number for years? If anything, that doesn't help. The soviet union spent it's near whole history industrialized, and still pumped out less than the United States did while it had basically 2/3 years as a pre-industrial society. Fuck.>This is not a dichotomy, the CIA funded liberal movements under a "sochulust" LARP and fascists to use as provocateurs to muddy the water, this does not mean that their internal reports of the USSR are untrustworthy when their reports are their source of information based on which they make tactical decisions, you absolute ignoramus. Imagine having such a lack of nuance on how subterfuge works.
it's not hard to believe they just shit out these things to make you believe that muh socialism is the best solution
>>6735>Fucking cope kek
am i wrong>and a factory needs a worker, but the capitalist having private ownership of the factory doesn't fulfill any purpose except being a useless middleman.
then we get rid of the capitalist, and then someone realizes everyone doesn't know what to do, so someone naturally takes control as what happens in all social animals aaaand we're back to the status quo.>muh two world wars>invaded by imperial army (despite being the imperial army lel)>ignoring the fact that we've spent the last how many days going "THE SOYCHALISTS REBUILT THE USSR"
the state. the only excuse is the lack of men due to world war 2.>What would happen if you were to compare the USSR to countries similar stages of development, I wonder?
do it bitch>Wait, you're telling me the CIA is lying in its internal documents?
not really "internal" if they're public you stupid fuck. not really a "conspiracy theory" if it's been admitted to and proven, either.
>>6731>Calculating the average rate of inventions by counting Wikipedia category inclusions
So this is the power of right-wing ideology
>>6740>am i wrong
I literally just sent you a pic of China's space station. Are you not just a cretin, but blind too? Do I need to remind you that NASA had to hitch rides on Russian rockets too? The only example of private interest in space travel anyway would be SpaceX, except the only reason Muskrat's doing it is for military contracts lmao.>NOOOOO if we get rid of the capitalist, nobody will know what to do anymore!!!!
…you forget to work without someone reminding you to? Are you a fucking NPC? Scratch that, I forgot who I was talking to for a sec lol. Nevermind the fact that I wasn't arguing against leadership you complete braindead idiot, but private ownership. Is moving the goalposts all you can do?
I would ask if you have ever been in an union also, but with how much you're deepthroating your boss's boot here, I'm gonna guess no.>muh two world wars
Going "muh" is not an argument.>>invaded by imperial army (despite being the imperial army lel)
Don't even know what you're trying to say here lmfao. Russia being an empire previously means they didn't get invaded?
And you realize I brought up all that specifically to contrast it with the US, right? Did the USA get Barbarossa'd and I just forgot about it? Were they at one point attacked by literally the entire world? Literally, yes, the point is that the USSR was able to achieve all that while also having to rebuild their country from complete ruin, multiple times, when they already were decades and decades behind. You can't argue the USA and USSR were in equal situations unless you are mentally challenged and historically illiterate, which I guess you are. And yet the USSR caught up. Because socialism is superior. Keep coping and seething lmfao>ignoring the fact that we've spent the last how many days going "THE SOYCHALISTS REBUILT THE USSR"
And yet you haven't been able to argue anything against it. So why keep doing it? You were the one who changed the subject to this in the first place, your original point was that fascism was DA TROOF or whatever the fuck, but it didn't even take you 1 post to completely give up on arguing that LMAO. The absolute state of fascoids.>do it bitch
Already been done https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661
inb4 "i cant read">not really "internal" if they're public you stupid fuck
The CIA's declassified documents aren't really their internal documents? What, are they just releasing documents that completely contradict their official line on communism for shits and giggles? Retard lmao
Stop posting off-topic arguements and derailing the thread, anyone who does so will get a ban
>>6740>am i wrong
Yes > we get rid of the capitalist, and then someone realizes everyone doesn't know what to do
Are you retarded or do you actually think that managers and bureau and factory leaders didn't exist in the USSR? Why do you think MiGs are named after Mikoyan and Gurevich? >we're back to the status quo
In anarchism maybe>despite being the imperial army
DO you not comprehend what a Civil War is? Or military factioning? >we've spent the last how many days going "THE SOYCHALISTS REBUILT THE USSR"
They did, and the only soy is from nazi copelets >muh two world wars
Unlike the USA which was untouched, the USSR and Russia lost a massive amount of its population - mostly civilian, especially teens, young men and children - and had roughly 1/5 of its landmass and surrounding factories, farms and more burnt to the ground and destroyed >do it bitch
I don't need to, given that this was already done several times (pic 1 related) and the assessment was that the USSR, was superior to capitalist systems it was parallel to and closer to the level of the USA and West Europe, surpassing most of the latter except for West Germany and other main NATO states which were essentially held up by US funding. Meanwhile the USSR was rebuilding itself, and simultaneously rebuilding most of East Europe and bringing feudal China to the modern age. >not really "internal" if they're public
Do you comprehend the meaning of DECLASSIFIED FILES?! Do you comprehend the Freedom of Information Act? >not really a "conspiracy theory" if it's been admitted to and proven
Your understanding of a conspiracy theory is braindead. Watergate remains a "conspiracy theory" despite being proven because that's what it was.
>>6739>unga bunga it doesn't make sense<Im ad homming becuz you won't engage my fallacy!
