Was American imperialism a bad thing?
>was
>>345180
Yes. In some cases American "intervention" was justified, in others it wasn't. It was mostly out of self-interest.
>>345180
Ask Latin America
Even though we've had some fun with them in Czechoslovakia, Soviets were far less brutal
I mean was because I have only read about the past with Hawaii and Puerto Rico, I'm not sure if America still does this.
>>345180
>was
>>345202
Afghanistan Iraq would be considered pretty neo colonial.
Then there are some people who just see hegemonic influences in all kinds of subtle cultural crap, the feminists and such.
Bullshit I say burger king tastes better than third world culture anyway.
>>345180
Yes, it led to the rise of Islamism as a way to unify the Arabs instead of Soviet-backed, secular Pan-Arabism
>>345180
better question, is America the most benevolent empire?
>>345255
BK is for tramps and thugs. N*gger. Wendy's is the only respectable famous fastfood restaurant.
>>345281
>implying BK doesnt have the best fries
As an American I approve of American imperialism.
Who cares about the other guys.
Yes, I wish the Americans would leave my country alone.
They never should have been invited to help out in the First World War.
Not for me
t. American
No. If there is one thing the Americans did right in all of their history, it was preventing communism from swallowing the world.
>>345291
what country?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPex3SwtCSs
>>345284
>>implying BK doesnt have the best fries
Bullfucking shit. BK fries are as bad as the old Church's Chicken fries. Now that Church's Chicken changed their fries to crispy fries, BK is yet again in the bottom.
Yes for America, no for the rest of the world.
>>345196
>Soviets were far less brutal
>>345196
>Soviets were far less brutal
...Wat? Soviet interventions were, almost by definition, humanitarian crises.
>>345196
>soviets less brutal
No
>chinese less brutal
No
>hurr wheres your evidence
Burden of proof is on claimant.
>>345264
Maybe in net aid, but not in terms of percent. In classical times countries had to make political decision because benovalance could be extremely costly and even make enemies. The United States wipes its ass with third world countries out of pity and it doubles their gdp
>>345180
Well it's another demonstration of the failure of liberal capitalism, so yes and no.
>>345334
No. If you mean to say America was the aggressor in wars that costes more lives sure, but American supression didnt go further than mass assasinations.
>>345334
> but globally American interventions have cost more lives
As opposed to just letting communism ruin everything? This is what happens when you let communism into your country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Americans may be at fault at a lot of things, but preventing communism to swallow the world isn't one of them.
>>345334
>but globally American interventions have cost more lives
Kek. Bolsheviks have been stirring the pot since the 20s and are largely responsible for the rise of other trigger-happy "communist" regimes such as Red China.
>burgers bomb n korean cities
>its okay, its part of war!
>Soviets run over protesters in tanks
>rofl fucking barbarians
>>345321
Yeah, yeah, yeah.... how does it feel to be so irrelevant that you never have to take responsibility for anything?
I mean it must be great at parties.
>>345417
Chomsky, plz go and stay go.
>>345317
>Maybe in net aid, but not in terms of percent. In classical times countries had to make political decision because benovalance could be extremely costly and even make enemies. The United States wipes its ass with third world countries out of pity and it doubles their gdp
>This is what retards actually believe
No such thing as a free lunch, aid comes with strings attach and they come in the form of military bases and one-sided predatory trade agreements.
>>345460
Predatory trade agreements were often the best option for many countries
As a member of a US colony it ain't that bad. Americans are uncultured people yeah, but they have a good heart. If you are stubborn to them for a few decades they let you do as you want. It is amazing how 117 year ago my fourth grandfather was fighting Americans with a 8 cm gun, and today my brother fights for the US operating artillery.
>>345418
>Meaningless babble.
>>345257
this.
Why must the eternal anglo interfere?
I swear it is not even with reason, it is pretty much due to
>well.... we supported the israelis and saudis in the the 20th century we should keep doing so in the 21st century.
I swear they have a fetish for fucking up third world countries.
