Who was the greatest leader of the 20th century?
Pic probably not related
Nasser is not even close. apart from having a very loud mouth his achievements are betraying Mohamed Naguib and losing wars and eventually dying from too much humiliation.
Is there even any contest?
>>419841
Implying that glorified butcher comes even close to the Fuhrer
>>421419
>implying facist pig-dogs have anything on uncle Joe
>20th century
In all honesty, they were all shit. The best was probably Pinochet and even he was shit.
>>421668
>pinochet
noice maymay, friend
>>421489
Uncle Joe was just a cock sucking cowboy without Uncle Sam to bail him out.
>>421685
He gets my nod because he killed off all the communists and repaired a shitty economy. He was still shit because he was a power tripper and a lot of innocents got tangled up in the anti-commie hunt.
>>421731
I just said he was shit, are you illiterate or something? Well either that or a commie launching into a bitchfit every time Pinochets gets mentioned.
>>421419
>implying nazi sperglords have anything on Based Teddy Roosevelt
>>421419
>>421694
>being this deluded.
No one defeats Uncle Joe. The greatest leader in human history, not just the 20th Century.
Even faced against Alexander or Caesar Uncle Joe would have crushed them.
>>421762
He couldn't even crush that Yugoslav faggot who got him poisoned.
>>421773
Pseudo-historical speculation.
Get out of this Uncle Joe thread, you filthy kulak.
>>421773
Tito's only failings were.
1. not grooming a successor.
2. economic plans in case the West and Soviet Union stopped trying to buy Yugoslavia's favor.
Though while he was in power, things were not that bad at all.
FDR
>>421788
>speculation
How is it "speculation" that Stalin didn't dare invading Yugoslavia or otherwise taking control over there after they gave him a finger?
Also kulaks were good people, because they had money, unlike you.
>>421794
Socialist fuck up and a cripple.
America and FDR's reputation, were saved by Hitler and Tojo.
>>421808
This desu. He needed that war so bad, there's good evidence that the US knew about the Pearl Harbor plans but did fuck all to prevent it.
Lee kuan yew seemed to do a pretty good job
>>421805
>Also kulaks were good people, because they had money, unlike you.
They were counter-revolutionaries and traitors to the proletariat and an impediment to humand progress. Death was too good for them.
>>421701
>>421751
>The economy guise
>lel commies
>>419617
Khrushchev
>>421851
>>421947
Everyone has to die, anon.
>>421990
I know. It's just communists always die in such hilarious fashion.
>Lenin
>dying of syphilis and turned into a mummy
>Trotsky
>hacked to death with a pickaxe in assfuck Mexico
>Stalin
>poisoned by Tito and buried in a wall
>Che
>shot to death by a bunch of illiterate Indians in some random jungle
It's like a fucking slapstick with them
>>421851
>imblyin
The only impediment to human progress are the worthless welfare leeches known as "the working class".
Seriously, I would 100% support a class war where the bourgeois annihilate the workers.
>>422051
Friendly reminder that Hitler never killed anyone, except himself.
Everyone dies in a funny fashion, that's life, anon, until Marxism destroys scarcity.
>>422062
That's because you are bourgeois scum that needs to be eliminated.
>>422070
Where did I imply Hitler in my post my delusional friend?
>>422062
>The only impediment to human progress are the worthless welfare leeches known as "the working class".
Somewhat true.
>a company automatizes production
>B-BUT MUH JOBS !!!
>>421827
Oh they knew there was gonna be an attack, they just didn't know when and where
>>422082
Everything that is not in favour of a glorious revolution by the people is part of the ignoble march to fascism and Nazism.
You're either with Stalin or you are with Hitler.
>>422078
too bad the communist scum has already been liquidated
>>421791
>Tito's only failings were
Bad controll at balkan monkeys which were sending their neighbors to Goli otok
>>422078
The funny thing is that the only reason you're alive is thanks to "the bourgeoisie".
>>422111
Actually, you're either with God or you're with the Devil.
>>422116
>>422119
>implying Marxist China isn't now the sole global superpower
>implying Communism isn't going to take us the stars and beyond just like it too us into space
>implying Captains Kirk and Picard were wrong.
The post-scarcity Communist era is almost upon us comrades. Marx was only out by a century or so. Communism is inevitable until you want to think like a feral beast.
>>422142
>The post-scarcity Communist era is almost upon us comrades.
>>422134
If you're bizarre understanding of the Universe is even right then glorious Comrade Stalin has Jesus in a celestial gulag right now, where he will freeze forver with mush wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Just like you if you oppose the march of Marxism worldwide.
>>422142
>China
>Marxist
From how my grandpa described his time in Korea, to how it is today is evidence that Park was a based leader.
A former colony was turned into a regional power because of him.
>>422153
Stalin was an atheist m8.
>>422153
*your
Darn it!
>>422153
>women's rights a good thing
>animu faggot
Further proof that commies are ultra spergs
>>422161
You missed the word *if*.
>>422153
>Woman can never EVER receive and education outside of communism
This is too retarded.
>>422153
Nah. Bible tells me that you (Devil) are gonna lose at the end :^)
>>422186
Hey gurl.
Who are you going to trust?
Counter-revolutionaries, cowards and traitors or Uncle Joe?
#stalin4feminism
>>422213
I like Stalin only because he hated the kikes and the Ruskies. Killed more of them than Hitler.
>>422158
This, I've read some books about him and he was based as fuck. South Korea is what it is now thanks to him. Based Park.
>>422225
Dear Diary. Today I encountered a fascist pig-dog on the internet and he was retarded.