Can you be any more of a shit-eating faggot?>And it'd be the same for me
*sigh* you're missing the point entirely you double-dumbass >do you think the american list isn't abridged
Not as abridged as the Soviet one due to language barriers and biases not being existent. >soviet failure to develop due to socialism discouraging making new ideas for personal gain
Imagine intentionally being this obtuse just to push an openly fallacy like this. >I'd be sure as hell glad to hear you say in 3 months the list is 100% full<3 months
I'm not engaging a retard or a pretending retard for that long buddy >hat Wikipedia editors seriously thought about international patents
No you moronic fuck, but most inventions in the USA are widespread knowledge because this is the country they're from. No average joe is going to know that the USSR put the first Rover on the moon or the first photos of the Moon's dark side, but they can tell you about Apollo 11. These same average joes who also run wikipedia. >I adjusted the number for years
With bad math when I outright stated these are examples of what was created, not the NUMBER of creations you fucking speedreader. >nited States did while it had basically 2/3 years as a pre-industrial society
The Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions began in the 1850s and onward, so no, 2/3 of the USA's history as a sovereign nation did not in fact include it being pre-industrial, especially given that it was already on the same level as Britain by the 1850s, a very well developed country. >not hard to believe they just shit out these things to make you believe that muh socialism is the best solution
To what purpose? The Socialist system of the USSR has 0 resemblance to any of the inane faggotry of the American liberal left, not to mention that these documents are not common knowledge, and you have to either look them up or learn from word of mouth (or text) by people who did read and download the documents. You keep shifting goalposts away from the arguments with retarded whataboutisms that aren't even directly related to the topic at hand. You screech about Gorillions and address none of it, you screech about iphones and then ignore the entire thing for cherrypicking a portion and making a false equivalency. Stop embarrassing yourself with these inane mental gymnastics and strawman arguments.
Nice of you to chime in right before I posted… 4 days later.
>>6742>I literally just sent you a pic of China's space station.>1 fucking space station
kys nig>…you forget to work without someone reminding you to? Are you a fucking NPC?
Nah. Can't say the same for others though, which is why the whole class thing was made in the first place you stupid fuck.>Going "muh" is not an argument.>muh "not an argument">Don't even know what you're trying to say here lmfao. Russia being an empire previously means they didn't get invaded?
And you realize I brought up all that specifically to contrast it with the US, right? Did the USA get Barbarossa'd and I just forgot about it? Were they at one point attacked by literally the entire world? Literally, yes, the point is that the USSR was able to achieve all that while also having to rebuild their country from complete ruin, multiple times, when they already were decades and decades behind. You can't argue the USA and USSR were in equal situations unless you are mentally challenged and historically illiterate, which I guess you are. And yet the USSR caught up. Because socialism is superior. Keep coping and seething lmfao>socialism is superior>collapsed less than 100 years in because of minor policy changes>inb4 "muh cia" or some shit
lel>fascism was DA TROOF or whatever the fuck, but it didn't even take you 1 post to completely give up on arguing that LMAO.>"YOU CHANGED IT"
No, you did. I said why it's the truth and you immediately took it into a slew of lies and gayshit.>https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661
First table shows the estimated economic value, that means firstly the food and then all the production of things outside of it.
Ignoring the fact there are no, according to the studies, "Rich" Socialist countries which can imply that there's an issue with scaling the economic prosperity, it seems pretty sus that the study states that all of these things that aren't really obvious such as child mortality and education are higher than in capitalist countries. It could be possible that they're lying about it. It could be possible the standards of education are generally lower, meaning more people can pass education. It could be that said education has different policies around it. It could be education is used as a political tool, making attendance compulsory to an extreme. Etc. etc. Blah blah blah, bunch of shit here and there that says that these things need to be backed up with more measurable from outside sources.>The CIA's declassified documents aren't really their internal documents?
Why yes, that is what I believe is going on. Why would the CIA go out and reveal what they've been portraying as Enemy #1 is actually the best, especially with all this "LGBT+ Socialism" shit going around? It'd be a huge wasted opportunity.
nah>Are you retarded or do you actually think that managers and bureau and factory leaders didn't exist in the USSR?
So there were classes. Does that really make it Socialism?>In anarchism maybe
not really but okay.>DO you not comprehend what a Civil War is? Or military factioning?>what are proxy wars>what was the invasion of poland>what was the funding of socialist uprisings in other european countries
fucking retard>They did, and the only soy is from nazi copelets
They did. But I'm out here being a based uygha and you out there being a cringe uygha.>Unlike the USA which was untouched, the USSR and Russia lost a massive amount of its population - mostly civilian, especially teens, young men and children - and had roughly 1/5 of its landmass and surrounding factories, farms and more burnt to the ground and destroyed
Fair point, fair point.>I don't need to, given that this was already done several times (pic 1 related) and the assessment was that the USSR, was superior to capitalist systems it was parallel to and closer to the level of the USA and West Europe, surpassing most of the latter except for West Germany and other main NATO states which were essentially held up by US funding. Meanwhile the USSR was rebuilding itself, and simultaneously rebuilding most of East Europe and bringing feudal China to the modern age.
Already talked about the various counterpoints on the integrity of the data made in other post.>Do you comprehend the meaning of DECLASSIFIED FILES?! Do you comprehend the Freedom of Information Act?