>>345353
Implying America didn't support the Khmer Rouge
Are we talking about pre-Cold War American imperialism or Cold War American Imperialism? I feel like distinction should be made. The latter was all about making sure the commies didn't screw up American industry by turning all the foreign markets red.
>>345317
>The United States wipes its ass with third world countries out of pity and it doubles their gdp
lol
>>345290
>Who cares about the other guys.
average murifat citizen
>>345496
Where do you live? Guam?
I always thought American Imperialism was weird because we had to justify the desire for power and prestige with the national mythology of liberty. Whenever the US wants to do something, it has to justify both sides of the American "brain".
We didn't expand for selfish territorial desires, won the west to bring civilization to the Natives. We fought the Spanish to liberate the Cubans, not to secure our neck of the ocean. We fought the Nazis to stop Facism in Europe. We fought the Soviets to preserve democracy and destroy communism. So on and so forth.
That's the propaganda anyway.
Other countries don't have the mythology to live up to, and can go to war for reasons that are much less grandiose.
>>345762
I was taught in school that we killed the natives because of muh clay and that jefferson was basically Hitler.
>>345777
Well, as far as that goes I posted what was the old propaganda. After "A People's History of the US" and "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee", the pendulum swung way in the other direction.
>>345762
>it has to justify both sides of the American "brain".
Someone's been listening to Dan Carlin
>>345281
>N*gger
Look where you are, faggot, no one is getting offended if you say it.
>>345830
>Not understating meme language
Dumb t*rk.
Spic here. It aint so bad.
>>345264
>giving aid to foreign countries in the form of tax breaks allowing your own corporations to strip their mineral wealth
>benevolent
Pick one. At least the Romans and the British brought civilization with them.
>>345762
>we had to justify the desire for power and prestige with the national mythology of liberty
This is more normal than you'd think. Britain heavily publicised Spain's treatment of native populations, using it to claim that the Spanish were barbaric (very arguably true) and it'd be much better for the natives if the British were in control (hahahahahaha).
>>345180
>was
>>345500
In America, that's called "an opinion".
>>345353
>Cambodian_genocide
don't pawn burger fuck ups on the USSR dickhead based Heng was fighting the faggot and winning until the US got involved.
>>345196
hahaha
>>345353
>holodomor
Yes. What a horrible genocide act - helping the victims of their own failure and punishing the responsible people! How dare they?
>>345180
yes
>>345353
one of the good things was stop the socialist dictatorship
>>345496
I don't think any group of people can be called uncultured
>>345353
>he doesn't know the CIA literally paid Pot to kill Cambodian and Vietnamese commies
>he doesn't know that even the UN doesn't consider the '32-'33 Soviet Famine a genocide
>>345180
I think Amercian "Imperialism" is itself a bit of a conceit. Other than crushing the native tribes of North America to trun the Thirteen Colonies into the modern US the USA has no empire, merely trying to claim "look we have influence over this country" or "look we have a military base here" or "look at all these McDonald's outlets" is not equivalent to having the client states or conquered states that genuine empires have.
>>346175
fucking this
>>346180
Imperialism under capitalism is slightly more nuanced, but it's correct to say it constitutes imperialism of its own kind.
>>346080
>At least the Romans and the British brought civilization with them.
we gave the indians casinos and mouth wash
we also gave hawaii and the phillipines from being completely buttraped by the japs
>>346203
I agree and disagree.
The British Empire was almost entirely capitalistic in nature and success. The conquest of the entire Indian subcontinent and much of the Britsh holdings in Africa were achieved by British companies leading to genuine conquest.
To suggest "look we have a MacDonalds in Tokyo" is not equivalent to the US having imperial domination over Japan in the same way that Britain achieved imperial domination over the Indian subcontinent.
>>345762
>We fought the Nazis to stop Facism in Europe.
>We fought the Soviets to preserve democracy and destroy communism.
As opposed to what? Obtaining total dominion over Europe and Russia?
>>345353
I don't think your communist enough.
I know, I'll teach you to be communist.
I'll teach your babushka to suck eggs!
