The situation in Ukraine...

[djpannda]

I am for the territorial integrity for China (including Taiwan and Tibet), Ukraine (including Donetsk and Lugansk) and Syria (including the large US-occupied oil fields). Are you?

In fact, the Tibet solution seems perfect for Ukraine: autonomy within the country. Too bad Kiev wants to shell them for 8 years instead.

Oh you mean you support the hostle bloody takeover a sovereign nation

 

[JoeBloggs777]

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/worl...a023bca442aca86c61d76129ad9&ocid=winp1taskbar

as we know there had been rumours for a long-time Putin had cancer ,

 

[idontgetit]

Cool blurry unsourced Random screenshot..

Cope

 

[Foxi4]

I have no problem acknowledging that Communism is an imperfect system for that very reason, though you might as well be describing capitalism too. After all, the US still has people with a confederate mindset in government, law enforcement, and the private sector. Not to mention having one of its guiding principles, slavery, enshrined into the constitution. So it's as you say: those who gain power never want to relinquish it, even if that power centers around the necessity of owning human beings in the year 2022.

Are you talking about the three-fifths compromise? I hope you’re not, considering the fact that it was an anti-slavery measure. The abolition of slavery was always the long-term plan of many founding fathers - the fact that they dealt with it at all was on the colonial government, not on them - it was a pre-existing part of the economy. That’s neither here nor there though, capitalism is not a specific form of governance, it’s a system of free exchange of goods and services. It has no moral implications one way or the other.

Obviously not, being a KGB agent meant Putin was always a part of the "in group." He never could've obtained the type of obscene wealth he has now without the assistance of the private sector, however, and therefore he couldn't have possibly obtained it without the collapse of the USSR.

There are things more valuable than money when you live under a system like that. You don’t need money when you can readily acquire whatever you want, whenever you want. Not really part of this topic either, so I’ll leave it here.

Sorry bring it up again but yup it’s a Belarus coup … the opposition party releases a video claiming Belarus has become a puppet state and call Russian wars illegal,

Hopefully it takes in Belarus .. as it would cut off the Russians in the north of Kyiv and would push any chance of Russia to take over Kyiv unlikely any time soon

Belarus is in the uncomfortable position of having to pick a side - they’re picking the one that doesn’t lead to financial ruin and possible military intervention. Smart.

 

[mrjoshuaco]

and that Nazi Germany and the US had almost teamed up at the end eof WW2 to restart operation Barbarossa

Top fucking minds take right there. Let's invade a country, while allied with a nearly devastated failed regime, that owes us a significant sum in lend-lease repayment. I'd address the rest of your nonsense, but I'd say this one is pretty much a capstone on the stupid, leaving any further discourse unnecessary. Well done, sir.

 

[Xzi]

Are you talking about the three-fifths compromise?

I'm referring to reconstruction and the thirteenth amendment. Also the immortal Southern Strategy, to some extent.

That’s neither here nor there though, capitalism is not a specific form of governance, it’s a system of free exchange of goods and services. It has no moral implications one way or the other.

Precisely. Without the proper regulations in place, an amoral system is easily exploited by amoral power-hungry sociopaths who treat workers as commodities and not human beings.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

the principles espoused by communists have a natural consequence of establishing an authoritarian government because they can only be put into practice through use of force, force which is never relinquished afterwards - that’s the part modern communists don’t understand

And what you seem to not understand is that modern communists don't plan on using centralized force. Which is why it wouldn't cause an authoritarian government. We don't need a vanguard state, and by avoiding centralization, no class can be created, while still empowering the all.
Marx made a stupid argument that a temporary vanguard state was needed. Modern communists have identified that's unnecessary, we don't need a centralized goverment to function, Within a society. Sure it's easier to centralize since historically people of power have preferred centralized systems for control sake. But again, it doesn't mean that's how things have to function.