Again why would the CIA be honest about anything?>Your understanding of a conspiracy theory is braindead. Watergate remains a "conspiracy theory" despite being proven because that's what it was.
A conspiracy theory, particularly nowadays, isn't to mean anything that says "___ politician is being a meenie bobinie and did a no-no!" It's a theory that uses usually circumstantial evidence, sometimes hard evidence, to state something that hasn't been admitted to.
MKUltra being something that happened is a fact. Not a conspiracy theory.
MKUltra being a thing that's still happening through various means is a conspiracy theory.
>>6747>Can you be any more of a shit-eating faggot?
cope and sneethe>*sigh* you're missing the point entirely you double-dumbass
lmao and you can't even explain how. why can't you explain how? You're clearly not afraid of writing a whole fucking paragraph to disprove one line.>Not as abridged as the Soviet one due to language barriers and biases not being existent.
So then why the fuck don't you go out and help make this knowledge public? I know at least one of you fucktards are in some sort of a high-standing position at wikipedia, seeing their history with anything further-right than bush.>Imagine intentionally being this obtuse just to push an openly fallacy like this.
no proofs>No you moronic fuck, but most inventions in the USA are widespread knowledge because this is the country they're from. No average joe is going to know that the USSR put the first Rover on the moon or the first photos of the Moon's dark side, but they can tell you about Apollo 11. These same average joes who also run wikipedia.
Then once again, make that knowledge known.>With bad math when I outright stated these are examples of what was created, not the NUMBER of creations you fucking speedreader.
Once again you're pretending the same limitations only apply to the Soviet list. Is the American list going to be a tad bit more thorough? Perhaps. But that's the only fair point. The limitations of them being examples and being abridged go both ways.>The Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions began in the 1850s and onward, so no, 2/3 of the USA's history as a sovereign nation did not in fact include it being pre-industrial, especially given that it was already on the same level as Britain by the 1850s, a very well developed country. >United States only started in the Industrial revolution!
What year was the United States founded in? Let's say fuck it, and say that after the Civil War, the US *truly* started. So according to your little "THE USA WASN'T PER-INDUSTRIAL IT WAS 100% INDUSTRY" and then adjusting that for the likely dates when that "Industrial US" started, there was almost 5 new concepts developed in the US per year.
also>The Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions began in the 1850s>Agricultural Revolution began in the 1850's
peak retard>You keep shifting goalposts away from the arguments
Information is information. The CIA could be lying to you in the same way that QAnon could be a CIA psyop. You believe socialism is good, you support socialist causes, they obviously turn into "American Liberal Left(tm)"ist causes, and bam, you got played.
>>6762>1 fucking space station
1 of the 2 currently operating you braindead motherfucker. The other one isn't even USA's, it's a collaboration project lmfao. Plus your original point was that "private interests" were the only ones in space, so technically neither one even counts.<"YOU CHANGED IT">No, you did
and >>6703 <Fascism is truth because… because I said so!!!>No, that doesn't make any sense<Yeah, ok but how come socialism no iphone 500 gorillion?
Absolute mouthbreathing retard can't even defend his ideology or debunk one (1) book. Smartest fascoid>collapsed less than 100 years in because of minor policy changes>minor
Also keep switching goalposts retard>it seems pretty sus that the study states that all of these things that aren't really obvious such as child mortality and education are higher than in capitalist countries>child mortality is not obvious
room temp iq>It could be possible the standards of education are generally lower, meaning more people can pass education. It could be that said education has different policies around it. It could be education is used as a political tool, making attendance compulsory to an extreme.
Socialist education is one of the only things even its biggest enemies admit is top tier, I don't see why you would choose to nitpick this of all things lmfao. In my country over half the people were illiterate peasants, then when communism came they not only eradicated illiteracy, but they established such an advanced polytechnic education that it didn't even take a generation for a country of unga bunga farmers to turn into a country of engineers, builders and architects. Education is clearly not better under capitalism, and you are proof of that lel. "I don't trust it" is literally not an argument, you'd have to deboonk the study by checking the sources at the end and providing actual data that conflicts them, which you're free to do any time.>CIA is revealing fake documents to turn people socialist
My fucking sides. I knew fascoids had shit for brains but I didn't see this coming LMAO. If they're trying to turn USA socialist, why not do a reverse COINTELPRO instead of fucking declassifying documents nobody cares about from 50 years ago about the USSR's calorie intake? Fuck it, why not coup the country, or help re-establish the USSR? Could it be that it's just the Freedom of Information act– no, that can't be it, it's C(ommunism)IA turning the people gay and socialist!!! This genuinely made my day, thanks for the keks>>6763>So there were classes. Does that really make it Socialism?>Can't say the same for others though, which is why the whole class thing was made in the first place you stupid fuck.
I think I'm starting to see the problem here, this actual child doesn't even know what class means L M F A O
You fags literally changed the subject to "muh economicssss"
See: >>6686>That's also not the biggest part or problem of your "groups" because the main issue is the promotion of socio-economics systems that are illogical, inefficient and finally ethically abhorrent. >Socialist education is one of the only things even its biggest enemies admit is top tier, I don't see why you would choose to nitpick this of all things lmfao. In my country over half the people were illiterate peasants, then when communism came they not only eradicated illiteracy, but they established such an advanced polytechnic education that it didn't even take a generation for a country of unga bunga farmers to turn into a country of engineers, builders and architects.
