RedQuestionAsker2 [he/him, she/her]

Yogthos, NO!

He’s walking into a hexbear minefield!

Oh god, he he has his headphones on!

Vietnam won

Liberal/welfare democracies didn’t stop growing because there was no room to grow.

Gotta partially disagree with you on this one. After WWII, imperialists got a free pass to expand throughout most of the world. All the way up through the fall of the USSR, the US was privatizing and gutting the public sectors of their client states and the eastern block.

However, with the neoliberal consensus overtaking most of the world, the US didn’t have any more big markets to crack open, which is why they had to turn their sights on gutting their own public sectors which they had free access to. Foucault’s boomerang and such

My common reading is that GDP is an indicator of growth. China is currently developing, so it’s GDP is going to be higher. However, at some point they will be considered developed and there will be less reason to grow and it will be more difficult to grow. So the GDP will level off. This has been the trend in capitalist countries.

Whether or not this will apply to the Chinese economy, I don’t know. But I believe this is the framework that people are using when they make this argument.

Sorry, I’m just speaking colloquially. I just mean the GDP has been very high for a long time now.

Can recent growth rates persist? China’s GDP has been running hot for decades now. Seems like they need to level off at some point.

Yellow cake 🤤

Shit like this keeps happening and Iran just shows incredible amounts of restraint.

Meanwhile, the “only democracy in the Middle East” is allowed to act like a rabid dog.

I’ll give you Venusaur but Charizard is a dyed in the wool fascist.

We don’t think you fight fire with fire best ; we think you fight fire with water best. We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism. We’re stood up and said we’re not going to fight reactionary pigs and reactionary state’s attorneys like this and reactionary state’s attorneys like Hanrahan with any other reactions on our part. We’re going to fight their reactions with all of us people getting together and having an international proletarian revolution.

-Fred Hampton

Shadow Chancellor!?

Supreme Leader is not okay, but Shadow Chancellor is!?

Converting them to mulch

The liberal model not working for a developing country?

Keep the indigenous posting coming. It really gets the settlers riled up

“we’re gonna elect a conservative and then push him left by defending his every action tooth and nail and promising to vote for him in the future”

Incredible gullibility

They’ve reverted to a feudal mindset. The democrats have no obligation to their voters. Only the voters are obliged to swear fealty to the Dem candidate regardless of who it is and what they do.

“Well, we’re gonna lose the left vote because we love genocide, so we should start courting right wingers who are just going to vote republican anyway”

The world is a safer place if Iran has nukes. It will deter the genocidal west from invading it and starting another dumb fucking war.

If we can’t talk about these things with nuance then that’s the real problem. We can bring some nuance to this and realize that what happened this is wrong and we can enact policy to change that.

No, I think the real problem has very little to do with our discourse. I think the real problem is that there are indigenous people to this day being stamped out and suffering under colonialism and imperialism to this day, and that the dominant western ideology is to respond “well, this is human nature, and you would have done the same to me.”

If you want to talk about nuance, your view is not nuanced. Your ideas hinge on “human nature” (a claim) and ignore the differences in the way civilizations have interacted over time. It doesn’t have anything to do with “white man bad” or “red man benevolent.” It has everything to do with the system of natural and social incentives that cultures have. The economic systems that emerged in Europe created the groundwork for the colonization of the world. Yeah, it COULD have emerged elsewhere, but it didn’t, and these crimes fall squarely on the colonizers, not the colonized for commiting an imaginary crime. This worldwide colonization had a particular character that is not the same as what happened before it.

you had to choose between your family, starving to death or killing the “others”.

Another hypothetical situation stacked in favor of justifying the “human nature” argument. Colonization is not a matter of life and death. People won’t die if they don’t colonize other people. There are plenty of people throughout history who didn’t just go along with their nations crimes and attempted to stop it.

But let’s get to the heart of the matter. One must either imagine that all of the killing, murders, and genocides throughout history were either a product of a historical moment or the nature of humanity. If one believes that this is all human nature, I can’t imagine that they’d be fit to solve the ongoing genocides today because it’s all “survival of the fittest”. By that logic, we’re just figuring out who deserves to live.

And that’s the real problem. These things are ongoing and regardless of how you interpret the past or whether “they would have done the same”, we cannot change the past and there are things we can do now for colonized people.

Btw, knock it off with “I’m gonna get downvoted for this” and “you’re just farming upvotes”. We’re on a 2 day old communist Lemmy post with like 4 upvotes. Nobody is paying attention to this except us.

Edit: god dammit I spent so much time writing this and by the time I got reply, they got banned lmao