>>422153
>communist country collapses ignomously leaving widespread social disfunction at it's waste
>it's everyone's fault except of the communist system
>>422266
You think killing Ruskies is not a good deed?
>>419617
>Who was the greatest leader of the 20th century?
Leaders are never great. They almost unequivocally have some deficiency in their moral character.
>>419617
Pic VERY much related
>>422299
There are exceptions.
>>419617
Nasser is a prime example of the right ethos but wrong implementation in the ME.
>>422273
It always amazes me how people just blatantly ignore or rationalize the body count of nations through the process of industrialization when it happens via capitalism.
Not that I'm a Stalinist sympathizer. But come on, ffs.
>>422320
Collateral damage I guess? The goal of industrialists wasn't killing or enslaving people, but with communists it was, or at the very least they viewed it as a necessity towards reaching paradise.
>>422320
The "body count" was due to forced collectivization, not to industriallization. Several countries industrialized without actually destroying it's independent peasantry.
Ok, England did industrialize after it's peasantry was destroyed by enclosures, but this is not ignored.
PS: Of course you are a filthy commie.
>>419617
In terms of ability and concerning leaders of entire nations only, Tito.
In terms of their positive impact on history, I'm not sure, Churchill possibly.
In terms of their impact on history in general, Uncle Adolf.
Tage Erlander. If you manage to stick to power for over 20 years in a democracy you must do something right.
>>422335
Why is Tito so overrated? Was it because he was the only communist leader the West liked?
His whole economic policy was getting loans from the IMF to fund a dysfunctional industry that cosplayed as worker's self management while it was just typical central planning, while also sending off workers to Sweden from where they could send remittances.
>>422333
Hurricane Katrina (deliberate faulty construction) 1,836
NATO Intervention in Libya 2011 15,000
Tamils killed by US backed Sri Lankan Gov. 30,000
US Revolutionary War 35,700
Spanish-American War 100,000
US Made Famine in Bangladesh 1974 100,000
NATO Intervention in Libya 100,000
Guatemala 300,000
US Bombing of Yugoslavia 2,000
Iraq (US Selling Poison Gas to Saddam) 400,000
Iraq (Desert Storm) 500,000
US Bombing Iraq Water Supply in 1991 500,000
Invasion of the Philippines 650,000
US Civil War 700,000
US Concentration Camps of Germans 1,000,000
US imposed sanctions on Iraq 1,000,000
Afghanistan (War on Terrorism) 1,200,000
US Backed Dictator General Suharto 1,200,000 (Anti-commmunist dictator)
Iraq (War on Terrorism) 1,300,000
1898 American War vs Philippine 3,000,000
US Intervention in the Congo 5,000,000
US Aggression on Latin America 6,000,000
Vietnam War (including Cambodia & Laos) 10,000,000
Korean War 10,000,000
Native American Genocide 114,000,000
African Slave Trade 150,000,00
>>422352
Do any of those have to do with industrialization?
>>419617
I'm not turk but it's probably Atatürk t.b.h.
>>422352
>US intervention in Libya
It was a French intervention with British and American help. Commies can't stop with their revisionist horseshit even when it comes to stuff that happened mere 5 years ago, I swear.
>>422371
t. t*rk
>>422352
None of these deaths can be attributed to the "private ownership of the means of production" in the way that deaths under Stalin can be attributted to the attempt to achieve a "common ownership of the means of production" through state control of agriculture.
>>421762
Got caught off guard by Hitler even after 87 warnings. Not to mention that Lenin himself said he sucked just before he died.
J N Nehru, in terms of being stupidly optimistic at least.
>>422307
Pretty sure he has a litany of human rights abuses on his record.
>>422389
He was fighting a communist guerrilla army. He did what was necessary and he managed to destroy a group that numbered 10.000 members in 1973 by killing only 3.000 people.
Stalin, who many people in this thread love, murdered hundreds of thousands in the name of fighting non-existenting political groups.
>>422381
>None of these deaths can be attributed to the "private ownership of the means of production"
Dear Diary. Today I encountered a fascist pig-dog, counter-revolutionary, class traitor , bourgeoisie, wealth hording, neoliberal, imperialistic, misogynistic, smelly, fascist, capitalistic, fundamentalist religious, goat-sacrificing, German, racist, faggot on the internet and he was retarded.
>>422402
>Dear Diary, today I created a post using nothing but buzzwords
>>422371
Was just going to post this desu
>>422402
Please tell me explain to me how the private ownership of the means of production, which as a historical phenomenom begins in the 17th century in the English countryside, can be held responsible for the "Native American Genocide" and "African Slave Trade", both of which began in the 16th century by Spain and Portugal.
>>422410
To the gulag with this counter-revolutionary scum.
A show trial is too good for you, you stand condemned by your own words.
>>422397
Fighting a communist guerrilla army is not the only thing he has done.
He was after all a dictator.
>>422118
He kept the Serbs in line for a few decades. Serbs ruin everything.
>>422421
>He was after all a dictator.
Who gave his country a democratic constitution and stepped out of power once his people said "No" to him in a referendum.
What other "dictator" in the last century did that?
>>422441
Yeah, I'm sure it's because the people demanded a referendum that he stepped down. No other reason.
Sure, sure.
>>422415
>please tell me how the private ownership of capital is responsible for the slave trade!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/commercial/
>>422462
>ownership of capital
So you're claiming that entire history between Sumer and Marx was capitalist?
Also what's with the women all the time, are you a pussy worshipper?
>>422462
I still do not see any relation.
This is the history board. If you claim that "Private ownership of the means of production is responsible for the slave trade", you have to show it from history how private onwership caused the slave trade.