Idk man, it seems like those people were educated to be just good enough to carry on with their life in service to the state. The measured amounts of inventions in a time of technological innovation that we've discussed previously shows that there wasn't much development there.>My fucking sides. I knew fascoids had shit for brains but I didn't see this coming LMAO. If they're trying to turn USA socialist, why not do a reverse COINTELPRO instead of fucking declassifying documents nobody cares about from 50 years ago about the USSR's calorie intake? Fuck it, why not coup the country, or help re-establish the USSR? Could it be that it's just the Freedom of Information act– no, that can't be it, it's C(ommunism)IA turning the people gay and socialist!!!
it makes a lot of sense lmao, maybe if you weren't retarded you could understand how i at least have a fucking point you negroid.>I think I'm starting to see the problem here, this actual child doesn't even know what class means L M F A O
Then define it fucko.
This might be one of the most retarded fascoids we got on this site lmfao>You fags literally changed the subject to "muh economicssss"
If you think technological development is disconnected from economics, you literally have the brain of an insect>NOOOOOOO it makes a lot of sense, you're just too uyghur brained to get it retard!!!!!!!
Then elaborate, faggot. Why does the CIA want to rehabilitate the enemy they put so much work into vilifying? Lemme answer that for you, they don't. >pls define class for me I'm too retarded to use google let alone function in society
A class is a group of people who share economic interests. For workers. who live by selling their labour, their interest lies in maximizing wages while minimizing work. For the owner class, it's maximizing profits at the expense of the former. Hence, there is a class conflict. Class is not leadership you actual shit brained monkey lol. Please read literally any book, start with The Hungry Hungry Caterpillar since it seems just about fit for someone of your intellect.
>"Stalin was a mass murderer!"<"No he wasn't, he was a mass executioner, because murder implies a broken law against killing and all killings under him were absolutely legal under positive law." <Holocaust was not legal<There was actually an extensive debate whether the Holocaust was "legal" or not amongst German jurisprudence. The overall consensus is, no, it was not, because technically the Weimar constitution was still in effect and none of the "emergency laws" (Notstandsgesetz) that allowed Hitler to stay in power would have given cover to such a thing.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nazism_and_Stalinism> Australian historian and archival researcher Stephen G. Wheatcroft posits that "[t]he Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans. These are clearly much lower figures than those for whom Hitler's regime was responsible." Wheatcroft also says that, unlike Hitler, Stalin's "purposive killings" fit more closely into the category of "execution" than "murder", given he thought the accused were indeed guilty of crimes against the state and insisted on documentation, whereas Hitler simply wanted to kill Jews and communists because of who they were, and insisted on no documentation and was indifferent at even a pretence of legality for these actions.
Soviet socialism had such a rough start with many casualties because they had to create defenses against imperial capitalists that were about to do a WW2. The people that died during the rushed buildup for the defensive war machine the Soviets needed to survive were also casualties of WW2. Most of the more repressive elements of the Soviet state were caused by contradictions of building socialism within a world that still had a capitalist superstructure. If all the capitalist countries would have been peaceful neighbors (like that would ever happen), there never would have been a need for "Stalinism"
The Soviet system has to be compared with capitalist states in the periphery, because that was the alternative for the Soviet region. They either went with Stalin to build a superpower, or they could have become capitalist vassals in the periphery. Considering that genocide was somewhat common and regular in the periphery even for liberal capitalist empires, going with Stalin was a no-brainer. Once the soviet system was fully established the repression that people faced was at least a magnitude lower than what exists in the capitalist periphery even to this day. If all countries in the periphery of capitalism would do a "Stalinism", the total sum of repression that people on earth are facing would go down, that's how bad it is.
For anybody willing to contest this, Stalinism for most soviet people meant that life expectancy almost doubled within one generation. You can put on ideological blenders of one kind or an other to justify or condemn the soviet system but you can't argue with those results.
>But muh Black Book 100 gorillion!<The Black Book, Ryan writes, is in the style of a "recording angel." It is a relentless "criminal indictment" for the murder of 100 million people, "the body count of a colossal, wholly failed social, economic, political and psychological experiment." The total evil, unredeemed by even a hint of achievement anywhere, makes a mockery of "the observation that you can't make an omelette without broken eggs."<Overcoming amnesia, suppose we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers to the full story, not just the doctrinally acceptable half. We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist "experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the "colossal, wholly failed…experiment" of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone. The "criminal indictment" of the "democratic capitalist experiment" becomes harsher still if we turn to its effects after the fall of Communism: millions of corpses in Russia, to take one case, as Russia followed the confident prescription of the World Bank that "Countries that liberalise rapidly and extensively turn around more quickly [than those that do not]," returning to something like what it had been before World War I, a picture familiar throughout the "third world." But "you can't make an omelette without broken eggs," as Stalin would have said. The indictment becomes far harsher if we consider these vast areas that remained under Western tutelage, yielding a truly "colossal" record of skeletons and "absolutely futile, pointless and inexplicable suffering" (Ryan). The indictment takes on further force when we add to the account the countries devastated by the direct assaults of Western power, and its clients, during the same years.http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.html
For one thing this sounds suspect as fuck. Secondly, as someone that experienced "High-Quality" American Schooling… it's a load of bullshit. There is 0 standardized learning, metric systems are covered only in science classes and even then only High-School. College Prep coursed do nothing to actually prepare you for college, and Honors are barely good enough. Teachers are only so good as what they teach and in the capitalist system you aren't learning shit. On top of that, schooling does nothing to help in home life, as people's material conditions mean that they're still going to underperform. On top of that the encouragement of ghetto gang "culture" also negatively reinforces a lack of education or pretending of such, meaning that people are unmotivated to become educated or act educated because they risk ostricization from their own folks. The reason Soviet Education is so famous in Europe is because it had a very strict grounding on not being race focused, and on children having equal opportunity to learn and reinforcement of motivation in culture. Even a criminal could be well read and cultured because there was no CIA encouraging a certain race to consider education as "uncool".