 

[Foxi4]

And what you seem to not understand is that modern communists don't plan on using centralized force. Which is why it wouldn't cause an authoritarian government. We don't need a vanguard state, and by avoiding centralization, no class can be created, while still empowering the all.
Marx made a stupid argument that a temporary vanguard state was needed. Modern communists have identified that's unnecessary

Of course it’s needed, because I’m not playing along with their delusion. You’ll have to force me, and people like me, to play along, and in order to do so you will have to centralise. It’s a forgone conclusion from the start based on your stated goal - you’re displaying the exact myopia I’ve just described. You are unable to look past step one, which is inevitably followed by strong opposition since people like their own things and aren’t necessarily cool with giving them to you based on one reason and one reason only - because you said that’s more fair. Take a hike, buddy - make your own money. What are you going to do about that? What’s your solution when you’re faced with a “no”? You’re obviously going to put pressure on the opposition, and once that doesn’t work, you’ll turn to violence. We’ve been through this several times throughout the 20th century, it’s not my fault you guys weren’t taking notes.

I'm referring to reconstruction and the thirteenth amendment. Also the immortal Southern Strategy, to some extent.

I was unaware that the Southern Strategy was in any way enshrined in the constitution. You guys can own your racist democrats. Not that it matters to me since I have no love for the democrats or the republicans - both parties are intellectually bankrupt.

Precisely. Without the proper regulations in place, an amoral system is easily exploited by amoral power-hungry sociopaths who treat workers as commodities and not human beings.

Capitalism is based on consensual exchange. Communism is based on forced sharing. Only one of those things is compatible with liberty.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Of course it’s needed, because I’m not playing along with their delusion. You’ll have to force me, and people like me, to play along

Hmm, okay, let me ask you a question then. If 80% of people agree on something but 20% has power, who's forcing who when the 80% says fuck you?
There's a strong difference between centralized force, and decentralized. As I would quote Martin Luther king jr's paper about his remarks on marx, how the seeds are planted, or how i would phrase it the foundation is set, will decide on if the foundation crumbles, or the seed of destruction will be planted.
So the answer is, we don't have to force you, we don't have to oppress you. If you truly hate us, we as a community of individuals with roles can empower you to go leave to capitalist country.
Saying that we would HAVE to oppress you is ludicrous, we can choose to empower you to leave, or hell, you could be empowered to try to change the law to be more capitalist. Your just going to have to convience the majority of people.
Bezo's, and musk's of the world can fuck off and leave.
In other words, your taking a subject with a lot of nuance and trying to boil it down to black and white, to two horrible options, when life, when systems are very often not that simple.

To be clear (since I made an edit)
There is a 4th option. Communism's basic principle is to empower everyone equally. And most anarcho communists go for a direct majority democracy.
No representatives, you create the policy and hope that people are on board with it.
So if you wanted to, you could try to influence policy to be more capitalist.
Again, we don't have to oppress you. However that also means however, for a democracy to work, if your not in line with the majority, then your going to have to get the majority to believe in you.

It’s a forgone conclusion from the start based on your stated goal

It seems to me that you think that just because 1 implementation was bad, that every single one must also be bad. That there is no changes that can be made, that the conclusion must be the same.
Insanity is when someone tries the exact same thing over and over again.
Learning to take what didn't work, changing it, adding criticism to it, reconstructing it again, is not insanity. That's learning from past iterations of mistakes. USSR in modern communist eyes failed to redistribute. Failed to avoid a state, and even worse made a authoritarian one at that. And failed at maintaining and keeping human rights. You take those failures and you make tweaks to prevent them, learning exactly what went wrong. A criticism of something will not be perfect on first implementation, not even second iteration, but there is a iteration that has to work, and so people have to keep trying. After all, we're seeing this iteration of society crumble, the United states. 80% of people want healthcare. They didn't get that. Most people believe minimum wage should be higher. That did not happen. Most people support student loan debt cancellation. That has not happened.
the will of the people has been actively subverted, due to our own economic system. Climate change is still not effectively delt with. Last year we polluted more than ever. The obesity crisis? Not even something people talk about. Housing crisis? The fact that many people were removed from their homes due to the pandemic, from bills being unable to be paid shows extreme fragility. No system should be that vulnerable that others can just be on the streets like that, due to something that far out their control.
Let's not forget that landlords are essentially scalpers, buying homes, a necessity for profit sake.
Capitalism is bad because when you truly dig into it, there is a clear hierarchy. And humanity is at it's worst when a hierarchy gets involved, as the ability to empathize with each other weakens. With those ontop, with those in power, unable to relate to the rest.