I do not claim to be an expert on economic history of slavery, but any quick glance shows that the slave trade predates capitalism by far. There are already records of slavery in Ancient Mesopotamia, millennia before capitalism ever came to exist, and of course the Roman Empire maintained of the greatest slave economies in history through pre-capitalist institutional frameworks.
In fact, it could be argued exactly the opposite. The moment private ownership appears in history, the late 17th century, is also the moment when abolitionism appears in history. What is peculiar about capitalist England, after all, is not that it kept a part in slave trade through the 18th century, but that it abolished it in the 19th.
If you wanted to accuse capitalism of something, you could have mentioned the famines in the British Raj, that were worsened by the British practice of laissez-faire, instead of something that has not much historical relationship with the private ownership of capital.
>>422482
Are you claiming that the literal ownership of the workforce by capitalists, i.e. slavery had nothing to do with the private ownership of capital.
>Also what's with the women all the time, are you a pussy worshipper?
Capitalism killed 6 million Jews. I dread to think how many more would have been killed if it wasn't for glorious Comrade Stalin.
>>422507
>There are already records of slavery in Ancient Mesopotamia, millennia before capitalism ever came to exist, and of course the Roman Empire maintained of the greatest slave economies in history.
Whew lad, that's all capitalism.
>>422520
No, that's historical ignorance. You are like those libertarians that think that "capitalism is natural because it always existed".
>>422376
If anything I think that turks in this board would be the more eager to disagree. As far as I know Atatürk is popular amongst grandpas and the cool edgy thing to do is to not like him that much.
But I may be wrong.
>>422510
Even Marx himself actually distinguished between slave-based societies, feudalism and capitalism. You managed to be an even bigger retard than Marx which I didn't think was possible.
Also please leave this board until you're at least 25, your teenage stupidity is showing.
>>422537
>No, that's historical ignorance. You are like those libertarians that think that "capitalism is natural because it always existed".
It has always existed.
One day we will kill enough counter-revolutionary-pig-dog-gerbil-faced-poo-headed-meanie-smellypants-fascist scum for a dictatorship of the workers to usher in a new era of post-scarcity where money does not exist at all.
This will all be thanks to Glorious Comrade Stalin and you better get used to it you misogynistic, dirty, racist, slave-owning piece of spunk from a monkey raping donkey's dick dripping from a monkey's butthole.
The workers united will never be defeated.
You can either agree with this or you are literally Hitler. take your pick.
>>422576
This is some really shitty bait, and I can't believe that so many people in this thread fell for it.
>>422576
At this point I'm convinced you're a /pol/ack or some other right winger falseflagging as an utter retard communist.
Good job in that case.
>>421947
Holy shit Amerindians are ugly as fuck
>>422582
>>422585
These people need to be sent to the gulag.
>>422352
>see your governments have killed millions too... that is why you should give all your property and agency to... your governments
A typical socialist argument. Completely asinine and contradictory.
>>422576
>It has always existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history
>The First Stage: is usually called primitive communism.
>The Second Stage: may be called slave society, considered to be the beginning of "class society" where private property appears.
>The Third Stage: may be called feudalism; it appears after slave society collapses. This was most obvious during the European Middle Ages when society went from slavery to feudalism.
>Capitalism may be considered the Fourth Stage in the sequence. It appears after the bourgeois revolution when the capitalists overthrow the feudal system.
>>422606
>>422612
These people are fascists that worship Hitler like he was a god, pay them no heed.
>>422623
Hitler was a socialist too.
>>422623
>Marx was a fascist
Eisenhower was a pretty cool guy. Probably my favorite president.
>>422422
Not when the mighty Yugoslavia is concerned.
>>422646
Serbs ruined Yugoslavia desu. Their Chetniks wanted their Serbian kingdom and even briefly allied with Hitler because of it and the moment Tito died Yugoslavia went tits up under Serbian rule.
>>422657
Yes but they ruined it in a glorious fashion.
>>422692
Yeah, by getting bombed to hell and back.
>>422347
What is wrong with that? He wanted to turn Yugoslavia into a modern state and he was willing to defy the soviets and open the economy and society despite the risks to his political power (and life at certain points).
>>422698
>run the country on western loans
>west pumps loans into them without thinking, to spite the Soviets
>USSR collapses
>"Yugoslavia, pay denbts"
>shitstorm ensues
>>422371
Literally only guy on the middle east to cause any progress for his people, other than Reza Shah.
>>419617
What the hell is with his face? Did he have cancer? Was he face-pregnant with a baby potato?
>>422507
> private ownership of slaves has nothing to do with private ownership
Ok then
This guy
Played his hand to his fullest potential and died among his people in the end.
>>424009
Well you see my dear millenial, what you're lookiing at is what's known as a strong, or masculine chin, or jaw. And since masculinity is selected against both culturally and due to the stuff in the food and water these days, you don't see them as much any more. That is the reason why a (previously) normal, good-looking masculine feature confuses and upsets you - it is strange to you.
Claiming capitalism had nothing to do wwith slavery is just as idiotic as being a Stalin apologist.
The British consumer goods industry very much rose out of the slave trade. The slaves were bought (private property), then sent to private plantations, to work sugar or tobacco or other highly addictive yet ultimately useless consumer goods, that the masters could then sell back in Europe for a profit.
All this slave money then helped finance both the industrial revolution and the victory in the Napoleonic Wars, when the plebs thought for a second that they had a shot at fairness.
It was like the very definition of capitalism.
>>424077
Yeah but industrialization invalidated a lot of slave labor, causing a paradigim shift after the death of Marx.
Granted it was a slow transition and we still have issues with cheap labor and it's tradeoffs, such as pesticide use, but such equipment completely changed the name of the game.
