Because every single other dominant power teamed up more thoroughly than they had ever done prior or since for the sole purpose of ratfucking them down to every last brick and feasting on the carcass?
You're right, it's so fucked up that Stalin stole all those poor Kulaks' grain and put it in a big swimming pool so that he and his cabinet could swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck.
I literally said "liquidating you as a class" as a possible retaliation. "Gulags" is not a gotcha, if you hoard or destroy food during a famine you are committing murder and you need to be stopped for the good of society.
By the way, the US prison population today is higher than the Gulag population of the entire Soviet Union at its peak. I'd sure as hell rather see gulags full of reactionaries and food-burners than full of drug users and the chronically unemployed. I'm curious, why do you prefer the latter?
Sorry, I think this is just a grammatical confusion, let me fix it:
socialist system must recognize that collective ownership of a state by the people requires the people have power over everything that happens in that state, law, economics, religion, war, everything.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, can you elaborate? I'm not advocating making laws about what people are allowed to think, but I'm not sure that's what you mean
Yes, exploitable land can be owned by an individual in a socialist economy. If you're growing food for your family, then that's just one family the state doesn't have to feed. If you're growing food for your community, then that's several mouths the state doesn't have to feed. If you're hoarding or selling food (or in one very famous historical case, burning it out of spite), then you are monopolizing a resource that could be feeding people, and the state will intervene, whether by buying your land back from you, taking it from you, liquidating you as a class, or some other solution to be determined by the state in question - there is no one size fits all blueprint to socialism.
The difference is that liberal democracy is underpinned on the idea that being able to elect a bourgeoise representative is all you need to be fully involved, whereas a socialist system must recognize that collective ownership of a state by the people requires the people have power over everything that happens in that state, law, economics, religion, war, everything. Socialist states exist with this as an ideal and only walk back from this goal with good cause, as opposed to starting with nothing, adding the opportunity to choose bourgeoise representation out of a small pool every once in a while, and calling it good.
You're getting a lot of flak (rightly), but I figured I'd actually give you a right definition so this can be a growing opportunity: If you own a resource and you use that resource to produce profit, that resource is private property. If you're not making profit, it's only personal property. Farm for your family? Personal property. Farm where you give the output to your community? Personal property. Farm where you sell the yields? Private property.
I'm happy that you've found peace and confidence in your superiority by reducing the world you live in to something simple. Unfortunately that sort of takes away any value I might find in having a discussion with you, so have a nice life, comrade.
The goalposts are exactly where they started. You're defending America wanting world domination ("systemic primacy"), I'm saying that's a pretty evil thing to want, especially for a nation who's policy has been might makes right for at least 7 decades now.
P.S., you should probably read up a bit on the RAND corporation and CFR if you think they are "some of America's thousand foreign policy think tanks", and you may also want to reevaluate calling executive committee membership and senior fellowship as being "a member".
You just saw my instance and flipped out, I didn't even make any moral judgments about any political systems, I just said it's kind of evil to want to "protect our systemic primacy". "systemic primacy" is literally just policy wonk speak for "world domination". Why are you so quick to attack me for that? Why are you getting defensive for the trillion-dollar military country?
Chinese propaganda by... Al Jazeera? And besides, do you think that the US isn't trying to flex any power in Asia? I'd also read beyond the intro of his Wikipedia page if you think he's been out of government service for two decades, he's a board member on at least a couple of think tanks now.
what are you on about, why is this your response when the country with the worlds largest military says they need to be the primary power over an entire continent that isn't them
In March 2015, retired US diplomat and Harvard professor Robert Blackwill wrote a policy paper that has become an unofficial playbook for today’s American actions in Asia.
It starts with a remarkable but unsurprising premise: “The United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining pre-eminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western hemisphere, and finally globally.”
The Blackwell paper argues that the US must “protect its systemic primacy” and spells out how to do it in Asia.
purahna @ purahna @lemmygrad.ml Posts 0Comments 320Joined 2 yr. ago
Because every single other dominant power teamed up more thoroughly than they had ever done prior or since for the sole purpose of ratfucking them down to every last brick and feasting on the carcass?