NoneOfUrBusiness @ NoneOfUrBusiness @fedia.io

Send me bad puns. Good puns welcome too.

---

Read more

Posts

24

Comments

5,582

Joined

1 yr. ago

This question shows up every now on c/nostupidquestions, so look it up there.

x=a is pansexual.

I'm pretty sure this isn't an unpopular opinion. I mean there's a reason most people don't call each other retarded on the internet.

Man Lemmy.ca is fucking retarded. Or moronic, or idiotic, whichever you prefer.

What if they take it seriously and suffer the other consequences? Because remember, the biggest threat to Germany currently isn't Russia or China or even America; it's the far right. Expanding the military this much would put a lot of strain on the budget and inevitably come at the cost of social welfare, further fueling the far right as living conditions get worse and worse. And on top of that taking healthy young adults away from a workforce that already needs more people to do something wholly unproductive can't be good for the economy. You're completely ignoring the opportunity cost here; there are simply more important and pressing problems that deserve attention and budget than a hypothetical with nothing to back it up.

WWII jokes aside, it's absolutely inane that Germany is actually taking "threats from Russia" seriously. It's one thing to keep their military in shape, but nothing we've seen from Russia makes expanding it even remotely necessary. Spend this momey on the poor you corporate stooge. And let's not get into the demographic crisis these idiots are exacerbating with their treatment of immigrants.

It's not hard to sell the factory you own to a company that isn't owned by any individual.

Sure? It's not like companies are immune to taxation.

experts aren't necessarily opposed to the idea of teaching wealth in principle.

"Experts" also tend to be neoliberals more concerned with balancing the budget and increasing GDP than with feeding living breathing people, so I'm not too concerned about what they say.

Manifest Destiny is the more accurate starting point here. Neither Nazi Germany nor Israel copied Jim Crow laws.

then the economy has become the de facto governing principle of our nations

Always has been? Like, we tend to abstract this stuff as "the economy," but of course the (or at least a) governing principle of any society is keeping its members at least somewhat fed and clothed. Even if cutting immigration was going to curb the rise of the far right (it won't), it's not an option because it'd seriously compromise the welfare of society.

*This is ignoring the other economy, which refers to rich people's yacht money.

The idea that rich people will just "move their wealth elsewhere" fundamentally misunderstands how rich people's wealth actually looks like. We're talking businesses, factories and stocks here, so just tax those. It's very hard to move a supermarket out of the country.

Yes, but as seen in Mexico's latest election, people would be way less willing to listen.

Trump becoming submissive and breedable when faced with a strong man.

(Kill me).

This asshole will kill us all. Add her to the pile I guess.

I mean, there's a reason most countries don't do what you're describing, and that's that it's economic suicide. It's easy to forget it what with the fascism and all that, but the first world is currently going through a demographic crisis and needs all the labor it can get.

If it were easy, some country would have managed it, or at least most of it.

Yes, like Mexico.

I gladly welcome New Zealand into the third world.

You're citing my text but cutting off just before the point I was trying to make.

Yes, because my point is that your point doesn't make sense.

I think be would still side with the people who claim to follow his ideology

Why...? That's not how leftwing politics worked, ever, and it's not like there has ever been a shortage of leftwing criticism of Leninism and Stalinism.

r in Marx's case admitting that his ideas didn't work or the fact that they didn't work as intended cost the lives of millions.

Yeah that's my point: They're not his ideas; they're their ideas. Lenin for example, aside from being an authoritarian dickhead, was an intellectual juggernaut and a lot of his ideas would be baked into the foundation of the Soviet Union. What you're presenting here is a false dichotomy.

Um... is this sweet spot in the room with us right now?

I don't know enough about Maduro to judge him, but as for Putin and Xi? Yes, absolutely.

It's important to understand that 20th century communist states weren't just "communist" (there's no such ideology as communism); they were Marxist-Leninist, which despite the name is a rebranding of Bolshevism by Stalin. "Socialist" and "communist" are incredibly broad terms, and the idea that communist = implementing Marx's ideas is so reductive as to be just wrong. Now Marx's opinion would likely vary depending on time and place, but at least he'd probably condemn Stalin's USSR as an authoritarian hellhole. Beyond that I have no idea, but many Marxists who were contemporary to the things you describe condemned them and many others supported them, so we can't make a realistic guess without projecting our own values on him. Basically what you're asking is analogous to "what would Adam Smith think about the current state of the US;" it's something we can speculate about but generally isn't as salient a point as seem to you think it is.

PS: I suspect you don't know much about Marx's ideas, so you should start from there. First, the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't necessarily an actual dictatorship (that's not how the term is used by Marx).