>>424077
But all economic systems practiced slavery. The capitalist society of Venice was the first human civilization ever to end slavery, and Britain was the first superpower to do it.
>>424087
Oh, most definitely, industrialization was a massive improvement.
At first, mainly for the aristocracy, but vigilance in labour movements has meant that it has also begun to benefit the workers in the last hundred years or so.
Except for in the US, that is. Because that's the kind of place where people will sit on the internet and praise Pinochet or Reagan.
Btw the U.S. was not Laissez-faire capitalist by the time. It had already become a "mixed economy", a sort of neo capitalist nation. It is generally perceived as being capitalist to give a dichological distinction between N.A.T.O. and Wawsaw.
>>424099
> all systems practiced slavery
Yes, but the Atlantic slave trade, as well as both colonialism and imperialism, where heavily intertwined with the capitalist economies in Britain and the Netherlands
>>424107
I'd wage that less than 5% of my countrymen know who pinochet was. It is a relatively obscure thing to know for public education.
>>424114
So Americans aren't being taught that their government supported a ruthless, autocratic genoicidal dictator for years?
>>424103
The United States still has really high living standards though.
>muh HDI
>>424135
definitely. The USA has a lot going for it. But it's still more unequal and violent than most other developed nations.
>>424109
The feudal states of Portugal and Spain were the first to play that game though.
And they were the first human societies to engage in transoceanic trade and travel.
The only thing that was historically unique about capitalism was the abolition of slavery and sustained improvements in human rights.
>>424138
The whole "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" thing is totally true.
Some of it is just oligarchs being oligarchs, but American culture genuinely is more laissez-faire than most. Hence why the middle class has consistently rooted for Republicans since the Reagan era.
>>424074
I wasn't actually referring to his chin. His facial dimensions, especially his cheek width relative to the height of his head, seem all wrong.
>>424139
What Spain or Portugal did really has fuck all to do with the fact that capitalist societies heavily engaged in slave trade that was entirely motivated by financial gain.
It's not like Stalin is excused because Hitler was arguably a worse dictator.
And the abotion was forced through by democratic mandate. It had nothing to do with capitalism.
And it's not true that slavery was only abolished in capitalist societies.
Feudal/mercantilist rulers like Charles V had previously attempted to ban it, and it was banned following the French revolution, but forcibly reinstated through help by capitalist Britain.
>>424146
I always wondered about that. It really speaks to the power of the American Dream narrative that so many people willingly vote against their own interests.
>>424156
The first state in recorded history to ban slavery was Venice, in like 1170.
And the French Revolution largely happened because of the mercantile class created by trade.
Not to mention the British were the first people to ban slavery and actually have it effect history in a meaningful way.
Wait
>democracy
>not joined at the hip with capitalism
>>424160
It helps that the periods where left wing governments had power in the sixties and seventies were a time of extreme turmoil.
Both Nixon and Reagan were elected simply because middle America wanted some stability.
>>424168
Clearly you have a hammer called British capitalism and that hammer is gonna fit every nail that leaves a positive mark on history for you.
First of all, what the singular indicent of Venice did really bears little mark on the overall history of capitalism.
Second of all, the notion that Britain was the only country to meaningfully affect abolition is blatant anglocentrism.
Third, regarding the French revolution being the result of a mercantile class, see my first point. There's a myriad of reasons for the French revolution, pinning it down to a mercantile class and therefore capitalism is, well, simply you making the shoe fit because you like that narrative.
Fourth, you know damn well that there's been plenty of capitalist autocracies and plenty of democracies that weren't capitalist.
Finally, none of this changes the fact that slavery and slave trade was done for financial gain in largely free markets. They are, unlike democracy, inherently joined at the hip with capitalism. It was a free enterprise, done for consumer goods, that vastly enriched Europe.
>>424177
that's true. I guess the same can be said for Jimmy Carter (instability)
>all these autistic communists
>can literally do nothing but shout memes and never explain their ruinous ideology
>>424193
Good christ I can't stop laughing at this post and how hard you missed the point.
I'll just stop your
>Muh ebil capitalism circle jerk
With saying that ALL societies, regardless of sociopolitical structure were deeply intertwined with slavery. It's simple economics across all boards. It just so happens that "capitalist" societies also banned it first, because it saw how inhumane it was.
Anyway, have a free meme image.
>>424125
Thus is the price of security
>>424245
> b-b-but everyone else also did it so our centuries of systemic slave trade for corporate profits had nothing to do with capitalism
So you just stopped arguing and decided to reduce the discussion to memespouting or what?
What's funny is I never argued that capitalism was inherently evil. Only that it played a crucial part in the slave trade, which is undeniable.
Slavery was carried out to supply goods for an increasingly mercantile economy. It's an inherent part of the history of capitalism, enjoy your fucking memes.
>>424255
I'm not saying it's seperate from "the history of capitalism", but colonialism is MUCH more closely tied to it than capitalism is, and mercantilism to that.
You're painting across seven different sections with one color friendo.
You also seemingly ignore that capitalism was the first to realize how fucked up it was and ban it.
>>424262
> capitalism was the first to end it.
This meme needs to end, it's anglocentrism and it simply isn't true.
> colonialism and mercantilism are much more closely tied.
Oh, you mean how it really wasn't communism in the Soviet era, but just Stalinism?
Because the line where colonialism or mercantilism ends and capitalism begins is blurry at best.
Colonialism was a fixture of both, and primarily carried out for financial gain. It in no way rules out capitalism at the same time.
Mercantilism is simply proto-capitalism, they had nearly all the same fixtures. You're just spouting meme words to excuse yourself, like communism do when they call things maoism or stalinism.