>>346237
Naturally "capitalism" thrived in the Empire because what we conceive to be capitalism is Anglo in origin. But the Empire itself was mercantile in nature, not capitalistic. Colonial systems were extractive in nature, unprofitable in the long-run and were mostly maintained for strategic/exclusionary reasons.
American "Imperialism" is a misnomer, created by Leftists to compare it to these Empires (as an aside, I could say that Britain's claims to Empire are just as fraudulent as American ones compared to the Russian, French, German, etc Empires of long past). Rather, America has hegemony, which suits it much better than Imperialism ever would, and is much more profitable.
>>345180
Yes
I like to tell myself that the cold war happened in the second worst way possible, but I am also hesitant making such statements because nobody can predict the future and our ancestors were forced to play their hand.
>>346300
No, we fought the soviets so they wouldnt invade us or our highly profitable trade partners. It was their infantry in the 40s and their nuclwar arsenal after that.
>>345789
They are trying ti remove statues of jefferson from universities now, so he isint wrong anyway.
Fucking neo-progressive "muh feels" shits
>>346623
Don't forget the people who have heard of the CIA.
>>346541
>Haiti
>Latin America
Disgusting.
>>345196
>Soviets were far less brutal
>2 million civilian casualties in Afghanistan alone
You are a fucking retard.
>>346171
Unless its a group of uncultured people.
>>346162
>intentionally starving literal millions of citizens to death
>helping
>>345180
The worst part about American imperialism is how bad they are at it.
>>346911
>intentional
are people this fucking ignorant on the subject?
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS A PURPOSEFUL FAMINE.
You can blame them for the confiscation of Kulak grain to give to the cities affecting the rural areas more but you can't pin the actual famine on the government it was naturally caused.
>>346969
>We didn't intentionally commit mass murder!
This happens literally every time the commies tried to collectivize agriculture. Mass famines would happen in situations that would have just been minor droughts in the past and then commies would say WELL ITS NOT OUR FAULT.
Yes it is. If you take away somebody's food and then they starve to death, yes it is your fault!
>>346969
Potato Nigger here.
This is some REAL Animal Farm shit here.
>>346990
What if there is no food to take away.
>>346934
Well its goal was monopolization of trade partners, not clay acquisition.
>>347004
What are you claiming, that it was biological warfare?
>>345180
only if you hate coke, mc donalds, and "freedom"
>>347027
Quiet, the longer it takes them to recognize the paradigm shift, the easier it is for us.
>>346175
>the UN
Fuck off with your UN horseshit, that whole thing is nothing but a coven of commies and 3rd world retards. It literally had people like Idi Amin and Mugabe sitting in the human rights council, that speaks volumes about their credibility.
Also holodomor probably wasn't intentional genocide, just a testament to the immense communist stupidity.
>>345180
for capitalism?
no it was and is completely necessary
for humanity?
yes, it was and is horrible
>>347236
As opposed to what alternative organization?
>>347236
>UN
>commies
>holodomor
>communnist
read a book nigger
>>347363
Why do we need an alternative? What does the UN accomplish that could not be accomplished with ambassadors and standard inter-country relations?
You can't possibly say that an organization which unironically appoints Saudi Arabia to be in charge of human rights and Zimbabwe to be in charge of tourism to be a legitimate organization that people should respect.
>>347375
>Why do we need an alternative? What does the UN accomplish that could not be accomplished with ambassadors and standard inter-country relations?
A lot of things. Just check all the international aid they manage through WHO, UNICEF, and the rest of the acronyms I can't remember. Decentralizing global efforts would be retarded.
As for geopolitics, you need only look into the days leading up to World War 1 to see how mere ambassadors can fail.
The world needs as much formalization of international law as possible. Just leaving shit up to the whims of individual nations isn't good enough, especially when humanity has the capability of rendering itself all but extinct.
>>346614
The University of Missouri's prized monument is his original Tombstone. There would be so much resentment among alumni if the hippies try to take it down.
>>347360
>for humanity?
>yes, it was and is horrible
We're living in an era of unprecedented peace and standards of living across pretty much the whole globe.