TL;DR: It's under capitalism, no shit its gonna probably fail; they're just changing some funding, not the direction of the education itself.
At the heart of all fascist delusion is the nonsense belief that they have claim to ‘homelands’, that they have territories which they can defend with borders. They fetishise these borders. The fact is, we’re not just dealing with reactionaries, we are exclusively dealing with white reactionaries. I don’t think they can be educated out of delusion.
But it doesn’t matter at all, America and Europe are more International than ever. Monolithic white voting blocs are no longer a thing. Demographically they are no longer a dominant force. So I find it hard to see why we need to ‘educate’ a people who are already effectively defeated.
>>7969>Demographically they are no longer a dominant force.
The global black population (specifically black not "dark skinned Asians or latinos) is equivalent to the traditionally Caucasian population (European/American). >hey fetishise these borders >belief that they have claim to ‘homelands’ <What is national self-determination in socialism<What is the rise of separate cultures on specific territories<What is dialectics
Yeah if someone switched White for Black in your shit rant you'd be screaming "raseeest". Your inane claim about it "only being muh yts" is utter bullshit in the face of millenia of political BORDER struggles exclusively in Africa by Africans. >we are exclusively dealing with white reactionaries<t.black reactionary idpol fag
Fuck off Sakai
>I don’t think they can be educated out of delusion<I find it hard to see why we need to ‘educate’ a people who are already effectively defeated.
Even going by your holier-than-thou attitude… read fucking Mao you actual fashoid imbecile.
>explain pic related
Europe was at the perfect crossroads of necessity and opportunity due to various geographic and economic conditions.
You can see it more in detail in this video on the dialectical development of historyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnqS7G3LmMo?t=1619
The book this is from (Murray's Human Accomplishment) literally tried to explain why. From the ALA review:
"Murray carefully examines why. The greatest achievements of India, China, Japan, and Islam occurred well before the West took off during the Renaissance, and each of those cultures valued duty, family, and consensus, whereas the West prefers individualism, the sine qua non of scientific debate and discovery."
One of the other times someone cited this book (it's written by one of the Bell Curve guys) an anon pointed this out.
This review talked about flaws in the methodology:https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious
One of the most notable flaws is that it excludes anything after 1950. Everything after 1950 is apparently not an objective human accomplishment by definition to Murray.
Quote from above review:
"Before 1950, black people had invented gospel, blues, jazz, R&B, samba, meringue, ragtime, zydeco, mento, calypso, and bomba. During the early 20th century, in the United States alone, the following composers and players were active: Ma Rainey, W.C. Handy, Scott Joplin, Louis Armstrong, Jelly Roll Morton, James P. Johnson, Fats Waller, Count Basie, Cab Calloway, Art Tatum, Charlie Parker, Charles Mingus, Lil Hardin Armstrong, Bessie Smith, Billie Holliday, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Mahalia Jackson, J. Rosamond Johnson, Ella Fitzgerald, John Lee Hooker, Coleman Hawkins, Leadbelly, Earl Hines, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Fats Navarro, Roy Brown, Wynonie Harris, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Willie Johnson, Robert Johnson, Son House, Dinah Washington, Thelonious Monk, Muddy Waters, Art Blakey, Sarah Vaughan, Memphis Slim, Skip James, Louis Jordan, Ruth Brown, Big Jay McNeely, Paul Gayten, and Professor Longhair. (This list is partial.) When we talk about black American music of the early 20th century, we are talking about one of the most astonishing periods of cultural accomplishment in the history of civilization. We are talking about an unparalleled record of invention, the creation of some of the most transcendently moving and original artistic material that has yet emerged from the human mind. The significance of this achievement cannot be overstated… Yet in Charles Murray’s “objective” measure of the worth of Western musical creations, none of this appears. Instead, in addition to the usual heavyweights like Bach and Wagner, we get a slew of minor, forgotten English composers like John Jenkins, Nicholas Lanier, and Matthew Locke. This is (and I am not kidding) because Murray believes that their work better fits the Aristotelian standard for transcendent human feeling[.]"
Quality of education has quite a bit more to do with stability of family life rather than magnitude of education spending. Success of students is contingent on many factors but in America much of our social spending has to be funnelled through the education system rather than expanded outright. School functions less as education than public daycare assistance and this has to do with the rigid structure of the social safety net's to ability to be expanded where it is needed or public investment placed in areas other than education and basic infrastructure.
