Hot Takes Discussion II: NATO is the Greatest Thing Ever

[Red Lake Circle]

but you are a nationalist.

checkmate.

Not really. Neocons are internationalists.

Take that word out of your mouth and give it back to Marx, neocons are only internationalists as far as it serves the interests of their particular nation.

[Port Caverton]

Not really. Neocons are internationalists.

Take that word out of your mouth and give it back to Marx, neocons are only internationalists as far as it serves the interests of their particular nation.

Marx was a lib.

Also if that was true the US would pull out of NATO and invade everyone in europe lol.

[Meadowfields]

Take that word out of your mouth and give it back to Marx, neocons are only internationalists as far as it serves the interests of their particular nation.

Marx was a lib.

Also if that was true the US would pull out of NATO and invade everyone in europe lol.

So if you're a liberal hawk, that means you're also a Marxist?

[Red Lake Circle]

Take that word out of your mouth and give it back to Marx, neocons are only internationalists as far as it serves the interests of their particular nation.

Marx was a lib.

Also if that was true the US would pull out of NATO and invade everyone in europe lol.

Invading continental Europe would absolutely not be in the US’s national interests

[Khurkhogur]

Nationalism is for libs

Actually a very, very good take from edgy nuke boy (although he might've said it for the wrong reasons lol)
Nationalism and liberalism are fundamentally intertwined. Traditionally, feudal societies put certain ethnic groups into certain roles. For example Jews were relegated to certain jobs in medieval Europe, Christian slaves made up the soldiery of many Muslim states, Cossacks and Tatars were cavalrymen/explorers for the Russian empire, etc. The development of a nation creates a homogeneous state where there are no such ethno-religious classes. This means that social mobility becomes possible for people who are members of the nation - leading to liberalism, capitalism, and democracy.

[The House of Hamid]

Not really. Neocons are internationalists.

Take that word out of your mouth and give it back to Marx, neocons are only internationalists as far as it serves the interests of their particular nation.

Relevant

[Port Caverton]

Marx was a lib.

Also if that was true the US would pull out of NATO and invade everyone in europe lol.

Invading continental Europe would absolutely not be in the US’s national interests

Considering Germoney has been simping for Russian gas for a while now, yes it would be in it's interests.

[Red Lake Circle]

Nationalism is for libs

Actually a very, very good take from edgy nuke boy
Nationalism and liberalism are fundamentally intertwined. Traditionally, feudal societies put certain ethnic groups into certain roles. For example Jews were relegated to certain jobs in medieval Europe, Christian slaves made up the soldiery of many Muslim states, Cossacks and Tatars were cavalrymen/explorers for the Russian empire, etc. The development of a nation creates a homogeneous state where there are no such ethno-religious classes. This means that social mobility becomes possible for people who are members of the nation - leading to liberalism, capitalism, and democracy.

Only difference is that nuke boy is using it as a reason as to why he’s not a liberal, even if he has consistently proves he is one of liberalism’s strongest soldiers

[Pan-Pacific Unity]

Not necessarily. As Marx himself said: “But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.”

Wait...what?

His essential point in this statement is that free trade and the broader process of globalisation accelerates the development of productive forces on a worldwide scale and pushes the world closer to revolution.

ohhh
I think that tactic is a bit unreliable though; furthering the goal of something you oppose.

Well, the Marxist perspective isn't so much opposed to capitalism so much as it considers capitalism to be a particular socioeconomic stage that ultimately paves the way for communist society. Capitalism itself constitutes a process that results in its own negation, with communism being the result.

[Port Caverton]

Actually a very, very good take from edgy nuke boy
Nationalism and liberalism are fundamentally intertwined. Traditionally, feudal societies put certain ethnic groups into certain roles. For example Jews were relegated to certain jobs in medieval Europe, Christian slaves made up the soldiery of many Muslim states, Cossacks and Tatars were cavalrymen/explorers for the Russian empire, etc. The development of a nation creates a homogeneous state where there are no such ethno-religious classes. This means that social mobility becomes possible for people who are members of the nation - leading to liberalism, capitalism, and democracy.

Only difference is that nuke boy is using it as a reason as to why he’s not a liberal, even if he has consistently proves he is one of liberalism’s strongest soldiers

communists are the real liberals

[The House of Hamid]

Invading continental Europe would absolutely not be in the US’s national interests

Considering Germoney has been simping for Russian gas for a while now, yes it would be in it's interests.

Yo murica, you might wanna finish one war before you start another.

[Khurkhogur]

Invading continental Europe would absolutely not be in the US’s national interests

Considering Germoney has been simping for Russian gas for a while now, yes it would be in it's interests.

Let me outline how that scenario would probably go in real life.
Scenario 1: US invades the UK or France, one of the two (probably France) nukes the US. End of story.
Scenario 2: US invades Europe, no nuclear retaliation, US is generally successful.
Every US ally and partner and every state that participates in the US' international system immediately loses faith in the trustworthiness of the US and abandons the system. The US loses its status as the main financial power, its grip on global trade collapses, states flock to middle powers like China, Russia, and India for protection/cooperation, and the US becomes deeply impoverished.

[The Front Range]

Considering Germoney has been simping for Russian gas for a while now, yes it would be in it's interests.

Yo murica, you might wanna finish one war before you start another.