>>424228
I defy you to find an American over the age of 50 that doesn't have a chill run down their spine when they think about the Carter administration.
I think Jimmy himself probably does.
>>424282
A. Prove it otherwise
B. Yes stalinism is different from communism
Just as Francoism and National Socialism and Peroism are different from fascism
Just as capitalism, colonialism, and mercantilism are all different.
Stop painting with a broad brush to fit your own personal narrative.
Otherwise we would be stop gapped at 250,000 years ago and need to prevent humans from existing.
>>424291
You're the one making a claim, the burden of proof is on you. If you're too lazy to use Google, that's your problem.
And we are getting caught up in semantics. The basic elements of the slave trade, the free enterprise fuellling consumer goods for a mercantile economy are INHERENTLY capitalist - they may have been helped along by some mercantilist policies, but that in no way changes its capitalist nature. You have in no way refuted this point, so why are we even arguing?
>>424290
Why was it such a disaster?
Seems he did some pretty sweet things, Camp David and all that.
>>424298
I'm one of the people who started this clusterfuck.
I was gone for a while because I was trying to actually sleep for some reason.
Anyway, I have a central point that you don't seem to want to address.
It is true that capitalist societies have practiced slavery, but it is also true that every other human society in history did, and that capitalist societies were the only ones to eliminate the practice.
For more proof of this correlation, most communist societies returned to systems of forced labor after eliminating capitalism.
Even the czars of Russia didn't use slave labor, it was the GULAG that returned it to Russia after a long absence.
>>424318
The economy in the late seventies was beyond shit, and detente fell apart.
There are other reasons, but those are two big ones.
>>424326
I've addressed it a million times already by calling it a blatant anglocentrist lie, because it simply isn't true.
It wasn't mainly capitalist societies that ended it, I don't know how you got that idea, but it seems like the sort of nonsense they taught in school around 1913.
Abolition has been carried out in various shapes and forms since the 3rd century B.C. That Britain should have some sort of claim to it is ridiculous.
>>424342
Give me an example of a society without a capitalist merchant class that abolished slavery.
As far as I can tell, political liberalization in the modern world has been exclusively the domain of capitalist societies.
>>424342
>some small societies freed enslaved populations
>this is equivalent to the global legislation againts the inhumane and cruel trade of slavery
>this is equivalent to western "capitalistic" nations shedding the most blood to end slavery globally and try to mend its damages
This is getting funnier by the second.
>>424346
> Venice
> First to end slavery
Nope.
> One city in Italy somehow representing all of capitalism, even when slavery continues to be carried out in capitalist societies for hundreds of years afterwards
Surely you can see how ridiculous that claim is.
> Broken record
If I'm sounding like a broken record it's because none of what I've said has been addressed, and you have spouted the same nonsense time and time again with absolutely no proof.
> Capitalism ended slavery
How the hell you got to that conclusion I still haven't realized. Is it because one city in Italy ended it? And they therefore represent all capitalism for all history?
Is it because Britain ended it, which they really didn't, years after tons of other countries had already ended it?
How the hell does any of this make capitalism the end of slavery? It simply makes no sense to me.
>>424361
> Some small societies ended slavery
China, The HRE and India are small now?
> Global legislation to end slavery was enforced mainly by capitalist societies
The UN is only UK and Britain now?
> Capitalist societies shed the most blood to end slavery
Capitalist societies also shed considerable amounts of blood to maintain slavery.
Still doesn't change the fact that the practice was inherently capitalist. The plantations were free enterprises.
>>424359
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
Enjoy.
It's also highly debatable if socities without a merchant class exist in the world today, outside of North Korea, so somehow claiming that the presence of those is a prerequisite of abolition is about as logical as attributing abolition to carbon-based lifeforms.
>>424373
Well, Venice, to the best of my knowledge, is the first human society ever to eliminate slavery.
They were also a capitalist state with corporations, property rights, constitutional government and rule of law.
In my view these phenomena are interdependent. Democracies evolved in the modern world evolved when a merchant class formed that wasn't beholden to the old elite, be it clergy, nobility or monarchy.
By the same token, it is impossible to have a democracy without secure property rights, and impossible to have truly secure property rights without political pluralism and rule of law.
So it makes perfect sense that that capitalist societies would be the first to create a strong, Democratic state that was both capable of eliminating slavery and responsive enough to do so.
Then again, you seem to have got a lot of the Marxist kool-aid in your gut, so this may not mean anything to you.
>>424388
>ancient history
>tried
>failed
>tried
>failed
>half ass tried
>failed
Never really abolished slavery for the whole of society nor had a grand effect, just as I said.
And you whined about
>VENICE IS SMALL AND INSIGNIFICANT!
From then on its literally all western civilization.
Get fucked buddy.
>>424390
Apparently one must be a marxist to be critical of aspects of capitalism, right, got it.
Venice, was not the first state, see >>424388
I never said capitalism or free trade aren't without their virtues, but your cause-and-effect chain effectively rules out countless historical instances where the same conclusion has been reached, through other measures.
Not all democracies abolished slavery the moment they became democratic, and not all nations that abolished slavery were democracy. Them being capitalist is also a strange prerequisite, since that term can be applied to either all nations in history, or none, depending on how rigidly you apply it.
But the transatlantic slave trade and slavery, carried out by a mercantile class, for monetary gain, to supply a consumer goods economy, those were inherently capitalist practices. The very same property rights you so highly espouse were indeed applied to people, so of course it was capitalist. What other capitalists did hundreds of years later doesn't change that fact.
>>424411
Actually you're right, a few other states tried to ban it, but failed and it was quickly reinstated later, vience was the first to completely ban it de jure, and continue its ban.
