Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

Sergarr, everything about what you wrote is wrong.

What, the fact that USA is #1 country is wrong? Why, then show me who's better than USA at technology? Or, maybe you know a country whose economy is better than USA's? I desire to know who it is!

He was being a bit overdramatic. He meant that basically everything you said was wrong.

Really? Well, let's see.

Best-case by some measures, not by all. And "best-case" in the realistic sense, not the "pie in the sky" ideas like "everybody has the right to life and happiness" or shit like that.

Still makes communism a failed ideology.

The best at
1. Letting big business fuck everybody else over
2. Having lots of resources
3. Having a low population density
4. Letting German scientists in
5. Staying out of fights, which is easy when they aren't in your background
6. War profiteering

1. Those big businesses are driving your economy. But fine, they did get too much independence once upon a time, during Gilded age. But now is not that time.
2. Because Europe clearly doesn't have resources.
3. That's not a benefit, you know. There's a reason why urbanization is a thing.
4. Because science and technology in USA was bad before that, amirite? Oh wait, no it wasn't. Transcontinental railroad, Gatling guns, revolvers, electricity lighting, aircraft carriers... sure, it was rarely the first one to do something, but it was definitely the first one to actually implement them on a useful scale.
5. Wars are not unavoidable natural disasters.
6. See #5.

That's probably because it's older and more dense.

Then you look down into Latin America, and realize that, despite it being about as young and low-density as USA, it has nevertheless engaged in many, many wars with itself.

Probably because, unlike Europe, it's a single country! *heh*

And why is USA a single country?

**vibrates angrily**
GRHSHRHBRSHRS

Turn off the MURRICA NUMBER ONE please, how exactly is it "best" anyway, how do you measure that

...you're currently using a USA-developed computer to send messages on a USA-developed forum for a USA-developing video game through a USA-developed world-wide communication network, with USA-developed operating system processing said data with USA-developed algorithms. And you ask me why I think USA is #1?

yep, coincidence and arseholiness gets you everything in life

That's loser talk, to blame the success of the winner on pure "luck". Luck matters, but ability to use said luck matters much more. One of the most famous examples - most countries with large oil reserves have done about nothing to ensure their success after they run out, because their political systems are just too short-sighted and stupid. Unlike, you know, the USA's one.

CONSERVATIVE, CAST THEM OUT, CAST THEM OUT, CHANGE IS GOOD

Saying that it is impossible to improve upon what we have is snobbery of the highest order, btw.

Of course it's possible to improve upon it, but so far we haven't seen anything meaningfully better than what USA has. And changing the system that consistently gave you victory after victory is seriously foolish.

♪One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong♫

For that matter, that's three things - one of them already existed, and wasn't a change, one of them wasn't "stupid shit" and only went wrong because it coincided with an authoritarian government, and the other is evil. (In order as given.)

Whoops.

...Wait, are you seriously saying that communism only went wrong because it "coincided" with an authoritarian government?! Haven't the dozens of examples of all communist states going authoritarian been not enough to convince you that its a structural problem with communism itself?

Nonono, WWI happened because of land disputes, tension, and economic rivalries.

I was talking about Europe throughout all of its history, not any particular conflict. Besides, there's no reason why it couldn't have happened in USA. And it actually did - once, and it was called "American Civil War". But - only once, over multiple centuries, because American political system is just that good.

...not really, it's a country for most intents and purposes.

A country with very powerful state-level governments which mostly decide their own economical policy, sure.

ARGLE BARGLE

No, no, no, no, no, that's not the core LvR thing, especially not now. Right is "let's give tax breaks to the rich, spend money on WAAAAAAGH" and left is "let's spend money on good shit". And right being about "saving" and "preserving for future generations," haha, pollution EPA climate change and this

LOL

I was talking in the context of reasonable and positive interpretations, not the 100% evil clusterfuck that is American right-wing, but fine, I should've probably used a different word. Regardless, there's still a fundamental choice between investing into quality of life and wealth equalization, and investing into capital growth and power to defend it.

BWAHAHAHAHA-

wait, you're serious

"Let's let companies fuck everyone else over"
"What a martyr"
Guess what, the "martyrs" never decided to "let this happen to them," it's oppression and you're painting it as "oh those brave people sacrificing themselves," haha no

You... do know that USA is a democracy, right? Americans elect all their governments, on state and federal levels, if they didn't want it to happen, then why would they elect a government that would let it happen? I mean, outside of the EC/PV splits, which only happened like 4 times in all USA history, and extensive gerrymandering, which is a fairly recent phenomena, as far as I understand it.