>>346541
All these CIA coups makes me wonder why doesn't South America hate us more than the middle East does.
I mean with the ME it was not just us but also a combinations of England, France, Israel, their neighbors, and probably Russia
South America seems like it's only just us
also
>was
>>347426
>this is because the US killed all those innocents and continues to support murderous regimes
>>347435
It's sort of a thing were South America's propaganda from the puppets were successful and combine that with all there pushes against the US ultimately couldn't finish the job. So they've come to accept it.
>>347426
>please only compare violence to the past in terms of absolute total, not in terms of the proportion of the amount of violence that happens and the capability for there not to be violence. Otherwise, I can no longer justify imperialism and the world food program doesn't seem to be that amazing, and my whole worldview falls flat on its face.
>>347466
economy of scale dude
not like the working conditions were better in the USSR
>>346820
>First world leftists knowing anything about the third world people they're supposedly so emotional about.
>>347474
correct, capitalism in ussr was horrible just like everywhere else.
But I never implied the USSR was better.
Notice how the picture says "Capitalism" not "America".
>>346820
...Yes, Haiti is a Latin American nation.
Nope.
Suck shit rest of the world.
How does it feel to be enslaved by the free? Aahahahaha
>>347497
>The famine was at fault of the Soviets
did they have a weather control device I've never heard about?
>>347466
Economy of scale, and that's how REMs are mines.
Your post is nothing but a strawman.
>>347510
If I take your property rights away, I am responsible for you, you essentially become my slave, if you die because of a famine, it's my fault.
The famine would have been less detrimental if the Ukrainians we're allowed free moment or trade with other nations.
>>347519
>If I take your property rights away, I am responsible for you, you essentially become my slave, if you die because of a famine, it's my fault.
so if a famine hits a private farm it's there fault too? kek
>>347215
Which, when the Soviets did it or when the landlords did it?
>>347533
Yes, the owner of the private farm is at fault, but there is a collectivism of agriculture, there are no "PRIVYET" farms.
In a free market they can barter and trade for food, or they die because they themselves failed, not because some government let them die.
>>347435
>All these CIA coups makes me wonder why doesn't South America hate us more than the middle East does.
Because most of the governments and people the CIA knocked over were tinpot dictators and/or soviet stooges and even before American meddling the countries had usually been torn up pretty good so it wasn't like the people were all that broken-hearted. I mean, it wasn't Africa-tier or anything but in many cases it was pretty damn bad and any change was good change even if it wasn't really much of a change at all.
>>347540
>Yes, the owner of the private farm is at fault
Holy. Fuck.
are you fucking retarded?
>In a free market they can barter and trade for food, or they die because they themselves failed, not because some government let them die.
doesn't address anything about whether or not the famine would be there fault
>>347559
The famine is their fault because they collectivised their agriculture, in essence removing their property rights, they are then responsible for those people.
>Kill all the owners of the farms
>take their property
>OH NO THE HARVEST FAILED BECAUSE WE KILLED THOSE THAT KNEW HOW TO FARM!
>PRYVET USSR DIDNY NUFFIN.
Next you'll say they starved themselves.
>>347572
He is 12 years old anon, I am suprised he learned how to use this weebsite.
>>346969
>>347082
>>347510
stalinism is capitalism dressed in red and is shit
read a book
Amadeo Bordiga, an actual communist, predicted accurately the rate at which the USSR would start to import wheat, despite being a major exporter of wheat before.
"But this is just the beginning. Bordiga's writings on the capitalist nature of the Soviet economy, in contrast to those produced by the Trotskyists, focus to a great extent on the agrarian sector. He wanted to show how capitalist social relations existed in the kolkhoz and in the sovkhoz, one a cooperative farm and the other the straight wage-labour state farm. He emphasized how much of agrarian production depended on the small privately owned plots (he was writing in 1950) and predicted quite accurately the rates at which the Soviet Union would start importing wheat after Russia had been such a large exporter from the 1880's to 1914."