The rest on from there is 90% western "capitalistic" Civilization.
>>424401
> Japan
> Russia
> India
> China
> Western
Ok then.
You also seem to be implying that the abolition was unequivocally succesful in the West and their colonies. Which, again, isn't true. There's a reason Britain appears on that like 20 times, because they tried and failed, like everyone else.
>>424418
>Russia
>not western
K.
Also the British appear multiple times because they have a global empire faggot.
>>424417
Venice isn't all of capitalist history, sorry mate.
>>424411
I read your link.
It said that Asoka ended the slave trade but not slavery and a Chinese emperor tried and failed.
Venice, on the other hand, passed a law via democratic mechanisms, and saw their progress survive for the duration of the Republic.
Meanwhile, you insist that slavery is inherently capitalistic, which is simply nonsense.
Even race based slavery and transoceanic slavery were introduced by feudal states.
Meanwhile, the hegemony of the British Empire, under the arch-capitalist dogma of Adam Smith, managed to eviscerate the global slave trade.
Linking capitalism to slavery is like linking pepper spray to rape. They go together, but the former is disadvantageous to the latter.
>>424419
By what logic is Russia Western?
Geography? Culture? Economy?
Because if either of those make Russia Western, the whole damn world is Western.
And no, there are countless instances on that list of the British suddenly declaring abolition:
1080 William the Conqueror, of England and Duke of Normandy, prohibited the sale of anyone to heathens.
1102: Trade in slaves and serfdom is condemned by the church in London: Council of London (1102).
1290: Edward I of England passes Quia Emptores, breaking any indenture to an estate, on the sale or transfer of the estate.
1569: An English court case involving Cartwright, who had brought a slave from Russia, ruled that English law could not recognise slavery.
1706: In the case of Smith v. Browne & Cooper, Sir John Holt, Lord Chief Justice of England, rules that "as soon as a Negro comes into England, he becomes free. One may be a villein in England, but not a slave
1772: Somersett's case held that no slave could be forcibly removed from Britain. This case was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England and Wales, and emancipated the remaining ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves in England and Wales, who were mostly domestic servants
The reason it occurs time and time again is obviously that they had no more success in maintaining it than China.
>>424432
> you said slavery is inherently capitalistic
I said that the slave trade and the instution of slavery, as it was carried out in capitalist states, was capitalistic in its' nature, and I have given countless examples of why that was the cast.
The mongols enslaving an entire village after conquering it obviously had little to do with capitalism.
And would you fucking stop pretending that one city state in Italy can somehow represent all of capitalism?
> The hegemony of the British Empire ended slave trade.
Attributing that to capitalism is at best conjecture, seeing as much of the very same slave trade was caused by capitalism in the first place.
>>424435
It seems like each one of those precedents is stricter than the last.
If anything, the material you're bringing to the argument is actually undermining your position.
You seem to have just posted an excellent time line of how a pluralistic, Western society managed to achieve vast social reforms.
This shit makes me want to buy a union jack and let my teeth fall into disrepair.
Seriously, what are you even arguing at this point? All I'm getting here is that private property rights are the foundation of a healthy society and forward progress. Thank god for capitalism, I'd probably be a serf working eighteen hours a day for starvation rations without it.
>>424440
Apparently the easiest way to get stabbed is to say mean things about this guy around a Finn.
>>424448
> each of these was stricter than the last
Yeah, no, they all say more or less the same thing in different vocabulary.
And in spite of these efforts, slavery in the British empire continued until 1936. So what claim does Britain have on ending slavery again?
> B-b-ut we ended slavery
> Except for the Irish
> Except for blacks
> Except for Scottish
> Except for Welsh
> Except for heathens
> Except for Indians
And the list goes on.
>>424456
Why 1936 and what are your examples of slavery in the British Empire after 1833?
>>424125
We're taught that we did a bunch of evil shit, but we're taught that the soviets were worse.
if you've ever heard the phrase "Our system is shit but everybody else is worse." it comes from American public education.
>>424248
>Thus is the price of security
>>426038
>>422303
When will Americans realize Reagan is neither the Conservative messiah or the Antichrist?
>>424686
well the entire indentured labor system that gave rise to the west indies
>>422111
DAYUM NIGGA, WHERE'D YOU GET THOSE FIVE WATCHES!?
>ITT
>commieboo and Naziboos fighting like Star Wars and Star Trek sperglords
What Hitler did is kill all those who opposed him, blamed German problems on everybody else but the Germans, declared war on everyone and eventually caused the death of millions
After Lenin died Stalin simply got rid of anyone who can oppose him, put those closest to him in charge, had a bad economy and during the war simply told the soldiers to go forward or he'll kill them, not much of a "genious" there.
>>422158
fucking fascist
>>422627
The means of production still belonged to the bourgeoisie elite under his rule. Nationalization of some industries isn't the same as giving the proletariat collective ownership of the means of production.
>>422507
>this is the history board
I had no idea
>>424067
literally who
>>422507
>This is the history board
I thought it was /lit/ with dates
>>427073
Imre Nagy headed up the breakaway communist government in Hungary that got shut down by the Soviet invasion of 1956.
Based as fuck
https://youtu.be/8e4UZaMgIxE?t=434
>>422303
hhihihihihihihih
you are a moron.
>>419617
that guy couldnt be far from less related
>>419617
murricans are probably gonna get pissed, but fuck it.
>>422360
yes. all of them as far as I can see. Unless you think military interventions and genocides happen because muh "good" and "evil" dichotomy shit.
>>422352
you people are laughable.
>>422410
you don't know the meaning of the term buzzword. either that or you don't know words.
