You're viewing a single thread.
It always comes across to me as maximum cope when Americans brag about "winning the space race". I mean, even if it was true, the US's economy was massively wealthier than the USSR's. This "race" was literally between the wealthiest country on earth and a very poor country. Even at the height of the USSR, its GDP was only about half that of the US's.
It really does not show the US's "strength" to brag so much about winning against someone with so much less resources. It's a sign of weakness to actually even be in a "race" with a developing country to begin with, which suggests they are actually competitive and have a chance of winning.
That's really what the whole "space race" shows. It does not matter who "won", the very fact a poor developing nation could compete with the wealthiest and most powerful country on earth in the first place demonstrates the extraordinary weakness of the capitalist system.
The US only placed a man on the moon because of NASA, which they founded as a direct response to the Soviets launching Sputnik. Meaning, the US literally only implemented this space program as a response to the Soviets, they were not a natural outgrowth of the US's system and would not have happened without the Soviets (as we have seen NASA massively defunded ever since). The fact the US even got on the moon in the first place only happened because of the USSR.
That was back in 1969, and we're now in 2022 yet, funnily enough, the capitalist private sector has not got a man that far yet.
—aimixin
It really does not show the US's "strength" to brag so much about winning against someone with so much less resources.
It really does show the US's strength when no country has nearly the same amount of resources.
"Everyone else being weaker than you does not show your strength" is a very odd take.
With all that wealth plundered from the rest of the world they ought to perform better.
I'm not sure what you're arguing.
Yes, the US has a large amount of wealth. That is what makes them strong.
they ought to perform better
So you're saying they should be even stronger (than the strongest nation to ever exist)?
Or are you saying that "strength" is not about the total power one has, but about the efficiency with which one can convert resources into power?
Where did they get all that wealth from?
Where did they get all that wealth from, motherfucker?I never argued that they became strong using rightful measures.
But they did become strong.
So if you agree that the US obtained its wealth through plundering and imperialism then what the fuck was your original point? I don't think you have one and you're trying to debate just to debate.
My first comment:
It really does not show the US's "strength" to brag so much about winning against someone with so much less resources.
It really does show the US's strength when no country has nearly the same amount of resources.
That was my sole point. Noone having nearly as much resources as the US does show the US's strength.
It does not matter how they aquired those resources or how strong they could theoretically be.
My point was simple and clear from the beginning on: USA = strong.
Debate pervert
There are different kinds of strength. One kind of strength is to be really good at colonizing and plundering the rest of the world. Another kind of strength is to be really good at dreaming of new horizons and using limited resources to reach them. America has more of the first kind of strength, the USSR had more of the second kind.
Perhaps that's true, I don't know.
But the original comment I first answered to contradicts that, too:
It's a sign of weakness to actually even be in a "race" with [the USSR] to begin with
They claim that the USSR was so weak that competing with them was a "sign of weakness".
They definitely do not share your views on the USSR's strength.
This isn't hard to understand. Either you're very dense or just another debate pervert.
Probably both.
I'm not sure what you're arguing.
Do you not understand what plundering is?
Wealth extraction from the global south into the global north via american companies involved in resource extraction - minerals, gases, etc etc. Rights to said resources gained at the barrel of the gun of the US military itself or a coup instigated by the CIA.
For the love of god read a book about modern imperialism and how it works and save us from your international political illiteracy. https://resistir.info/livros/imperialism_john_smith.pdf
You completely deviated from the original point.
Never did I claim that the USA gained their strength rightfully, so why are you arguing against that?
I only ever claimed that the USA having significantly more resources does show their strength.
You can discuss the bad things the USA does and has done, but I don't know why you're discussing them with me.
You said you did not understand what the other person was saying. This can only come from not really understanding what imperialism is and how it functions.
I explained what they were saying.
You are now trying to divert away from that. Because it is not a topic you wish to engage in while you do this nationalist thing of engaging in apologetics and sly weasel-word half-hearted US support.
Is guess I could've said "I'm not sure why you're arguing" instead of "I'm not sure what you're arguing".
you do this nationalist thing
I'm not American, how would speaking well of a nation I've never even visited be nationalist? (I can already imagine you calling me a traitor to my own country)
half-hearted US support
As opposed to full-hearted US support? You don't have to be extremely against something or extremely for something (though I'm aware extreme leftists would like to see it that way).
I do recognize the negative things the US does and has done. But that does not mean that I'll unreasonably make up negatives (like the USA not being strong while being the strongest nation).
There are enough factual things to dislike the USA about, no need to make stuff up on top of that.
is a very odd take
So is being a liberal.
Hexbears be like
Another L for you.
Politically illiterate dumbass posts a self-own.
This image depicts liberals and fascists being close to each other, while the far-left (hexbear) is far away from them.
Yes. And that's what "hexbears be like".
Because you call anyone not far left a liberal, therefore not differentiating between people who are not far left.
Do you think fascism is something unique? Different from capitalism in some way?