Major problem is that liberalism fetishizes education because of an erroneous belief in education as a Merit machine, but education success is much more about standard of living and life stability of the student than the quality or funding of schools. Public investment has to be well rounded and education results will improve, shoveling more money to education alone will not fix it since success therein is multifaceted.
A related text is Fredrik deBoer's The Cult of Smart, which talks about this issue of overemphasizing the efficacy of education in setting American social policy.
>>6917>Then elaborate, faggot. Why does the CIA want to rehabilitate the enemy they put so much work into vilifying? Lemme answer that for you, they don't.
It benefits corporations. I was thinking about it for the past 3 months, and I've realized that communism - if implemented in a western nation - would be fore-fronted by current private interests. The only reason why you support socialism is because you're given false information to support it. Then, if you actually end up enacting it with your buddies, it'll then be taken over by private interests with either their private armies or a fat paycheck needed to stimulate any sort of economy as a complete restructuring of the power hierarchy ensues.
Apple would just turn into "The People's Apple", with former corporate types now legislating. What do you think happened with stalin and vodka production?
>>8729>rehabilitating USSR benefits corporations
Fucking unreal. You have to be doing a bit because there is no way you are genuinely this retarded LMAO
Nevermind the fact that private interests already run everything you dumb fuck
>>8729>It's "muh commissars and uthurutariunism" tripe again>"stalin and vodka production?"
Holee fuk this is some hilarious shit. Go back glowie
Do you honestly, and I mean honestly, think that private interests aren't going to try to take over your pissant "revolution"? And if they don't, because you destroyed all of them, do you really think that a "diverse" and polarized America would even think for half a second to try and pull their shit together?
>>8740>Communism is when everyone is poor and doesn’t have shit>Communism is capitalism rebranded
Well, what is it?
>Do you honestly, and I mean honestly, think that private interests aren't going to try to take over your pissant "revolution"?
People being well armed, working councils/soviets being formed, and ocasional purges should keep private interests from taking over. Unless a Titoist/Dengist party is the one coming to power, which is incredibly unlikely to happen.
>do you really think that a "diverse" and polarized America would even think for half a second to try and pull their shit together?
Not a burger, you'll probably get a better answer from one. Regardless.
Do not underestimate the changes on zeitgeist required for such an event to happen. The most orthodox country in the world was blowing up its own churches when things got bad enough. And polarization eventually goes away, in the case of a supposed civil war, as most people that disagree die, flee or stop caring.
burger spotted, opinion invalid
>>8754>Well, what is it?
It's both dipshit. Fascism is the answer. Perhaps a mixed economy, strong economic competition yet encouragement for classes to cooperate. Arm the unions, encourage faith, tradition, and ethnonationalism to unite the people. Badda boom, you're on your way to a post-scarcity Marxist society.
but every fascist country was just conservatist neoliberalism, your attempt of selling your retarded sistem by rebranding it did not work.
>>8764>conservatist neoliberalism>Nazi germany was literally just america nowadays but they didn't like them gays and jews or whatever
Pretty much, nazi germany cut salaries and subsidized/tax cuts for corporations that made shit for them, for example, Bayer, and privatised (reminder the first time the term was used was in nazi germany) state-owned fabrics for the porkies that suporter the Reich.
i don't know why you are surprised, it's basic knowledge.
>>8766>nazi germany cut salaries
This in itself is a base-level retard sentance. So you're telling me the fucking Nazi German government walked up and said "yo chieftan, your salary is gonna b cut 50% fuck you"? That's retarded, and even if it was true - which I doubt it was - that would be more close to a Socialist economy, since it'd be a central figure, da gubment, trying to force the economy's hand without large over-arching changes to everyone.
But all of that shit isn't true. Them nazis didn't cut them salamis, you fucking ape. Or at least, they didn't cut the salaries in the way that would mirror the Neo-Liberal method. Neo-Liberal economies distinctly cut salaries through flooding the workforce with neo-slave immigrants, women, and outsourcing labour. All three of those things are distinctly opposed by both Nazis of 1930's/1940's Germany, and by Neo-Nazis of today.
NTA, just chiming in
You're correct that they did not have neoliberalism, neolibs arose directly as a response to more traditional decaying capitalist methods like in Nazi Germany failing. They did undercut salaries, but hid it using price changes and other manipulations. I suggest reading Tooze's book on the Nazi economy that has a section going into this. >Arm the unions
The Unions under the Nazis came under "management" and control of corporations and certainly got no arms. A main point of fascism is clas-collaboration using rhetoric of "greater good" and other crap to ssntially say, "bend your neck for now and the higher ups cna tell you the time that you'll get your good life"… except that didn't happen for many people and for those that did rise out of poverty, it came at the cost of the lives and living standards of others. >encourage faith, tradition, and ethnonationalism
the latter just encourages shit like in 90s Russia and fSU. Tradition and faith for their own sake are also detrimental, BUT I also think (and so did the USSR) that you cannot just attack religion and traditional ideas for the sake of it, as these things arose over centuries for a reason.