>>347566
except they didn't kill all the farm owners dipshit they collectivized yes but there were many who did voluntarily and knew what they were doing. The Harvest failed because of wheat rust and shitty weather not because their weren't any farmers. It was out of human hands. It's also true that some Kulaks hoarded grain and destroyed land, equipment, and cattle in protest to collectivization contributing to the problem just like the government's response contributed to the problem. But neither side was responsible for the actual Famine because no one could be.
>>347594
I'm not even a defender of Stalinism I criticize the USSR for a lot of fucked up bullshit it did but in this particular case saying that the famine was intentional is utter horseshit
>>347608
so you are a trot who will always say "the USSR was bad but..." bcuz "Defense of the USSR" bcuz "muh degenerated workers' state"
>>347597
>they didn't kill that farm owners
Are you retarded.
Do you not remeber the Kulaks?
The combination of the elimination of kulaks, collectivization, and other repressive policies contributed to mass starvation in many parts of theSoviet Ukraineand the death of at least 7 to 10 million peasants in 1930–1937.
>>347597
I didn't even read your whole post.
You did exactly what I said you did
>t-the k-kulaks starved themselves!
>stalin dindu nuffin
He literally conducted the wholesale murder of the Kulaks.
There isn't a single source that proves "bad weather" was the cause.
Massive and disproportionate collectivization from Ukraine completely fucked them.
>>347597
>there were many who did voluntarily
>>347649
Yes comrade!
Is voulentary!
100%, but if you don't voulenteer then NKVD will have a visit.
>>347649
It's like I'm really playing Tropico!
>>347370
Don't you have a helicopter to be thrown out of you pissy subhuman?
>>347660
>It's like I'm really playing Tropico!
>>345593
Worst part is they fucked up countries that had a pretty good outlook, like Persia, then when the Iranian shah needed them, basically his bosses who put them there in the first place, the fucking Americans didn't help out.
>>347597
Shitty weather happens all the time. It rarely leads to mass starvation except in cases where the government forced everybody to adopt shitty commie farming methods beforehand.
The exact same thing happened in Ethiopia in the 1980s. The government forced collectized agriculture, then they had A MINOR DROUGHT where it rained SLIGHTLY LESS THAN THE YEARS BEFORE but because of shitty commie farming methods, this small setback lead to mass starvation.
>>347399
>UNICEF
>not pure shit detrimental to development of poor nations
Shikwati says hello
>>347597
>COMMUNISTS DINDU NUFFIN
>IT WAS DA WEATHER
Weirdly enough this scumbag bourgeois weather only affects socialist economies
>>347679
Damn son, did mom give you piggy bank to UNICEF one time or something?
>>347685
You have no idea how economy works. If you overfuck a primarily agricultural country's market with grain they prices will plummet and the local farming backbone of the country will end up broke. Essentially you're making poor people even poorer and more miserable.
>>347656
top kek
>>347683
>USSR
>socialist
learn 2 analysis
>>347690
>b-but it wasn't real socialism
Nobody gives a titfuck about your marxist newspeak retconned definitions, stop crying.
>>347690
>Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
>>347695
>marxist newspeak retconned definitions
TIL that literally using the same definition for 150 years straight is "retconning" and "newspeak"
You are the ones who have been changing the definition of socialism.
You keep confusing nationalized industry and planning with socialism, but that is completely wrong.
>>347722
>Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea
TIL North Korea is democratic bcuz they say so in their name.
>>347597
>>345180
Because they are Cultureless swine
>>346171
They say that when they mean "I don't approve of their culture".
>>346080
You can have our civilization if you have the wherewithal to co-opt it. Just look at the Japanese. They went from sword-swinging feudalists to modern industrial nation state in the historical equivalent of a long weekend. And they recovered from WW2 with aplomb, rising to become very wealthy and influential.
The Red White and Blue cock is inescapable, but you CAN make it work for you. Just as the Romans were willing to confer citizenship by degrees and sophisticated culture, so too the West and it's exemplar America will cheerfully let you emulate us. You get out what you put in.