Fascism is not unique or different from capitalism. It is capitalism converted into a format that allows the highest level of extreme violence to be carried out against its enemies. It occurs when capitalists feel threatened by socialists, gaining monetary support, media and backing from the bourgeoisie who recognise the need to use ultra-violence to exterminate the revolutionary threat to their existence. It is not a separate or unique thing to capitalism. It is still capitalism.
We only need to look at the places where fascism was not defeated to see proof of this. The fascists won in Spain and in Chile, they were not defeated like they were in Italy or Germany. What happened there? Did fascism ever become anything unique? No it did not. The fascists maintained and even increased capitalism, the term "privatisation" comes from Hitler himself. Over time in the countries where fascism won, once they defeated the left, exterminated them and their leadership, rendered them inert and no longer a threat to their bourgeoisie, these countries simply morphed back into liberalism which is a more efficient form of exploitation and extraction. Once the ultra violence was no longer required they morph back into "friendly" versions.
It is this that you are seeing when we discuss fascists and liberals in the same breath. They are allies in their support for capitalism and opposition to socialism.
And who exactly becomes the fascists? They don't simply spawn out of a spawning pool. They were liberals until the media, money and influence of the bourgeoisie backing the conversion of society to fascism successfully radicalises them to the cause.
I just see *removed externally hosted image*
here's a link to the picture this person posted https://lemdro.id/pictrs/image/d6c8a45d-d579-48de-903b-6d7f5f885fe0.jpeg
maybe I'm daft but this picture makes no sense to me. So leftists are on the left, liberals are in the middle, and... I guess the point is that instead of continuing rightward it loops back around to liberal again? Are you mocking leftists for lumping liberals and conservatives together?
yes
I never finished writing my response. ADHD and too many tabs :/
We lump them together because liberal and conservative politicians are unanimous on a lot of topics we care about.
off the top of my head, US politicians from both parties:
- do nothing about climate change
- want owners rather than workers to control production -- this is sort of a big deal to communists!
- serve (and often are themselves) business owners, bankers, and landlords rather than working people
- Clinton deregulated finance and contributed to the 2008 crisis, allowed huge corporate media mergers, and tried to privatize social security
- Obama let Citigroup pick his 2008 cabinet, did fuckall to help foreclosed Americans, and presided over the largest upward transfer of wealth in US history
- Biden has done next to nothing to protect American workers from COVID, and rail workers are still on-call 24/7 with only eight sick days a year
- 70% of Americans want single-payer healthcare but it remains politically impossible
- support wars and coups
- Clinton bombed and sanctioned Iraq back to the stone age, causing around 1.5 million deaths
- liberal media helped sell the Iraq war, which caused over a million further deaths in Iraq
- Obama obliterated the once-prosperous country of Libya, and there are now open-air slave markets
- Biden continues to support the siege in Yemen, which has killed hundreds of thousands
- support massive wealth extraction from the global south
- IMF and World Bank loans that enforce austerity and depress wages
and on social issues, democrats are one half of a one-way ratchet: republicans make it worse, democrats do not make it better
some more thoughts
I think there are two reasons democrats are ineffective on social issues, and maybe you'll find them too cynical: 1) as long as our basic rights are in jeopardy, we have no leverage to ask for progress, on things like universal healthcare, that the rich donors oppose, and 2) offering effective resistance would set the precedent that the government has the power to help people, and then people might ask for more improvements to our lives, which, again, the rich donors oppose. And for that matter, a lot of the politicians themselves have backgrounds as rich businessmen, bankers, executives, and landlords, so their own class interests oppose ours.
So, anyway, liberal and conservative politicians look similar to us.
But sometimes the voters also look similar, especially the well-off ones! I have heard so many disgusting takes about the homeless from well-off liberals. And no one seems to really oppose the massive wealth extraction from the global south. And too many support wars and coups at the time and then oppose them later when the lies come out, only to support the next one and believe the next lies. Too many liberals seem to support awful things, tolerate them, or have no knowledge of them.
Now this is me going on a petty tangent, but I also think there are some annoying cultural differences between certain liberals and socialists. Many liberals buy into meritocratic myths. They see liberal politicians as the adults in the room making the hard decisions, while ignoring the class interests of those politicians. They fawn over British royals. They watch shows about aristocrats and DC politicians. They watch game shows where working class people try to appease a panel of rich judges. And way too often, liberals seem to care more about civility and norms than about what actually happens in the world. As soon as Trump came to power, W. Bush was fucking rehabilitated in an instant. Never mind the wars, never mind 2008. At least he was civil.
Maybe I'm being too harsh, but this is the impression I get.
...But anyway, the bottom line here is that we're socialists. We want workers to control production. Liberals, and conservatives, don't.
you might disagree with the points I raised, and that's fine — just realize that we communists do have our reasons to lump liberals and conservatives together. It’s not just vibes. We have an actual coherent perspective lol.
They are all liberals. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. They are all ideologically committed to capitalism.
Being tall isn't impressive if you are on stilts
Get fucked losers, 'murca