>>422507
Ok. Go work for free then. That will give you your answer.
>>422520
>commies who dont even know their marx
ayyy
>>427068
yes, because the Soviet Union was a stellar example of the actual proletariat collectively owning the means of production.
>Who could have been the greatest leader of the 20th century?
Goldwater.
>>427509
But he failed completely. Unfortunately.
>>419823
He removed Russia from the ME on an impulse decision. This basically won the ME for the West, while reducing his bargaining power vs the West. He could have offered to kick out the Russians in exchange for something, but instead he just got emo one morning and did it.
>>427512
Did you even read the first sentence I put in meme arrows?
>>422142
>post-scarcity
Lrn2thermo
>>427370
We're literally suffering gov't shutdowns every year because of him
>>427543
>We're literally still around because of him
FTFY
>>427531
>>427545
>people actually think this
Wilson FDR and LBJ are the three worst presidents.
>>427589
I'd argue that FDR had the most pervasive toxic effect on this country, and did the most overall harm. LBJ wins on personal evilness, however. Harding was spectacularly incompetent.
>>421805
Kulaks didn't really have money. Kulaks were wealthier compared to the other peasants because they owned a cow or a goat, or had nicer farm tools.
I would say the most INFLUENTIAL leaders of the 21st century are
Lenin, FDR, Stalin, Reagan, Thatcher.
>>427605
>I'd argue that FDR had the most pervasive toxic effect on this country, and did the most overall harm.
Fuck you Austrians are retarded.
Without FDR, the US would have faced another Revolution, especially in the South West of the country where Communist and Socialist agitation were skyrocketing during the depression.
FDR literally saved the US and gave Americans the best standard of living in the world.
The most toxic politician in US history is Reagan. Absolutely incompetent neo-con who's policies have all been complete and utter disasters from the ramping up of the war on drugs to absurd levels to the mass collapse of social services and deregulation of the financial sector to the circlejerking over the radical luddite evangelicals of the south that has infected Conservatism with insane levels of anti-intellectualism.
>>427065
t. Kim Jong Un
>>427527
wrong wrong wrong. After the Six Day War Nasser leaned on the Soviets heavily to rebuild his army and help him combat israel. He brought in thousands of Soviet Advisors and he also convinced the Soviets to man aircraft against Israel during the War of Attrition from 1967 to 1970. Only after he died late in 1970 did soviet influence decline. Sadat kicked out the Soviet advisors in 1971 as a gesture toward his western turn.
see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Attrition
>>427618
FDR destroyed the last principles of the US Republic.
If there was a "communist revolution" in the south west (proofs please) they would have been easily crushed.
You're arguing from a position of Muh feels.
Austrians are right.
>>427618
>thinking what FDR did is justifiable or good
Gr8 b8 m8. Literally tried to be a dictator.
>>427618
>the circlejerking over the radical luddite evangelicals of the south that has infected Conservatism with insane levels of anti-intellectualism.
That's been happening for a long time, it didn't begin with Reagan.
>>427744
Fair enough but he didnt do it on a whim. It has even been said Nasser contemplated ending the Soviet influence. It was partly geopolitical considerations. But there was also huge pressure from the egyptian bourgeoisie to enact detente with the west, because they detested Nasser's Arab socialist turn and the military elite hated how the Soviet advisors curbed their freedom of action
>>427796
All of those things are true, but you don't think the sudden way he did it was caused by an impulsive act? He could have used (removing)them as a bargaining chip. He could have taken his time and negotiated bigger concessions from USA.
>>427618
FDR was a fucking buffoon m8. You bash Regan for 'anti-intellectual' stances, but just look how cancerous the universities and their so-called 'intellectuals' have become. Look at what disastrous effects liberal ideas have had on American life.
>>427874
>Look at what disastrous effects *leftist ideas have had on American life.
Stop letting them control your language
>>427895
I know the difference between classic liberal and contemporary liberal.
The problem is that most contemporary liberals do not.
>>427874
American universities are the greatest institutions of learning the world has ever seen on a mass scale and have the single best ones on an individual scale.
>>427903
This is /his/. Speak academically. Don't use retardspeak.
>>427903
Here's the difference
Classical liberals get bribed by the rich
Liberals bribe the workers
>>427910
For scientific disciplines, certainly.
For everything else, not so much. The American academic scene today is full to bursting with scholarly dross, propaganda courses, empty majors and bogus fields. Anything that isn't STEM borders on completely worthless.
>>427916
This is still 4chan. A measure of retard speak is to be expected.
>>422352
thanks for the chuckle anon
>>419617
easily
>>419617
Ferdinand Marcos
>>427837
>you don't think the sudden way he did it was caused by an impulsive act?
Yes, in a way. But Sadat had little to work with though. The economy was in shambles. The Israeli occupation of the sinai cut the government from their new oil fields there. The expenses War of Attrition, more than the six day war, were enormous too. All the funds for Nasser's ambitious projects had to be diverted to rebuilding the military. At the same time, the battling along the frontier caused dislocation of as many as 100,000 people which the government had to resettle and pay for. The Suez canal was shut down for many years, cutting off a huge source of revenue.