To answer the OP, America is the most benevolent hegemon yet seen. We certainly aren't above killing innocents and toppling governments, but then a century ago the most advanced nations would cheerfully murder whole villages, on purpose, and bulldoze their corpses into mass graves. It was just par for the course. The sainted Romans "made a desert, and called it peace". American interventions certainly kill innocents, but the Americans also spend a great deal of time, money and effort on minimizing collateral damage. Precision weaponry being only one example.
America is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" personified, but it's a fucking lot better than everything that came before and most of what else is still out there, who would be "the road to hell is paved with unrestrained, jingoistic extermination, barbarian pigdog".
And last but certainly not least, there were two possible outcomes for the cold war, and NOBODY would happier today if the Soviets had triumphed.
>>347730
>nationalized industry and planning
That's exactly what socialism is because that's what socialists have always advocated for: central government planning and state-run economies.
>>347799
Not that guy, but socialism is actually a pretty diverse array of ideologies. The closest to an universal belief among them would seem to be worker ownership of production, this was arguably accomplished under Marxism-Leninism through a vanguard centralizing and planning (if you believe the vanguard was truly an extension of worker will).
But socialism on the whole is not strictly centralization and planning. To use a widely divergent example, Benjamin Tucker advocated for a system that would have seen self-employment and cooperative enterprise in a market economy as the standard, to such a degree that he's often argued to have been an anarcho-capitalist, despite being extremely anti-capitalism.
>>347820
>Benjamin Tucker advocated for a system that would have seen self-employment and cooperative enterprise in a market economy as the standard
Isn't that called syndicalism? That's not socialism.
>>345180
It wasn't as much imperialism as it was hegemony. After WW2 the deal was: the US is the only western power with the ability to project power significantly, while it is committed to protect Europe and the rest of the democratic world from the Soviets.
It wasn't that bad of a deal for Europeans since it enforced stability on the continent (even if at the price of global provincialism) and allowed Euro countries to relax their defense budgets.
You could say it was something between Hobbesian sovereignty and the old feudal system. However it did introduce the notion of US "imperialism", which was criticized, primarily in radical leftist and certain European circles. Regardless, I don't think the usage of the term is accurate here; imperialism is a rather specific term and using it to define every global power is inflationary. Some of the classical traits of imperialism (such as export of capital abroad) is not only absent from the Postwar system but is entirely reversed (the US was the destination for FI rather than its exporter).
>>347836
>Isn't that called syndicalism?
No. Syndicalism is oriented primarily around unions, not cooperatives. This would be better termed Mutualism, though it differed from Proudhon's Mutualism in that it more strongly emphasized the role of self-employment as a means for each worker to possess access to a means of production.
>That's not socialism.
Yes, it is. Socialism as a term precedes Marxism-Leninism, and even Marxism. Back in the 19th century, it was basically just a general term for any sort of ideology that was oriented around worker liberation and concerned with the problems labor faced. This includes a huge number of different ideologies, which as I said, the closest thing to a universal belief would be that worker ownership of business and production as an end goal. Things like the role, or existence of markets, the form this ownership takes, the use of currency, the role of government, etc. all vary in their particulars; not all of them are centralized state planning, even within Marxism (Council Communism for instance advocates total decentralization).
>>345180
No imperialism is a "bad thing".
>>347799
umm, not even close
you might be thinking of tankies (M-L's), speaking of which:
>>347820
literally everything in the first two sentences is wrong.
>>347836
no its called "market socialism", and its still capitalism, and its still shit
socialism = communism = no wages, money, state (except at first the workers' councils), markets, classes, and ALL OF PRODUCTION is controlled by the WHOLE society and things are produced for USE, not for their economic value.
Literally the exact same way Marx used the word.
>>347894
>literally everything in the first two sentences is wrong.
The word precedes Marx and was used differently by other theorists. He doesn't own it.
>tfw the middle east could have been largely secular if the soviets won afghanistan.
fucking americans
>>347910
So we should stop using the term "gravity" because "The word precedes Einstein and was used differently by other theorists. He doesn't own it."
