The Femboy Manifesto

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Mods remove this fag shit

The right-wingers' desire for censorship only shows that their fight against cancel culture is illusory. You don't have the power of arguments, so you use the argument of force.​

 

[Entschuldigung]

Did anyone read this? Cause I sure didn't

 

[Itsmelurking505]

Did anyone read this? Cause I sure didn't

Nope I saw the word femboy and I'm calling for the mods to ban this fag nigger talking constructs and other gay shit like fuck of

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Did anyone read this? Cause I sure didn't

didn't ask
​

Nope I saw the word femboy and I'm calling for the mods to ban this fag nigger talking constructs and other gay shit like fuck of

problem?​

 

[Itsmelurking505]

didn't ask


problem?​

Gay faggot get off this forum go spread your gay chemically altered fag shit on tiktok

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Gay faggot get off this forum go spread your gay chemically altered fag shit on tiktok

(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.​

 

[Itsmelurking505]

(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.​

Go fuck of with your uni degree no one cares using words like they matter they dont, it dont take much to realise that if I cum in a guy the only thing that's going to come out is his shit and my cum alright hes not going to ovulate hes going to let loose a mr hankey stop trying to normalize mental illness you faggot

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Go fuck of with your uni degree no one cares using words like they matter they dont, it dont take much to realise that if I cum in a guy the only thing that's going to come out is his shit and my cum alright hes not going to ovulate hes going to let loose a mr hankey stop trying to normalize mental illness you faggot​

You are a misandrist because you reduce the discussion of homosexuality exclusively to the male version - while remaining silent on the topic of lesbians. Find something better to do than obsess over gays, brainlet​

 

[Itsmelurking505]

You are a misandrist because you reduce the discussion of homosexuality exclusively to the male version - while remaining silent on the topic of lesbians. Find something better to do than obsess over gays, brainlet​

Uhh are you spastic the topic Is gayboys, not fucking dykes that hate there dad cause of there dads political views you cretin

 

[alriodai]

Go fuck of with your uni degree no one cares using words like they matter they dont, it dont take much to realise that if I cum in a guy the only thing that's going to come out is his shit and my cum alright hes not going to ovulate hes going to let loose a mr hankey stop trying to normalize mental illness you faggot

you must be a retard homie, sub 50 iq
uni degree? big words that dont matter?
nigga theses are normal words what the hell

 

[Itsmelurking505]

you must be a retard homie, sub 50 iq
uni degree? big words that dont matter?
nigga theses are normal words what the hell

Looks like we got a gay nigga

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Comparing countries
It's crazy to compare countries with completely different history and geography. It is appropriate to compare, for example, Cuba with Haiti, they have a similar past and location, but one of these countries has chosen a different path than capitalism.

Socialism scientifically proven to be better
If you look at countries with similar levels of economic development the socialist countries produce a better quality of life - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906 . More in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9o484wk3Iw

Attractiveness and political ideology
Sexual neuroticism has been a conservative psychological trait since the beginning of times, thats not a surprise. Most radically conservative movements are more or less rooted in some kind of sexual neuroticism

https://www.cherwell.org/2017/02/25/left-wing-academics-are-sexier-than-right-wingers-study-suggests/


On eugenics

Stopping genetic diseases is practically impossible because heterozygotes predominate in the population and transmit one recessive gene (responsible for genetic diseases) and they cannot be detected until a homozygote (two recessive genes) is created, i.e. a person with a genetic disease. So if you forbid genetically ill people from reproducing, you won't stop genetic diseases anyway.

Even if you manage to detect and stop it - there is such a thing as balanced polymorphism. This means that every few generations they recreate the recessive genes responsible for genetic diseases

And apart from genetic diseases, you will not create an army of perfect people by manipulating genes, because the most outstanding individuals with unique skills are created as a result of mixing genes. By limiting this, you will limit the birth of people with a high IQ, etc.​

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Refuting myths about homosexuality​

View attachment 2459278​

​

Unnatural​

This is an inherently weak and uncogent objection. This argument is a blatant rendition of the appeal to nature, as it assumes that what is natural is acceptable or better and what is unnatural is not, and it does not define what "natural" even is. What this would entail logically is that adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, and nakedness must be acceptable as they are "natural", while playing checkers, sleeping on a bed, wearing clothes and indeed cooking meat are not "natural" and thus unacceptable. Most homophobic persons typically do not advocate creating laws outlawing things such as sleeping on beds, not to mention that using computers isn't natural either — yet homophobes clearly use computers, if only to try to defend themselves on various wiki sites.

