Free association and the inevitability of Communism

[Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba]

And the inevitability of Communism, lol I hope not, lets hope not, lol.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

No, why would you? It's easier to just support communism without any data to back it up.

I don’t see the relevance of 1919 worker’s being racist.

Your statement was a vague claim that the proletariat has been generally less racist than others and is currently. However, history shows that if anything, the workers have been very prominant in major incidents regarding race, and you have stated yourself you refuse to show how this is not the case and they are actually less racist or not at all.

I'm the most pro-immigrant person you'll find and I guess I could be called a "social democrat".

I wasn’t referring specifically to you as a social democrat. IMO I don’t demand unrestricted migration at this point in history, foreign relations in general are more important. Ultimately we should be able to just travel around the world without borders but it would require a universal system and education. Borders exist because of capitalism.

Borders have existed long before capitalism and continue to exist today for many factors beyond simply capitalism.

Then why are you stating that they're all racist?

The US was built on Slavery, the UK on colonialism. Capitalism relies on an indebted third world, rather than aiding it fraternally.

Okay? How does this somehow translate to private enterprise and interests now all being racist and those that support them over your ideas all racist as well? As we all know, racism completely died in countries where communism took over and there was an instant end to any discrimination or tensions based on race.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Biased poll is biased.

You expected otherwise from NS' resident communist trap cat?

[Socialist Workers Combine]

Borders have existed long before capitalism and continue to exist today for many factors beyond simply capitalism.

Borders were considerably congealed by capitalism and the trend continued with the EU. You aren’t even attempting to think dynamicly.

The US was built on Slavery, the UK on colonialism. Capitalism relies on an indebted third world, rather than aiding it fraternally.

Okay? How does this somehow translate to private enterprise and interests now all being racist and those that support them over your ideas all racist as well? As we all know, racism completely died in countries where communism took over and there was an instant end to any discrimination or tensions based on race.

I’ve already pointed out the indebting of the third world. And USSR aided African states while the US propped up genocidal dictators.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Borders have existed long before capitalism and continue to exist today for many factors beyond simply capitalism.

Borders were considerably congealed by capitalism and the trend continued with the EU. You aren’t even attempting to think dynamicly.

The US was built on Slavery, the UK on colonialism. Capitalism relies on an indebted third world, rather than aiding it fraternally.

Okay? How does this somehow translate to private enterprise and interests now all being racist and those that support them over your ideas all racist as well? As we all know, racism completely died in countries where communism took over and there was an instant end to any discrimination or tensions based on race.

I’ve already pointed out the indebting of the third world. And USSR aided African states while the US propped up genocidal dictators.

The USSR propped up genocidal dictators too.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

The USSR propped up genocidal dictators too.

I don’t uncritically support the USSR, but you can name one if you want.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The USSR propped up genocidal dictators too.

I don’t uncritically support the USSR, but you can name one if you want.

For starters, Mao Zedong would be the big one.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

I don’t uncritically support the USSR, but you can name one if you want.

For starters, Mao Zedong would be the big one.

The USSR broke with China and would have annexed them without US intervention.

[Saint Ignis]

Communism now, communism forever, etc., etc.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Borders have existed long before capitalism and continue to exist today for many factors beyond simply capitalism.

Borders were considerably congealed by capitalism and the trend continued with the EU. You aren’t even attempting to think dynamicly.

The US was built on Slavery, the UK on colonialism. Capitalism relies on an indebted third world, rather than aiding it fraternally.

Okay? How does this somehow translate to private enterprise and interests now all being racist and those that support them over your ideas all racist as well? As we all know, racism completely died in countries where communism took over and there was an instant end to any discrimination or tensions based on race.

I’ve already pointed out the indebting of the third world. And USSR aided African states while the US propped up genocidal dictators.

Says the individual that likes to make blanket claims with no evidence and thinks pretty much everything will be solved by turning to communism with no potential possibility for error, and that capitalism is the sole cause for numerous things and not in actuality a plethora and combination of many factors.


Now you're being deliberately obtuse by trying to portray the two as black and white. Both are not innocent of supporting genocidal dictatorships, even in just Africa, with Derg Ethiopia, being the most clear example. Not to mention the USSR supported numerous movements that exacerbated many conflicts simply to support their ideology. Even when they did support nations or groups it was not for some altruistic agenda like you are seeming to want to imply. Not to mention the USSR was just as exploitative in places like the Congo in order to secure materials for itself.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

Derg Ethiopia? You mean like the Ethiopian civil war?

[North Saitama]

Then why are you stating that they're all racist?

The US was built on Slavery, the UK on colonialism. Capitalism relies on an indebted third world, rather than aiding it fraternally.

*Rolls eyes*

Capitalism also means investment in said third world countries, and many poor countries have actually been lifted out of poverty by Capitalism and trade. In fact, the poorest countries are mostly the ones that have the least economic freedom, least trade, and the least investment from the "Capitalistic slavemasters".

[Socialist Workers Combine]

Capitalism also means investment in said third world countries, and many poor countries have actually been lifted out of poverty by Capitalism and trade. In fact, the poorest countries are mostly the ones that have the least economic freedom, least trade, and the least investment from the "Capitalistic slavemasters".