Fascism is not needed for post-scarcity, that's an illusion mirroring and attempting to dissuade people from Marxism-Leninism. Link related is a video about IG-Farben and just how they pulled this porky scam offю
Russian video on IG-Farben (Eng Subtitles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtPGaG7g3CE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyJTv_qLqsI
English vid on Krupp
All I'm saying is chieftan, I'm not going through 800 pages of shit by some literal who with a fucking goofy last name. Cite the pages with quotes from the .PDF if you want me to care.>it came at the cost of the lives and living standards of others
I assume this is 6 gorillionb8
>>8778>I CANT READ
Every. Fucking. Time.
Literally just skim the table of contents or CTRL+F to get to the part you want you actual retard LMAO>I'm not reading shit written by some literal who
Says the guy getting his history and politics from sexless chinlets on an anonymous imageboard
>>8782>Refuses to cite pages and give quotes>Onion hominem ensues
So *thats* why you hate capitalism. Too many job interviews were ended early because you wanted someone to waste 2 hours of their life reading some dogshit.
I have better things to do, smoke cigarettes, drink, lift, scream the N word online, then read your dogshit. You're either gonna cite specific pages that express your point, or your source is invalidated because in any context, assuming that someone will read a whole fucking book just to confirm or deny a singular point you offer is retarded.
This is the real world, I'm not your fucking grade 3 teacher, I'm not reading your fucking entire shit. Be concise.
Not the guy who sent you the book, retard LOL. My memory of the book is rusty but I'm pretty sure Chapter 2 is what you want, learn to skim a book shithead
You know as well as I do you don't have better things to do, you're spending your friday night on an Albanian basket weaving forum arguing about why CIA are communists and why Faggotism is the way to go, even though you already got destroyed in this thread months prior. Go outside. Read a book. Have sex.
I'll just paste one of my favorite articles here (verbatim):>The skyscraper is capitalism materialised in steel and glass. It is a machine to extract rents from the skies, and the skylines of cities across the world are bar charts of property values. For many people, this is precisely the problem, as the tall building’s shadow turns streets into darkened canyons, and its arrogant erection demands that everyone pays attention. >These “machines to make the land pay” only get built if someone agrees to pay colossal rent and someone else can borrow towering piles of cash at less interest than the rent they receive. Without a financial architecture founded on big money – big profits to pay big rents – nothing much grows.>In a global economy where gigantic piles of cash get made, and need to find resting places, skyscrapers will continue to be built, and to be traded. That is what makes them so sublime, in Edmund Burke’s sense of being both terrifying and beautiful at the same time. They are both monuments to human ingenuity, and to massive inequality, as their occupants look down on the people living in cardboard on the city streets. The question they provoke is not really about boom or slump, but about the nature of an economic system which makes such projects possible.https://theconversation.com/skyscrapers-show-capitalism-at-its-worst-and-its-most-sublime-30223
>>6685>finer details like economic policy or how to deal with the transition from our current society into our ideal society are to be handled.
Other finer details include, y'know, how to handle the lives of all the groups that don't fit into your fascist wet dream.
the test should have been conducted more than once on the same farmers, because people giving an IQ test again, will score higher.
im assuming the test was conducted only once, because it says between 2010 and 2011, and it also says the farmers harvest the sugarcane once a year.
targeted terror-famine/genocide against the ukrainians*
Does the book say anything other than "Molotov-Ribbentrop existed and was bad"?
If not, there's plenty of resources debunking/ contextualising the pact, such as pic related. Also worth mentioning that a non-aggression pact (undertaken when the USSR was surrounded by hostile nations) is significantly different from, say, an alliance, which books like that like to imply it was.
The book implies nothing, the book explicitly says that they "stood side by side as allies" and makes every attempt to suggest(even if acknowledging both leaders had different goals) Horseshoe Theory "totalitarians are all the same" bullshit.
The book's argument is that the Soviets and Reich were allies due to them doing several acts of collaboration in order to fight the Polish Army, such as sharing intelligence on the size of Polish ranks.
By that metric the Poles and Soviets had been allies because the Polish Military specifically ordered the army to not engage the Red Army.
Also the book cites the fake "Nazi-Soviet Parade" nonsense every other "muh Molotov-Ribbentrop alliance" retard says.
Here's a list I've compiled of popular anticommunist authors (plus some others) admitting there was no such thing as the Holodomor. Feel free to copypaste it.
Anne Applebaum, Red Famine:>"In practice, ‘genocide’, as defined by the UN documents, came to mean the physical elimination of an entire ethnic group, in a manner similar to the Holocaust. The Holodomor does not meet that criterion. The Ukrainian famine was not an attempt to eliminate every single living Ukrainian; it was also halted, in the summer of 1933, well before it could devastate the entire nation"
Stephane Courtois/Nicolas Werth, The Black Book of Communism:>"Should one see this famine as a genocide of the Ukrainian people, as a number of Ukrainian historians and researchers do today? It is undeniable that the Ukrainian peasantry were the principal victims in the famine of 1932-33 (…) But proportionally the famine was just as severe in the Cossack territories of the Kuban and the Don and in Kazakhstan"
Orlando Figes, Revolutionary Russia 1891-1991:>"No hard evidence has so far come to light of the regime's intention to kill millions through famine, let alone of a genocide campaign against the Ukrainians. Many parts of Ukraine were ethnically mixed. There is no data to suggest that there was a policy of taking more grain from Ukrainian villages than from the Russians or other ethnic groups in the famine area. And Ukraine was not the only region to suffer terribly from the famine, which was almost as bad in Kazakhstan."