 

[Foxi4]

Hmm, okay, let me ask you a question then. If 80% of people agree on something but 20% has power, who's forcing who when the 80% says fuck you?
There's a strong difference between centralized force, and decentralized. As I would quote Martin Luther king jr's paper about his remarks on marx, how the seeds are planted, or how i would phrase it the foundation is set, will decide on if the foundation crumbles, or the seed of destruction will be planted.
So the answer is, we don't have to force you, we don't have to oppress you. If you truly hate us, we as a community of individuals with roles can empower you to go leave to capitalist country.
Saying that we would HAVE to oppress you is ludicrous, we can choose to empower you to leave, or hell, you could be empowered to try to change the law to be more capitalist. Your just going to have to convience the majority of people.
Bezo's, and musk's of the world can fuck off and leave.
In other words, your taking a subject with a lot of nuance and trying to boil it down to black and white, to two horrible options, when life, when systems are very often not that simple.

When there’s five people in the room and four of them democratically decide to take the belongings of the fifth for themselves, that’s called a mugging. The problem isn’t whether or not you can muster support for your amoral system, it’s the fact that your system is amoral. It doesn’t matter how much or how many people want to “redistribute” my property - it’s my property. You will *have* to take it by force, and once you do, you’re already on the same track as every dummy before you. As a side note, “putting pressure” on people to “make them move” is violence by a different name - depriving people of their means to live is no different than attacking them directly. You’re more than welcome to band together with your buddies and start a commune in your own backyard - I don’t care what you do. Once you knock on my door, with the expectation of depriving me of my belongings, you are the aggressor, and you should expect pushback. Not that it matters, this isn’t a thread about communism, we’re discussing a conflict in Ukraine.

It seems to me that you think that just because 1 implementation was bad, that every single one must also be bad. That there is no changes that can be made, that the conclusion must be the same.
Insanity is when someone tries the exact same thing over and over again.
Learning to take what didn't work, changing it, adding criticism to it, reconstructing it again, is not insanity. That's learning from past iterations of mistakes. USSR in modern communist eyes failed to redistribute. Failed to avoid a state, and even worse made a authoritarian one at that. And failed at maintaining and keeping human rights. You take those failures and you make tweaks to prevent them, learning exactly what went wrong. A criticism of something will not be perfect on first implementation, not even second iteration, but there is a iteration that has to work, and so people have to keep trying. After all, we're seeing this iteration of society crumble, the United states. 80% of people want healthcare. They didn't get that. Most people believe minimum wage should be higher. That did not happen. Most people support student loan debt cancellation. That has not happened.
the will of the people has been actively subverted.

Not one. Every single one in recorded history. So far, after multiple experiments, we’ve established that communism appears to be a machine you feed with people on one end and get genocide, famine and poverty on the other as you turn the crank. There are zero communist countries anyone with any semblance of reason would like to live in. Keep trying though, it’ll work next time. For the record, the idea that “it has to work after X iterations” is indeed stupid. If you repeat the same action over and over again with the expectation of getting a different result, we call that insanity. Seeing that you’re aware of this is supremely ironic - you should read your own post, three times, then figure out why it’s hilarious. You should also buy a mirror. I’m not even going to comment on your “society” comment, the Joker cosplay convention was last week. It’s funny - governments worldwide are veering more and more towards social democracy only for you guys to complain that it causes society to crumble. Hey, galaxy brain - maybe your solutions are the problem then? But alas, who am I to judge, I just prefer liberty over tyranny of edge lords with no understanding of history.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Oh you mean you support the hostle bloody takeover a sovereign nation

Tibet was stolen from the Qing dynasty by the British. Once China regained its strength, it took back what was theirs. I´m sure you would support that, seeing how you support the Ukrainian claim over Donbass.

