Except for the historical facts which they presented you with, and the reason for giving that context? Each of their claims is basic history.
Do you not believe that what happened in our past shapes our present? Do you just think everything happens disconnected from the other?
So far you are the one who have yet to provide any basis for your claims. The other user gave a succint argument as to why China has reason to distrust western institutions and your response has been "nuh uh".
Do better.
They simplified it so it would be comprehensible for you, you dolt. They even wrote that at the beginning. If you really wanna get into the math, just read Das Kapital. Here's a brief excerpt speaking about the price of linen
That's a drastic reaction. Did I scratch you, racist?
I just looked into the claims at the time and afterwards. They were led by politicians and they were mocked and critiqued at the time.
it was always just led by us politicians wanting to blame someone other than themselves for their terrible handling of covid.
Of course you already know this, you just want an excuse to say "China bad". You could've posted some sources instead of insulting me, but then again there aren't really anyone credible to post about <3
You said Russia didn't unilaterally invade Ukraine, because of what happened in 2014.
I've so far said nothing about wether or not Russia invaded Ukraine. I've literally only asked you about what happened in 2014. So far you've failed to answer.
Now you're just projecting and insulting me instead of explaining what you mean
Yeah, like you've been doing all the way through. Answer the question.
I know what happened in 2014,
Then tell me. Why is it so hard to just answer a question? What happened in 2014?
Is that your actual answer? That's all you think that happened in 2014? I'm asking because it's pretty impossible to gauge wether you're being a smug idiot or just an idiot right now.
Getting an answer out of a lib really is like pulling teeth, you're completely incapable of good faith discussion. Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question? Why do you refuse to just engage in good faith with those that respond to you? Are you incapable of being a smugh shitheel?
A good faith discussion is not about convincing another, but instead about having an open exchange of information.
They're not going to be convinced when they're already putting words in the opposition's mouth.
They're illustrating a point which you failed to engage with. In no way did it put words in your mouth. The fact that you choose to be insulted by the way they decided to illustrate that point rather than engage with them in good faith says a lot more about you.
To reiterate: You didn't engage with their argument, but good try nonetheless. It's nice to see you cling to a fallacy rather than engage in good-faith discussion of an argument clearly illustrated for you to relate to.
Do better.
Why would you feel threatened about violence against nazis?
And again: Do you think we shouldn't have fought the Nazis? You still won't answer the question
I'd argue Spain wasn't a good example, since it fell to the forces of reaction.
I know I'm being reductive and I appreciate your input, but I'm just trying to say that while there are many ways to approach the question of how society should be economically structured, it must be anchored in the material reality of what threatens your society, what opportunities and weaknesses and opportunities it has. I also gotta be honest that it is not a discussion that really interests me, as it is quite far from ever being relevant to me.
The discussion is interesting to me only insofar as to understand why the existing socialist countries are structured as they are. If you haven't already seen it I'd like to refer you to this short excerpt from one of Michael Parents Talks https://youtu.be/uThpIDlfcBQ?si=OHOPASxctMMemkNG
Surely no one could disagree with you! It must be a bot built by the dastardly chinese!