Robert Service, Stalin - A Biography:>"Although Stalin did not seek the extermination of all Ukrainians and Kazakhs, he certainly aimed to extirpate all opposition real and potential from among them. The ultimate objective, though, was to turn Ukraine and Kazakhstan into economically efficient Soviet republics. He therefore allowed both peoples to retain their culture…"
Stephen Kotkin, Stalin - Waiting for Hitler 1929-1941:>This becomes “genocide” when the authors include the executions of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, poets, musicians, artists, church officials. They offer no evidence of intentional starvation or of ethnic targeting. They do not dwell on the ethnic Ukrainian agency in the alleged genocide against Ukrainians (in regions where lots of Russians lived and died). They do not include the Volga Valley, Kazakhstan, the Urals, Western Siberia, and other famine-wracked regions where Ukrainians did not form a large percentage of the population.
Alexander Solshenistyn:>In 2008, he published an article on Izvestia calling the Holodomor a "provocatory cry about a 'genocide' that was started in the minds of Ukrainian chauvinists decades later" (Source: https://iz.ru/news/335020)
On Robert Conquest backpedaling:>"In 2003, Dr. Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it" (R.W. Davies & Stephen G. Wheatcroft. "Debate. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 - 33: A Reply to Ellman.")>"In June 2006 a Ukrainian delegation of experts on the Holocaust and the Golodomor met Robert Conquest in Stanford University and enquired about his views, and were told directly by him that he preferred not to use the term genocide (Kul’chitskii (2007), 176)" (From R.W. Davies / Stephen Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger - Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933)
Grover Furr on the reaction of other historians (From Blood Lies):>"There is no evidence it was intentionally directed against Ukrainians," said Alexander Dallin of Stanford, the father of modern Sovietology. "That would be totally out of keeping with what we know — it makes no sense.">"This is crap, rubbish," said Moshe Lewin of the University of Pennsylvania, whose 'Russian Peasants and Soviet Power' broke new ground in social history. "I am an anti-Stalinist, but I don't see how this [genocide] campaign adds to our knowledge. It's adding horrors, adding horrors, until it becomes a pathology.>"I absolutely reject it," said Lynne Viola of SUNY-Binghamton, the first US historian to examine Moscow's Central State Archive on collectivization. "Why in god's name would this paranoid government consciously produce a famine when they were terrified of war [with Germany]?>"He's terrible at doing research," said veteran Sovietologist Roberta Manning of Boston College. "He misuses sources, he twists everything.">In a polite but firmly negative review of Conquest's book in the London Review of Books in 1987 American Soviet scholar J. Arch Getty wrote: Conquest's hypothesis, sources and evidence are not new. Indeed, he himself first put forward his view two years ago in a work sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute. The intentional famine story, however, has been an article of faith for Ukrainian émigrés in the West since the Cold War. Much of Conquest's most graphic description is taken from such period-pieces as The Golgoltha of the Ukraine (1953), The Black Deeds of the Kremlin (1953) and Communism the Enemy of Mankind (1955). Conquest's book will thus give a certain academic credibility to a theory which has not been generally accepted by non-partisan scholars outside the circles of exiled nationalities. In today's conservative political climate, with its 'evil empire' discourse, I am sure that the book will be very popular.
On the Russian release of archival documents:>“In the archives of Russia, in the archives of the republics of the former USSR, millions of documents have been preserved [of] the famine in the USSR at the beginning of the 1930s of the last century in various regions of the large country. Not a single document has been found confirming the conception of a ‘Holodomor-genocide’ in Ukraine or even a hint in the documents about ethnic motives of what occurred, including in Ukraine.” (Source: V. P. Kozlov, Golod v SSSR 1930-1934; Famine in the USSR 1930-1934 (2009)
Man, that I recognize damn near every name on this copy-paste is a real indicator of just how long I've studied this topic.
Excellent post though they deemphasize the impact of liberals and their fascist counter-parts. It's not just rationalizing, but its also a formation of golden calves (in the form of vague but generally accepted concepts so that disagreeing makes you appear to be a bad person) that they use to gaslight anyone that attempts to criticize idpol from an objective standpoint. For example the liberal slogan of black lives matter". On a base, superficial level, yeah there's nothing incorrect, but the problem is that
A) focusing on a specific identity in your rhetoric for ethics, immediately attracts the porky rhetoric about "muh privleg" and other identarian, divisive nonsense
B) it ignores the subversive and often rightist context of these phrases and concepts and their inherent use as a justification for dumb idpol shit promoted by rainbow-capitalist ideologues; a gateway for literal fed propaganda
It goes without saying that this also applies to rightoid slogans about stuff like "de jooz"
Are you fucking retarded. In other words a society specifically designed to oppress me, many of my friends, and entire ethnic groups, sexual minorities, neurological minorities, etc. It's materially impossible for me to support your system because it results in my being destroyed. Which proves the psychopathy of you right wingers: that you think this is okay because you think I deserve to die.
Unique IPs: 34