AS THE ICE MELTS

AND THE BOMBS FALL

THANKS AMERICA

FOR IT ALL

I don't know what are you laughing at, USA is, practically speaking, the world's only hope in actually solving both of these problems (global warming and conflicts). As you might have noticed, Pax Americana has saw a massive decrease in the number and intensity of conflicts all over the world since the moment it got implemented, and USA is also #1 leader in developing and implementing renewable technologies for sustainable development, too.

You have a very one-sided view on USA, you know. Outside of Republicans being Republicans and wacky ultra-capitalist hijinks of late 19th-early 20th century, USA has been very, very good, compared to basically everyone else.

[Shadowlord]

Turn off the MURRICA NUMBER ONE please, how exactly is it "best" anyway, how do you measure that

...you're currently using a USA-developed computer to send messages on a USA-developed forum for a USA-developing video game through a USA-developed world-wide communication network, with USA-developed operating system processing said data with USA-developed algorithms. And you ask me why I think USA is #1?
[/quote]

It would be deeply ironic_{, or maybe not, I don't know, damn you alanis,} if he was running Linux.

[Sergarr]

It would be deeply ironic_{, or maybe not, I don't know, damn you alanis,} if he was running Linux.

Linux's development was started by a USA-based company, everyone else is just building their own shit around the central core, which is a product of American labor. Without America, there would be no Linux.

The extent of American domination in the world of high technology is pretty mind-boggling, if you think about it. No one else is even close.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I remember those halcyon days when Sergarr was amongst the coalition of Russian forumites, decrying the corrupt lies of the American government and Western imperialism while advancing Putin as at least someone who would reclaim Russian clay and certainly no worse than American pig Obama.

Now look at us. The world's gone mad. It was bad enough that Bay 12 for the most part lacks the mandatory Randroid cultist group, but now even our Russians are turning into American patriots.

God, maybe Donald Trump really does have satanic mind control powers.

[Neonivek]

No it is me who has satanic powers...

Everytime I say I hope something bad happens to America...

It happens.

[Baffler]

It was bad enough that Bay 12 for the most part lacks the mandatory Randroid cultist group

That's not a bad thing, MSH, what on Earth are you talking about?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It was bad enough that Bay 12 for the most part lacks the mandatory Randroid cultist group

That's not a bad thing, MSH, what on Earth are you talking about?

Life lacks a certain spice when you don't get in regular arguments on the internet with middle class anarcho-capitalists obsessed with smoking and tech startups.

The ones I'd pass on even for experience value are probably Prison Planet type conspiracy theorists, but hey, Alex Jones is an advisor to the President-elect now so we'll get to see it in meatspace anyway!

[smjjames]

No it is me who has satanic powers...

Everytime I say I hope something bad happens to America...

It happens.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point.

Anti-environmental sentiments, the guy who's going to be there seems more extreme than his predecessors under Republican Presidents, pro-oil (though this is standard Republican fare, his labor secretary, bankers in his economic cabinet, Sen. Sessions......

And just about everything about Trump.....

I don't know how the whole slate compares to past cabinets, but would be interesting to compare previous Republican cabinets.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Sergarr, everything about what you wrote is wrong.

What, the fact that USA is #1 country is wrong? Why, then show me who's better than USA at technology? Or, maybe you know a country whose economy is better than USA's? I desire to know who it is!

He was being a bit overdramatic. He meant that basically everything you said was wrong.

Really? Well, let's see.

sure

Best-case by some measures, not by all. And "best-case" in the realistic sense, not the "pie in the sky" ideas like "everybody has the right to life and happiness" or shit like that.

Still makes communism a failed ideology.

RGHRAHRZRHRSHRBHR *gnashes teeth*

Capitalist countries have also failed. Do you know why Communist countries tend to be bad? Because they're the result of revolutions. The status quo has the nice and stable countries, and the revolutions have a SINGLE GREATLEADER with no balance of power. Failure or success of ideologies doesn't play into it.

...unless, of course, the revolution is anarchic like it's supposed to be...

