>i just found out 140 000 people died instantly because of pic related
why the FUCK isn't this talked about more....
What exactly is syndicalism? What separates the ideology from socialism? Has there ever been a functional syndicalist states?
I read the wikipedia page, but it doesn't seem to provide an adequate summary of syndicalism.
Trade Unionism to the extreme, the entire country is managed by experts arranged into councils, syndicates, communes, or whatever they may be called, the workers know their own industries best, so they will be able to manage them best is the core concept, that things will both be more representative and efficient, with all the industries coming together in a rather functionalist way, its the lovechild of the socialist state and the corporate state
This, it's a key element in fascism, especially Italian fascism. A popular form of syndicalism is anarcho-syndicalism, where the worker's councils are organized completely democratically and run without a state. The only place where this has really been tried was Catalonia and Aragón during the Spanish Civil War.
I see Thomists say that Thomism is superior to modern philosophy. What are some points for this?
Why did the Soviet Union only offer token help to Loyalist forces in the Spanish Civil War? Why was the response of the Soviets so different to that of the Nazi's? Why were the democratic governments so passive?
France was very polarised. Blum wanted to help, and he sent some supplies, but his country was on the brink of a civil war
Britain wanted to stay out from the problems of Europe. They maintained this position until September 1939
Soviet Union forbid cooperation of communists and other left-wing forces until Hitler's rise. They corected this blunder, but were slow to act
Because placating the French and British states were of greater importance in Soviet geopolitics due to the United Front / Socialism in One Country line.
Supporting the Spanish republic would have supported the Trotsky line rather than the Stalin line and resulted in party divisions during a period when they were clinging onto the 2nd 5 year plan by the skin of their teeth and already liquidating the party in purges.
Read Fitzpatrick's every day stalinism.
What, in your opinion, are some of the world's most underrated weapons cultures? Let's keep it premodern least we stumble into /k/ territory.
I mean like designs you rarely get to see in media depictions. Like Western/Samurai Faggotry dominates those thoroughly with the pdd Chinese/Middle Eastern weapons at the side.
Top of my head i can think of Southeast Asia. Specially those island SEAsians.
No seriously, you watch pirate movies-especially old ones- and they fight in classical fencing with smallswords/rapiers.
While in reality, most swords used by plebs were these short stubby cutlasses, dirks, and infantry swords that were brutal in the cutting department.
Pirates of teh Carribean however is interesting as the movie used accurate short swords instead of rapierfaggotry.
Tibetan weapons. Provided they *were* copies of Chinese weapons, Tibetan Aesthetic for scabbards, guards, hilts gave them a distinct Ayy Lmao feel.
I just can't understand this guy, he's so hard to read, but he also looks very interesting, just tell me what he said plase !
Are christfags the new fedoras on /his/?
The Christfags we have online are a particular breed of filth, unique to the net.
My father is a Christian, for him that means helping the poor and connecting with God. For the Christfag it means bashing any historical or philosophical figures they feel threatened by and constantly reminding them of how wrong everyone else is. It's very similar behavior to the internet fedora who is defined by their inability to carry on any conversation that is not adversarial or condescending.
Morality is objective and not subjective. Mass genocide and mass rape can be objectively said to be less moral that helping an old lady cross the road.
The Universe is all that we know that there is and if you can't get your oughts here there is nowhere else to look.
Since without conscious witnesses the Universe is just Physics unfolding then the well-being of conscious beings is the basis of objective morality.
ITT: Post the stupidest military moves in history
While not empire ending, in terms of "What the fuck were you thinking" level stupidest, I'd have to go with Hitler's decision to move 14 divisions up to occupy/guard Norway, creating a military presence there that was 1/6 of the total population and putting some good troops in a theater that never saw action, could not reasonably be assumed to ever see action, and were hard to withdraw to other fronts when needs became pressing elsewhere.
Would African problems be fixed (or atleast diminished) if the borders of newly independent countries were drawn along the ethnic (or in cases of countries like Nigeria ethnoreligious) lines? I know some countries are so ethnically diverse that even this would not work but i am asking in general. How many of the African wars and instability were caused by majority of african countries being multiethnic and at constant internal tension?
Pretty much yeah
However the Powers That Be don't wanna have to wrangle 10,000 puppet dictators instead of 50
And do you REALLY think the puppets in charge right now want to lose territory and resources?
So are there any academic historical consensuses that you doubt, or thing there is strong evidence against? Historical narratives that historians generally agree upon, but that you think is either ignoring contrary evidence, or just based on flimsy evidence, etc
Elaborate your views more or less.
Pic unrelated...I swear. (there is already an active KANGZ thread, so please anything but that, ancient or modern.)
How come messers had such long hilts when they were one handed weapons?
pic related, this is what one handed messer looks like.
What would you do as Germany to win world war 2?
You are hitler. Your goal is eventual global domination. What choices would you make to ensure an axis success?
kill all the nazi fucks and replace them with people who are loyal but not as retarded
not antagonize the entire world
not be a total asshat to the natives on eastern front
make italy behave and japan chill
>What would you do as Germany to win world war 2?
>You are hitler. Your goal is eventual global domination.
>What choices would you make to ensure an axis success?
The Axis can't succeed except in utmost defeat.
Has anyone since Marx come up with a new argument for why socialism would be preferable to capitalism?
First of all there exists some pseudo-antithesis between Marxism & Capitalism.
The economic factor exercises a hypnosis and a tyranny over modern man.
In free-market economies, as well as in Marxist societies, the myth of production and its corollaries (e.g., standardization, monopolies, cartels, technocracy) are subject to the "hegemony" of the economy, becoming the primary factor on which the material conditions of existence are based. Both systems regard as "backward" or as "underdeveloped"...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Capitalism is not necessarily preferable to socialism. Marx, whom can be quoted to devise any sort of 'Marx' of your own, once said that capitalism develops the productive capacities needed for socialism (and later communism) to take off.
To answer your question, I've noticed that one of the popular lines of enquiry is "why hasn't socialism replaced capitalism yet?" Antonio Gramsci wrote about hegemonies and consent (I somehow got a First in an essay marked by a Marxist even though I critiqued Gramsci - the academic referenced Gramsci a lot...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.