>>347940
No, I didn't say we should stop using the term.
We should stop pretending that socialism begins and ends with Marx.
>>347944
I never said that it begins and ends with marx, I am saying you can't accuse me of changing my definitions after the fact when we have been using the words in the same way for over a hundred years
>>347679
God you are talking out of your ass.
>>345500
You still haven't cited any sources or elaborated on how Soviet occupations were 'less brutal' than American ones.
Memeposting isn't going to get you anywhere -- this isn't /pol/, so lay out some fucking facts.
>>347679
Yeah let's ignore all the shit they did to heklp with Healthcare
You know the thing most governments struggle to find on top of shitty restructuring by some other force like IMF which make you guy everything
>>347675
Actually the government starved thr Tigray region to fuck with rebels.
>>345460
China has a policy where they provide unconditional aid to countries. They don't attach any Strings to it. There's a thread about their contributions to the African union over in /news/ right now.
[spoiler] they're bribing African governments for favors and don't even have to pretend to let the money go to helping people [/spoiler?
>>347519
>If I take your property rights away, I am responsible for you
Where did you get this idea? The side of property "rights" you apologists never seem to acknowledge is exclusivity. The very existence of property in its present form necessitates denial of it to others. OPEC, diamond cartels and subsidized agriculture are the most immediate manifestations of this principle.
Are the transactions that follow "voluntary?" Does anything go in a market society as long as you cling to plausible deniability and ignore that human needs are themselves inherently coercive?
>>347730
>You are the ones who have been changing the definition of socialism.
This. It's almost like
>Socialism is precisely whatever I say it is to best confirm my bias arguing against it; I am under no obligation to familiarize myself with Marxist historiography or various socialist thinkers because I've decided a priori its all dreck
You see this phenomenon a lot, but more subtly, in postmodernism and the pseudo-left, namely SJWs.
I'm also surprised nobody brought up Mao's great leap forward, an unambiguously man-made disaster, for comparison
>>348124
right?
>I'm also surprised nobody brought up Mao's great leap forward, an unambiguously man-made disaster, for comparison
didn't they even fuckin put glass on their crops?
the only thing that showed any sign of a real communist movement in china were the groups like Sheng-Wu-Lien, which, while unable to escape completely from Maoism (although in many cases being very much in contradiction with it), did manage to put forward a truly proletarian perspective.
>>348124
>you are obligated to know the complete Marxist historiography in order to call the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics socialist
The Soviets didn't cause the famine, they just made sure a bunch of Ukrainians would die from it.
>>348280
>you should make no attempt to figure out whether or not they are just throwing words around to try and justify their oppression of a population
kek
>>348289
How would I figure that out, by knowing the complete Marxist historiography?
I guess I'm glad you agree with me.
>>348309
you don't need to "know the complete Marxist historiography"
just examine the social relations in the countries
>>348323
well, let's say I examine the social relations and find that there seemed to be a worker ownership of production arguably accomplished at the formation of the USSR through a vanguard centralizing and planning because the vanguard was an extension of worker will.
Is that socialism?
Whose answer to that should I trust, you or the other guy? Let me check my historiography.
Nah, I think I'm just going to call the USSR socialist.
>>348366
>worker ownership of production = socialism
>what is simple commodity production?
>vanguard centralizing and planning
>what is state capitalism?
"The whole discussion now underway on revolutionary forms in Russia and in China boils down to the judgement to be made of the historical phenomenon of the "appearance" of industrialism and mechanisation in huge areas of the world previously dominated by landed and precapitalist forms of production.
"Constructing industrialism and mechanising things is supposedly the same as building socialism whenever central and "national" plans are made. This is the mistaken thesis.”
Toppled working governments to put their puppets in and make things worse or far more bloody than it should have been. Was pretty hypocritical too and willing to go against the values it claims to uphold if it means they have a new yesman in another chunk of the globe.
Not to say that US imperialism doesn't have its perks, but the ones to only truly exemplify if were the ones that experienced a good amount of subsidies to build themselves up had a lot of string attached to the aid as well.