They’re kept on debt. I wasn’t suggesting they shouldn’t be invested in. But we should be trying to bring the third world to our level instead of crippling them with debt.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Third-World-debt

[Shanhwa]

I'm the most pro-immigrant person you'll find and I guess I could be called a "social democrat".

I wasn’t referring specifically to you as a social democrat. IMO I don’t demand unrestricted migration at this point in history, foreign relations in general are more important. Ultimately we should be able to just travel around the world without borders but it would require a universal system and education. Borders exist because of capitalism.

>borders exist because of capitalism

lol

[GlobalControl]

I'm the most pro-immigrant person you'll find and I guess I could be called a "social democrat".

I wasn’t referring specifically to you as a social democrat. IMO I don’t demand unrestricted migration at this point in history, foreign relations in general are more important. Ultimately we should be able to just travel around the world without borders but it would require a universal system and education. Borders exist because of capitalism.

Borders exist because of capitalism.
Because of.. capitalism.

Yeah.. sure
It's not because of cultural and ethnic differences, the general amalgamation of peoples into their own nation-states, or solidification of identities, no its Capitalism.
Despite the fact the Romans, Greeks, Swedish, Carthaginians, etc. had borders.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

Yeah.. sure
It's not because of cultural and ethnic differences, the general amalgamation of peoples into their own nation-states, or solidification of identities, no its Capitalism.
Despite the fact the Romans, Greeks, Swedish, Carthaginians, etc. had borders.

They contribute but it isn’t as though France was originally one thing, take Occitanis. Rome conquered far outside it’s original ethnic boundary.

Historically, yes, capitalism contributed to the modern nation state by pressing so that they could be able to go between the various little kingdoms modern state’s were once made out of.

[GlobalControl]

Yeah.. sure
It's not because of cultural and ethnic differences, the general amalgamation of peoples into their own nation-states, or solidification of identities, no its Capitalism.
Despite the fact the Romans, Greeks, Swedish, Carthaginians, etc. had borders.

They contribute but it isn’t as though France was originally one thing, take Occitanis. Rome conquered far outside it’s original ethnic boundary.

Historically, yes, capitalism contributed to the modern nation state by pressing so that they could be able to go between the various little kingdoms modern state’s were once made out of.

Rome Conquered territory because it was an empire. That was how empires typically expanded their reach back in the day. War. War was a pretty commonplace means of getting what someone wants back in that time. They didn't conquer because of Capitalism, because neither Capitalism nor Communism were concepts back then. They had little in the way of really rough approximates either if I recall, and relied mostly on barter, which is the trade of goods more for something of value.

In some cases that is true, in others it's not, it's a lot less black and white than you're making it out to be. It is so much, much more complex than that.
Pick up a history textbook, please.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

I didn’t mean to imply Rome expanded by capitalism, it was an example of a state expanding beyond ethnic boundaries.

[GlobalControl]

I didn’t mean to imply Rome expanded by capitalism, it was an example of a state expanding beyond ethnic boundaries.

My bad I suppose.

Romans were not really one specific group and at their height encompassed many ethnicities. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'ethnic boundaries'.

[The New California Republic]

And the inevitability of Communism, lol I hope not, lets hope not, lol.

lol lol lololol?

[Socialist Workers Combine]

I didn’t mean to imply Rome expanded by capitalism, it was an example of a state expanding beyond ethnic boundaries.

My bad I suppose.

Romans were not really one specific group and at their height encompassed many ethnicities. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'ethnic boundaries'.

Their culture was Greek given the colonies in Italy for instance but I don’t remember the specific ethnicities of the founders of Rome. They were obviously not the same as the Celts they later conquered, or Carthage. The Chinese incorporated a variety of ethnicities but we’re more an empire than a nation, and before they had negative experiences with conquerors (they liked the Zhou) they had no real concern for the racial identity of who rule China.

Point being, the nation state is not an eternal entity. It is a product of historical circumstances. It is a modern phenomenon but it will likely not be here forever, and it baffles me that some think it will be.

[Mushet]

Another "and the inevitability of communism thread"? What are you commie Xero?

[Doing it Rightland]

I'm kind of confused. In what way is private interest bound forever to racism? OP never explained this at all, and I'm confused what basis the argument is predicated on.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

I'm kind of confused. In what way is private interest bound forever to racism? OP never explained this at all, and I'm confused what basis the argument is predicated on.

Partly because it relies on debt from the third world.
I mean direct racism is more a criticism of unlimited “free association” than just private interests. If we really want business not to be racist we’d be interring with it - and ideally ourselves, not just through the medium of the distant state. Real control over the economy - and therefore anti-discrimination - is achieved through direct proletarian management. The bourgeoisie state, even if prepared to do this to some extent, nonetheless goes off to bomb Libya.

[Shanhwa]

I'm kind of confused. In what way is private interest bound forever to racism? OP never explained this at all, and I'm confused what basis the argument is predicated on.

Partly because it relies on debt from the third world.
I mean direct racism is more a criticism of unlimited “free association” than just private interests. If we really want business not to be racist we’d be interring with it - and ideally ourselves, not just through the medium of the distant state. Real control over the economy - and therefore anti-discrimination - is achieved through direct proletarian management. The bourgeoisie state, even if prepared to do this to some extent, nonetheless goes off to bomb Libya.

lol