The best at
1. Letting big business fuck everybody else over
2. Having lots of resources
3. Having a low population density
4. Letting German scientists in
5. Staying out of fights, which is easy when they aren't in your background
6. War profiteering

1. Those big businesses are driving your economy. But fine, they did get too much independence once upon a time, during Gilded age. But now is not that time.

The big businesses are:
1. Making the externality of climate change
2. Lobbying our government to reduce restrictions - they're in our government
and that's just off the top of my head. They're "driving our economy", sure, but that's not all they're doing

also monopolies are capitalism breaking down, and big business is often a monopoly

also without regulation like the FDA, you'd have even more "mystery meat" aka toxic slurries in your food

it sells, right? that's all that matters to the business

2. Because Europe clearly doesn't have resources.

Because MURRICA has more.

3. That's not a benefit, you know. There's a reason why urbanization is a thing.

He said it was a benefit, you said "well that just shows that MURRICA is the best anyway", I responded saying "...no". I guess it might not be a benefit.

4. Because science and technology in USA was bad before that, amirite? Oh wait, no it wasn't. Transcontinental railroad, Gatling guns, revolvers, electricity lighting, aircraft carriers... sure, it was rarely the first one to do something, but it was definitely the first one to actually implement them on a useful scale.

America has had success, yes, but that's not because it's BEST NUMBER ONE MOST SUCCESSFUL GOVERNMENT EVERYTHING'S SWELL

5. Wars are not unavoidable natural disasters.

never said they were. I said that we don't have many nearby neighbors who'd like to kill us, so it's easy not to join a war.

6. See #5.

* America starts a war for the purpose of profiting from it.
* Alternatively, America profits from an existing war.
* Your response: "It just goes to show that America is the best, because wars aren't unavoidable natural disasters."
wut

That's probably because it's older and more dense.

Then you look down into Latin America, and realize that, despite it being about as young and low-density as USA, it has nevertheless engaged in many, many wars with itself.

There are a few reasons for that; poorer regions have more wars. This link says why they're poorer.

Also, again, USA is a COUNTRY.

Probably because, unlike Europe, it's a single country! *heh*

And why is USA a single country?

Because they became a single country; there are multiple states, but they have an overarching government. Europe doesn't have that.

**vibrates angrily**
GRHSHRHBRSHRS

Turn off the MURRICA NUMBER ONE please, how exactly is it "best" anyway, how do you measure that

...you're currently using a USA-developed computer to send messages on a USA-developed forum for a USA-developing video game through a USA-developed world-wide communication network, with USA-developed operating system processing said data with USA-developed algorithms. And you ask me why I think USA is #1?

Define number one. It is successful, yes. But the fact that I can use domestic products doesn't make it NUMBER ONE.

yep, coincidence and arseholiness gets you everything in life

That's loser talk, to blame the success of the winner on pure "luck".

Would you say the same about people? Is it "loser talk" to say that maybe people don't succeed sometimes because they didn't get the same opportunities? (If so then GLRHRAZRHSBRBLE *grinding noise*)

Luck matters, but ability to use said luck matters much more. One of the most famous examples - most countries with large oil reserves have done about nothing to ensure their success after they run out, because their political systems are just too short-sighted and stupid. Unlike, you know, the USA's one.

Needs reference to a specific representative country - and if you're talking about the Middle East, that's the US's handiwork.

CONSERVATIVE, CAST THEM OUT, CAST THEM OUT, CHANGE IS GOOD

Saying that it is impossible to improve upon what we have is snobbery of the highest order, btw.

Of course it's possible to improve upon it, but so far we haven't seen anything meaningfully better than what USA has. And changing the system that consistently gave you victory after victory is seriously foolish.

We've been successful, so we shouldn't change anything. Suuuure. It's pretty clear that, ferex, more regulations on carbon would be ubergood. Shouldn't we change that?

And anyway if our criterion for NUMBER ONE is "victory after victory", I bet you're longing for the Imperialist era, or for warfare. Conquer the world! (If that's not you, reconsider your criterion.)

♪One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong♫

For that matter, that's three things - one of them already existed, and wasn't a change, one of them wasn't "stupid shit" and only went wrong because it coincided with an authoritarian government, and the other is evil. (In order as given.)

Whoops.

...Wait, are you seriously saying that communism only went wrong because it "coincided" with an authoritarian government?! Haven't the dozens of examples of all communist states going authoritarian been not enough to convince you that its a structural problem with communism itself?

Those were actually state capitalism. So they weren't even communism.