 

[Foxi4]

Tibet was stolen from the Qing dynasty by the British. Once China regained its strength, it took back what was theirs. I´m sure you would support that, seeing how you support the Ukrainian claim over Donbass.

Tibet has over two centuries of history as an independent state - it was briefly conquered by the Mongols and later the Chinese. The people of Tibet have an ancestral claim to the land, China does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet

 

[djpannda]

Tibet was stolen from the Qing dynasty by the British.

Wait so your saying that the successor of the Qing dynasty has rights to Tibet? So you saying only Taiwan is the rightful owner of Tibet not the CCP? Wow that soo progressive

 

[djpannda]

Cope

… yet you still provide unsourced low rez photoshop pix … shit look like a N64 screengrab

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Wait so your saying that the successor of the Qing dynasty has rights to Tibet? So you saying only Taiwan is the rightful owner of Tibet not the CCP? Wow that soo progressive

Taiwan is not a country. The Republic of China is the successor of the Qing dynasty and the People´s Republic is seemingly the successor of the Republic of China. If it turns out that the RoC wins the frozen civil war, I would not be opposed to its claim over all of China, including Vladivostok.

 

[Foxi4]

Taiwan is not a country. The Republic of China is the successor of the Qing dynasty and the People´s Republic is seemingly the successor of the Republic of China. If it turns out that the RoC wins the frozen civil war, I would not be opposed to its claim over all of China, including Vladivostok.

Neither are any territories the Russian Federation has attacked and/or annexed over the years. What’s your point?

For the record, not even the Qing dynasty has an ancestral claim on Tibet - the Qing dynasty conquered Tibet in the 18th century. They ruled over the land for around 2 centuries before dissolving, they were hostile occupiers.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Neither are any territories the Russian Federation has attacked and/or annexed over the years. What’s your point?

My point is to reveal the hypocrisy of others.

For the record, not even the Qing dynasty has an ancestral claim on Tibet - the Qing dynasty conquered Tibet in the 18th century. They ruled over the land for around 2 centuries before dissolving, they were hostile occupiers.

The Qing dynasty was the last Chinese dynasty. China has ruled Tibet for much longer. Hundreds of years before Columbus as least.

 

[AlexMCS]

Why not let the people who actually live there NOW decide whether they want to side with X, Y or be by themselves?
Historical claims are such BS. Return America to the tribes then. Or the Earth to the chickens, who descended from the "rulers of yore", the dinousaurs.

SMH...

 

[smf]

Assertion. I think it was shot down by a Ukrainian plane (it had what looked like bullets holes). And if it was shot down but a missile, it was most likely a separatist missile because they were afraid of bombing and did not have air superiority. I would not blame Kiev if they shot down a civil airplane right now by accident.

Assertion. the missile launcher used was tracked from Russia to Ukraine and back again. Lots of photographic evidence was available.

It was definitely Russia that shot down MH17.

Why not let the people who actually live there NOW decide whether they want to side with X, Y or be by themselves?

It's not entirely black and white. Self determination should certainly be dealt with democratically, so no sending in soldiers to save people who don't want to be saved.

However you also need to consider that a country could encourage lots of their people to move to a different country so that they can then claim it.

It's important to be careful with the facts and not create loopholes that bad actors (i.e. Russia or China) will exploit.

 

[idontgetit]

… yet you still provide unsourced low rez photoshop pix … shit look like a N64 screengrab

- sent from my iPhone