Sadat inherited power quite smoothly from nasser, yes, but he gained it at the consent military, whom he promised to give more control from the soviets, and the bourgeosie, whom he promised to business deals and luxury goods from the West. Whereas Nasser ruled with the consent of the masses as well as the elite, Sadat only had the elite. In contrast, the left/nasserists led by Ali Sabri were the direct opposite and hoped to rally the masses against Sadat to take power. The Soviets quite openly supported Sabri. But in the event, Sabri's power base in the Arab Socialist Party actually ended being worthless as a tool for mobilization and Sadat had an easy time purging him and his followers from the government in 1971, as the government and military elite were behind him. iirc Sadat had visited Moscow at this time but the snubbed him on account of Sabri's fall and they made only vague promises of economic aid, which considering the condition Egypt was in, was too little for Sadat to work with. Basically, there were too many factors pushing him to make a deal with the West. And even when an American breakthrough failed to come through, (and actually, he already formed good relations with Britain and France in 1971/72 and Gaddafi funneled French equipment through Libya to him)
>>428895
cont.
he recognized he had to make war with Israel only if to get an upper hand which he could use at the bargaining table. Otherwise, the Israelis after the 6 day war had become way to arrogant to deign to negotiate any settlement, because their position was too strong. On the other hand, Egypt's position under both Nasser and Israel, was too weak and any deal reached from this position would involve humiliating concessions, possibly the cession of Sinai to Israel. Nasser had tried to rectify the situation during the War of Attrition, but it was a failure. Sadat did it successfully during the October/Yom Kippur War, during which he achieved a crossing across the Nile. The Israelis beat the crossing back, but only because Sadat actually called for the Egyptian army to halt because he thought that the crossing was enough to bring the Israelis to the table. But nevertheless, the Egyptian victory did shatter Israel's complacency and made them realize their vulnerability in the Sinai.
>>428913
>nasser and israel
nasser and sadat*
>>428231
I like Ike.
>>419617
jej
>>427618
>war on drugs to insane levels
The solution would be to attack the demand rather than supply, but that won't happen. The alternatives are to ignore it (and let it become a public health problem and totally legalize it) or tax and regulate it (which merely lessens the public health problem and, due to the pharmeceutical industry still creates room for a lucrative black market).
It's not nearly as dumb as the 2015 Weedman would lead you to believe
>>428231
I like Ike
>>428231
this was my second pick actually
>>422371
This tbhfamcucks
Where is the Singapore guy??
Where is the singapore guy? He took an abandoned port and turned it into a fucking city state.
>>427650
Btw, Sadat might be a good candidate for one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, at least in the Arab world.
>>419617
If you're thinking of a Muslim leader, Atatürk is the best candidate.
>>423991
Problem with Reza Shah was that he was seen as a western puppet after the 1953 coup. The land reforms of the 60s angered the clergy and the oil crisis exposed the fragility of the Iranian economy. When the west stopped buying oil because of the price increase, the Shah's downfall has begun.
>>431252
>Atatürk is the best candidate.
That's not how you spell Bashar Al-Assad.
>>431264
nobody thinks he is the best leader of 20th century except brainwashed turks.
>>430888
Sadat got assassinated by Islamists that arguably was created by him and Nasser. But worse his means of dealing with Islamists only made them stronger since he wanted to build them into a base of support to counter the leftwing Nasserists, which was impossible with the Camp David Accords and only opened up calls for his death by the more extreme radical groups on accusations of apostatsy. Worse the state repression under Nasser/Zawahiri/Mubarak only radicalized people and imo certainly played just as much of a role in his assassin's motives as the call for Jihad.
>>431265
>I want to kill my own civilians, but that pesky UN is never going to let me get away with that
>I know! I'll just free a bunch of Jihadist extremists!
>See, guys! I'm fighting terrorism here! Not my own people, no, not me, sir. University protest shootings wasn't me, I dindu nuffin!
>>431265
>losing close to 60% of your country to jihadists and communists
>success
BIDF are fucking delusional.
>>431265
>incompetent retard
>son of an incompetent retard
>came to power because his incompetent retard of a brother killed himself in a car crash
>wasn't even in power in the 20th century
>>419617
>unable to achieve further political union with Syria
>refused offers to create a political union with Iraq and Libya despite officers overthrowing the governments on his behalf
>lost to Israel in 67
>alienated America
>died like a cuck
Definitely not Nasser. It's hilarious the symbol and man that represented the aspirations of pan-Arabism couldn't manage to make the UAR work with and refused Libyan and Iraqi offers (and all that oil) of Political Union. Guess he was a load mouthed hypocrite and braggart. We can probably blame present day, Libya and Iraq on him too.
ADOLF HITLER.
>>431299
>"my civilians are protesting, I'll hear their demands"
>"Ukrainian mercenaries shoot my citizens?! Damn the West to hell!"
>"Wahhabis funded by the Gulf states, NATO, and israel flood my country and kill my people?! Syria must be defended!"
>Western funding increases, Syria is forced to appeal to Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia
>two years later everybody forgets that the head of the FSA admitted he wanted to see a "more Islamic future" for Syria, the FSA executed a boy for making a remark about Muhammad while selling things, etc.
>everybody is now focused on ISIS, yet forgets who fought them from the beginning
>>431307
>being antagonized by all Western powers, israel, and Gulf states
>not doing relatively well
>>431265
>OP asked for the greatest leader of the 20th century
>anon gives a guy who came to power in 2000
Syrians confirmed for not knowing how to do basic arithmetic.
>>422441
He stepped down because Chile would've most likely exploded into civil war if he hadn't. His rule managed to wreck the economy even worse than Allende and it was his successors who actually created Chilean prosperity.
>>431358
>His rule managed to wreck the economy even worse than Allende
Reddit pls
give it up to the bahgdadi, the baghdadi will bag your daddy.
>>431383
Chile only managed to become a functional economy during the 90s, after Pinochet was gone.
>>419617
Someone who took a shit world country into the first world without outside interference.
Has to be south America.
As a Brit, we fucked everything in the middle east although, we were at war and at the end of an empire. If Germany hadn't have got itchy we'd have had so many more commonwealths.
>>427065
>implying that's bad