Nonono, WWI happened because of land disputes, tension, and economic rivalries.

I was talking about Europe throughout all of its history, not any particular conflict.

Why do wars happen? Because people are greedy, because people hate. It's not a failure of government.

Besides, there's no reason why it couldn't have happened in USA. And it actually did - once, and it was called "American Civil War". But - only once, over multiple centuries, because American political system is just that good.

Or because internal civil war is apples/oranges with intercountry war...

...not really, it's a country for most intents and purposes.

A country with very powerful state-level governments which mostly decide their own economical policy, sure.

And they don't fight because they are tied together very strongly by the federal government.

ARGLE BARGLE

No, no, no, no, no, that's not the core LvR thing, especially not now. Right is "let's give tax breaks to the rich, spend money on WAAAAAAGH" and left is "let's spend money on good shit". And right being about "saving" and "preserving for future generations," haha, pollution EPA climate change and this

LOL

I was talking in the context of reasonable and positive interpretations, not the 100% evil clusterfuck that is American right-wing, but fine, I should've probably used a different word. Regardless, there's still a fundamental choice between investing into quality of life and wealth equalization, and investing into capital growth and power to defend it.

That's a valid position, it's a "rightist" view that I can respect. Possibly the only one.

BWAHAHAHAHA-

wait, you're serious

"Let's let companies fuck everyone else over"
"What a martyr"
Guess what, the "martyrs" never decided to "let this happen to them," it's oppression and you're painting it as "oh those brave people sacrificing themselves," haha no

You... do know that USA is a democracy, right? Americans elect all their governments, on state and federal levels, if they didn't want it to happen, then why would they elect a government that would let it happen?

Because of the propaganda machine, of course.

I mean, outside of the EC/PV splits, which only happened like 4 times in all USA history, and extensive gerrymandering, which is a fairly recent phenomena, as far as I understand it.

No, it's as old as MURRICA.

AS THE ICE MELTS

AND THE BOMBS FALL

THANKS AMERICA

FOR IT ALL

I don't know what are you laughing at, USA is, practically speaking, the world's only hope in actually solving both of these problems (global warming and conflicts).

And it's a driving force for both of them, too. We might be able to unfuck things, who knows?

As you might have noticed, Pax Americana has saw a massive decrease in the number and intensity of conflicts all over the world since the moment it got implemented, and USA is also #1 leader in developing and implementing renewable technologies for sustainable development, too.

...I guess you're right... it is pretty good on that front.

Wait a second, "Pax Americana"? Does that extend to the Middle East?

You have a very one-sided view on USA, you know. Outside of Republicans being Republicans and wacky ultra-capitalist hijinks of late 19th-early 20th century, USA has been very, very good, compared to basically everyone else.

It's not the worst... but in terms of foreign policy it's been bad, it's been lagging behind Europe in many QoL measures... I think we could make things a lot better.

[Neonivek]

No it is me who has satanic powers...

Everytime I say I hope something bad happens to America...

It happens.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point.

Anti-environmental sentiments, the guy who's going to be there seems more extreme than his predecessors under Republican Presidents, pro-oil (though this is standard Republican fare, his labor secretary, bankers in his economic cabinet, Sen. Sessions......

And just about everything about Trump.....

I don't know how the whole slate compares to past cabinets, but would be interesting to compare previous Republican cabinets.

Yeah I know... America is screwed now.

Everyone who suggested to give Trump a chance is probably eating crow as Trump is entirely against having anyone give him a chance and immediately and constantly sabatages himself... Before he even gets into office.

He is probably the only president who managed to be a bad president before he officially became president.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Those were actually state capitalism. So they weren't even communism.

Definitions are evil, or something.

[Bumber]

Great Depression was in the 1930s and on, right? USSR's economy grew in that period, yes, but it was mainly due to heavy industrialization for the upcoming WW2.

ITT: USSR predicts WW2.

And why is USA a single country?

Manifest destiny.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Those were actually state capitalism. So they weren't even communism.

Definitions are evil, or something.

Zig-zag... damaged... barracuda. Wtf?

Anyway, give a definition. Your favorite definition of communism, your choice. Then we'll see if the USSR/China counts.

I'd say that socialism is when the people own the means of production, not when the government does so. But that's a bit of a quibble, honestly. The main reason why the USSR doesn't DISPROVE COMMUNISM is that they did it wrong - if there's still a government at the end, you messed up. Social anarchism has never been tried before.