We’re going for the Strait of Taiwan next

Gulf War Sequel: The Strait War

[Red Lake Circle]

Wait...what?

His essential point in this statement is that free trade and the broader process of globalisation accelerates the development of productive forces on a worldwide scale and pushes the world closer to revolution.

ohhh
I think that tactic is a bit unreliable though; furthering the goal of something you oppose.

Well, the Marxist perspective isn't so much opposed to capitalism so much as it considers capitalism to be a particular socioeconomic stage that ultimately paves the way for communist society. Capitalism itself constitutes a process that results in its own negation, with communism being the result.

But Marx also did advocate for revolution, and opposed capitalism. You’d have to ignore the Communist Manifesto to come to the conclusion that he didn’t oppose the very thing he was studying and writing about.

[Meadowfields]

Wait...what?

His essential point in this statement is that free trade and the broader process of globalisation accelerates the development of productive forces on a worldwide scale and pushes the world closer to revolution.

ohhh
I think that tactic is a bit unreliable though; furthering the goal of something you oppose.

Well, the Marxist perspective isn't so much opposed to capitalism so much as it considers capitalism to be a particular socioeconomic stage that ultimately paves the way for communist society. Capitalism itself constitutes a process that results in its own negation, with communism being the result.

I don't necessarily think such societal change could happen by itself, though. Pushing capitalism forward doesn't necessarily guarantee that it will collapse by itself, unless you mean that the populace after seeing an accelerated capitalist society would start to despise it and turn to communism, which is still unlikely.

[The House of Hamid]

Yo murica, you might wanna finish one war before you start another.

We’re going for the Strait of Taiwan next

Gulf War Sequel: The Strait War

I'll just ignore the absurdity of pissing off China here, nbot even Donald Dump would have been that stupid.

Man, ever since you invaded Afghanistan back in '03 you've basically been at war continuously. We know you don't give a *** how that went for the regions youn destroyed, but how did that work out for you? Next year it's gonna be your bicentenary, will you celebrate?

[Red Lake Circle]

Considering Germoney has been simping for Russian gas for a while now, yes it would be in it's interests.

Let me outline how that scenario would probably go in real life.
Scenario 1: US invades the UK or France, one of the two (probably France) nukes the US. End of story.
Scenario 2: US invades Europe, no nuclear retaliation, US is generally successful.
Every US ally and partner and every state that participates in the US' international system immediately loses faith in the trustworthiness of the US and abandons the system. The US loses its status as the main financial power, its grip on global trade collapses, states flock to middle powers like China, Russia, and India for protection/cooperation, and the US becomes deeply impoverished.

Put better than I could’ve said it.

[Port Caverton]

We’re going for the Strait of Taiwan next

Gulf War Sequel: The Strait War

I'll just ignore the absurdity of pissing off China here, nbot even Donald Dump would have been that stupid.

Man, ever since you invaded Afghanistan back in '03 you've basically been at war continuously. We know you don't give a *** how that went for the regions youn destroyed, but how did that work out for you? Next year it's gonna be your bicentenary, will you celebrate?

*Iraq. Afghanistan was in 2001.

[Khurkhogur]

Communism is a pipe dream. The idea of an "end of history" is absolutely ridiculous. Read 2 sentences of Clausewitz and you will realize how dumb any end of history theory is. All systems have internal contradictions. Every group of humans, no matter the size, will have conflicting interests. Those conflicting interests will fuel history, and there is no way to get rid of them unless you make humanity a hive mind, in which case we would probably split up into competing "hives" rather than competing societies and individuals. And history would still continue evolving.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Hot Take: The United States should invade every country on the planet.

[The Front Range]

We’re going for the Strait of Taiwan next

Gulf War Sequel: The Strait War

I'll just ignore the absurdity of pissing off China here, nbot even Donald Dump would have been that stupid.

Man, ever since you invaded Afghanistan back in '03 you've basically been at war continuously. We know you don't give a *** how that went for the regions youn destroyed, but how did that work out for you? Next year it's gonna be your bicentenary, will you celebrate?

It was 01’ and I don’t care about American foreign policy

Should probably focus on our own problems for a bit instead of trying to cling on to the sole superpower spot for as long as possible

[Meadowfields]

Hot Take: The Jamesian Republic should invade every country on the planet.

No. That goes against the whole point of the mutualism and distributism you claim to believe in. That would just make you a moderate Trotskyist.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Marx was a lib.

I... uh... what? in what sense was Marx a liberal? if I recall - I may be wrong - he was strongly opposed to capitalism, which is like, a major part of liberalism.

[Pan-Pacific Unity]

But Marx also did advocate for revolution, and opposed capitalism. You’d have to ignore the Communist Manifesto to come to the conclusion that he didn’t oppose the very thing he was studying and writing about.

Certainly! I suppose my core point is that the focus is less on opposing capitalism and more on transcending it, the goal is post-capitalism rather than simply anti-capitalism which could be expressed in a reactionary manner. Of course, this is considered desirable because of the numerous evils capitalism has perpetuated throughout its history, which provides the moral argument that it is to be opposed.

[Port Caverton]

Hot Take: The Jamesian Republic should invade every country on the planet.

No. That goes against the whole point of the mutualism and distributism you claim to believe in. That would just make you a moderate Trotskyist.

Trotskyism is best leftist ideology.