>>345353
It actually was good in Yugoslavia
>>348663
Would you like to live there under communist rule and there after?
I doubt it.
You are awfully comfortable using your computer in a modern capitalist country under your "oppression" by the Borgawaggzi
>>345180
>vaz
>>347940
>comparing science with socialist horseshit
American intervention almost always brought radicals which has led up to the events of today.
>>347426
It could have been more peaceful if the US didn't support terrorism during the Cold War.
>>349033
>almost always
Exclusively in the middle east.
>>349044
It could have been more peaceful if the USSR didn't support terrorism during the Cold War.
>>349044
>Assassinations
Yes
>bribes/funding rebellions
Yes
>invasions/bombing
sometimes
>terrorism
No
United States killed 2-3 million people with wars it declared, but if it could secure an area quickly it would not bomb it or terrorize it. Bombing/terrorism = gdp damage = less trade monies.
>>345321
Soviet domination was shit.
American domination was shit.
Superpower imperialism tends to be shit.
At least own up to it you autistic faggot.
>>347360
Why is Australia red?
>>350896
The emus were funded by the CIA.
>>350799
>lenin killed innocents
nice meme
>>345496
where from friend?
>>346852
Everyone on Earth consumes American cultural output.
>>347770
Basically, yeah. At other times it often means "not a formal/high culture". I often hear this criticism directed at Americans and Australians. Really, it's just because anglo culture is so ubiquitous they don't realize it.
>>349007
You're right, it was the Soviet governments fault.
>>346614
Source? never heard that.
Calling BS
Depends, do you mean the period of out-and-out imperialism, or what's these days fancied as imperialism?
>>347360
How is "capitalism" completely necessary?
Necessary to what?
>>345307
>McD's fries aren't the bottom of the barrel
>>345196
>Ask latin america
Latin America here, would rather have had more commie dictatorships just so the fucking commies would shut up.
>but muh bloodthirsty dictatorship
In my country the death toll for political dissidents for the entire ordeal is far smaller than a single years' worth of homicides or even simply unsolved homicides.
>>345180
>was
>implying
>>353682
I think that anon was saying that American imperialism was and is necessary for Capitalism. Which is true.
>>345180
>was
WAS ? WAAAAS ? On what planet do you live ?
>>346820
>Speak Haitian Creole
>Mainly old French with some Carib and native sub-Saharan languages
>not Latin America
I can understand Suriname and Guyana not being classed as such, but just because Haiti isn't full of spics doesn't mean it's not Latin America.
>>350957
>implying he didn't
>>345180
I guess Imperialism runs in Anglo-Saxon blood
Feels good
Ever since the end of cold war, or any war that wasn't an authentic attempt to contain an immediate rise of communists, has been a greedy selfish intervention immersed in lies and manipulation aiming at destroying any sphere of influence but its own just because they can. People were genuinely afraid of and against communism and gladly invited America back in the day, their "human rights" or "muh Iran, Russia, Choyna" shtick won't cut it however.
>>354327
>implying attempts to contain communism weren't "greedy selfish interventions immersed in lies and manipulation aiming at destroying any sphere of influence but its own just because they can"
>>353796
if the flow of capitalism was to take place uninhibited by any peripheral concerns what would be the end result?
>>354339
Obviously the realities of politics are always there, but there was an authentic dynamic of freedumbs to it. Back then they didn't prep up communists just so they can kill them, save the day, reap the benefits and literally make a new ally, but were genuinely invited by governments and people. Now it's just replacing dictators and jihadists with more dictators and jihadists for completely selfish reasons. In some cases they even replace relatively liberal rulers in stable countries with complete fuckwits.
>>345196
>Even though we've had some fun with them in Czechoslovakia
What fun exactly?
>Soviets were far less brutal
What the fuck matey?
>>354356
Fighting communism wasn't about freedom. It was about keeping the American economy strong. After WW2 America had half of humanity's production capacity and no war to produce for. They needed to sell their goods abroad and communist countries weren't buying.