Additionally, my "revolution often creates dictators" point still stands. The USSR doesn't refute Communism anymore than an awful capitalist country refutes capitalism.

[smjjames]

Oil Baron Rex Tillerson is reportedly the frontrunner for Secretary of State. I don't think there has been a Secretary of State who was that much of a big business person. *goes off to wiki to look*

He's also naming the CEO of Dow Chemical as an advisor in the Commerce department

I don't think there has been a cabinet this extremely pro-oil. I looked at both Bushes cabinets and those were nowhere near as pro-oil as Trumps is becoming, and they were themselves oilmen.

Not to mention becoming extremely globalist.

[misko27]

No it is me who has satanic powers...

Everytime I say I hope something bad happens to America...

It happens.

Maybe you've just discovered the folly in life of wishing pain and unpleasantness on the lives of others. I mean in practice it's kinda hard to defend you here, because you are basically admitting that you wanted terrible things to happen, and they happened; and I note a distinct lack of feeling bad about what happened, merely impressed at your predictive power. Does this not in practice make you a cruel or at least deeply indifferent person? Either you don't think Trump is as bad as you say or you really don't care.

Yeah I know... America is screwed now.

Everyone who suggested to give Trump a chance is probably eating crow...

Wrong! Every single person who suggested that is, as I suspected from the beginning, a mix of malice and ignorance, with the proportion differing from person to person. But I am sure that most of these people have forgotten the magnitude of their folly, rationalized it away, and will continue to live their life the way they always have: unaware of how things work. And then *next* time, and there will be a next time, someone will propose something stupid, and people will fight and argue and explain and they'll keep doing it anyway, and sometimes they'll succeed. That's why I don't like arguing. Even if I win there are still people who will come in here and say more stuff, so you either commit to forcing your view on the world or you hold back.

Those were actually state capitalism. So they weren't even communism.

Definitions are evil, or something.

Zig-zag... damaged... barracuda. Wtf?

It's gfycat's naming convention. Like Nippy Kind Langur or Brutal Savage Rekt.

Anyway, give a definition. Your favorite definition of communism, your choice. Then we'll see if the USSR/China counts.

Let's ask google:

a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Does that work for you? Sounds like Communism to me.

I'd say that socialism is when the people own the means of production, not when the government does so.

What is the people? By this definition can't I call capitalism socialism? Capitialists are people too. ^{[CITATION NEEDED]}

But that's a bit of a quibble, honestly. The main reason why the USSR doesn't DISPROVE COMMUNISM is that they did it wrong - if there's still a government at the end, you messed up. Social anarchism has never been tried before.

B does not follow A. They sure tried. An entire country fell to a massive, bloody civil war that ended with the proclaimation of Communism. I mean that looks like Class Warfare to me. And it's quite untrue that social anarchism is untried. You are really, really badly mixing up your terms. Do you know the difference between Socialism and Communism for me? Can you explain briefly what Marxism is, and how it differs from, say, Marxist-Leninism or Maoism? And if I say someone is a Syndicalist, how does that differ from the above? (asnwer: they are FUCKING SYNDIES REEEEE).

Additionally, my "revolution often creates dictators" point still stands. The USSR doesn't refute Communism anymore than an awful capitalist country refutes capitalism.

Surely not, but we should be equally sure that the stain of the USSR stands and should stand as a permanent black mark on authoritarian communism, as equally as WW2 should be a black mark on Nationalist Populism. Moreover, I'd argue that you are being extraordinarily dismissive here. I'd argue that a collapsed capitalist country will have gone wrong for reasons, and almost certainly some of those reasons are institutional. But not all capitalism is created equal (obviously). I'd argue that there are failed capitalist countries in existence which really have disproven the system they relied upon, but that's a function of their particular brand of capitalism.

The fact of the matter is there does not exist, nor can there ever exist, a capitalist or socialist country in a vacuum, because nothing exists in a the vacuum, least of all countries. If you had even the slightest knowledge of Marxist historiography (and based on the way you talk, you don't), you'd know that. And as soon as you apply specifics to it, you can immediately find excuses to disregard one example or another. But if you do that, what are we left with? I might as easily conclude that communism by your definition is impossible and unworthy of discussion if you cannot provide examples. There are no pure capitalist countries either, should we just stop discussing that too? And then where are we?