Moreover, even if it did logically follow that what is "natural" is good, it turns out that homosexuality occurs in nature; biologists have extensively documented same-sex behavior in over 500 species of animals and observed it in a total of 1,500 species of animals. Bonobos, for example, are known for indulging in almost any "perversion" humanity has thought of — and perhaps some we've missed out on. Mammals are far from the only kind of animal that do this.
​

Perversion​

This is simply a variation, with added bigotry, of the "It's not natural" argument. It implies that being gay is a mental disorder or disability even though there is no evidence to support such a claim. Defining homosexuality as a disability is a classic argument from definition fallacy. But the definition of disability does not include sexuality or gender. Being LGBTQ+ in no way impairs your ability to function as a human being in and of itself. In addition, drawing a parallel with sexuality and disability is a very troubling false equivocation, especially because it assumes that disabled people also do not deserve respect and empathy.
​

Religious arguments​

Before we try to address this issue: Why do the infidels have to pay attention to your God? Then comes the presuppositional argument that everything is contingent on the God of your religion, or double standard of saying that freedom of religion does not apply to those people, or that separation of church and state does not really exist.

Conservative Christians claim that God condemns homosexuality, but Jesus actually never brought the subject up, as it was apparently not very high on his list of important things to do or not do (although he did give some forceful condemnations of hypocrisy and those who used their temporal or religious authority to oppress others and enrich themselves). While this argument may be relevant for some religious practitioners, it has no relevance to those people who read Scripture in a more accommodating fashion, or to those simply do not believe in God, those that are are followers of a different religion, or to the law that respects the divide between church and state.

While the strongest religious criticisms of homosexuality (at least in Western countries, especially Poland and Germany) usually come from Christians, but Jesus Christ himself is not recorded as saying anything whatsoever about homosexuality. Biblical condemnations of homosexuality come from the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus (Along with not eating shrimp, Leviticus 11:10, and not wearing clothes made of multiple materials, Leviticus 19:19) and later apostles such as St Paul. Back then, many people in Ancient Rome disapproved of gay marriage before Christianity came along. Christians may just have wanted to make themselves look homophobic to look acceptable in the eyes of the average Roman.

The Old Testament is explicitly against homosexuality, because it claims it has perverted many ancient civilisations (homosexuality, that is, not the Old Testament). Evidence of impacts on any civilisations remains to be found.
​

"It's disgusting"​

This is simply a value judgment which has no weight outside the mind of the person expressing it. Some people might consider mental images of heterosexual sex as equally repulsive, while others might consider the mental image of Donald Trump having sex to be disgusting.

If the standard chauvinist opinion of "disgusting" is being used, we can assume that God is fine with lesbians. That might be why there's no real mention of female homosexuality in the Bible aside from a questionable reference in Romans 1:26. That claim rests on a very shaky foundation, as the full context of the passage seems to be more of a condemnation of shrine prostitutes than of lesbians. It might be the most honest reason, even if it's the most ridiculous.
​

Corruption or sexual abuse in single-sex communities​

Some communities are sensitive to corruption due to sexual relationships, or sexual abuse. How is that problem solved? Gender separation rules out the opportunities for heterosexual relationships. But to rule out homosexual relationships, the gays must be thrown out, too. The Boy Scouts of America is an example. The Catholic Church also intends to end sexual abuse by throwing out gay people. Except abusive priests. They can stay, provided the Church can shuffle them around to another (unsuspecting) congregation. The problem is that sexual abuse is very different from consensual sexual relationships. Prison rapists are usually not gay, though they are men who have sex with men. The reason is that rape isn't really about sex, but about dominating and abusing others.
​

Definition of marriage​

Homophobes might say that marriage is an ancient institution, clearly defined as a union between man and woman (though they don't specify what ancient institution they're referring to). They ignore that ancient institutions have included slavery, polygamy, forced marriage and child marriage, and that ancient traditions have banned interracial and inter-religious marriage. Also, conservatives' precious Old Testament disagrees with that definition, since its model for marriage seems to be polygamy.

Many conservatives claim that extra-marital sexual relationships are sinful. So if same-sex marriage is not allowed, all same-sex sexual activities would be sinful, by definition.

Homophobes might say that gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of straight marriage. Typically, the sanctity of marriage is only ruined when one partner in the marriage has sex outside of the marriage so it is difficult to see how same-sex marriage could impinge on the sanctity of marriage between straight individuals. Some use vague non sequitur explanations as to why it would devalue their marriage. For example, "If we recognize counterfeit money, it devalues the real thing. Therefore, if we recognize SSM, traditional marriage is devalued."

Besides, straight people have beaten up and devalued marriage on their own with no help from the gays. Straights have allowed divorce, unregistered cohabitation, the de-criminalization of adultery, quickie Vegas wedding chapels where people can get married by Elvis Presley impersonators, dog and cat weddings, and pathetic marriage-themed reality television shows where people can marry strangers they just met before divorcing 48 hours later as soon as they actually had to get to know each other. And many years later, when some gays want to marry, they get the blame for ruining straight marriage?
​

"Homosexuality might encourage other perversions"​

Homophobes might claim that acceptance of homosexuality might be a gateway to acceptance of pedophilia, zoophilia, incest or other perversions, in the same manner as public acceptance of Earl Grey tea is a gateway to public acceptance of heroin. That is a slippery slope fallacious argument; in other words, bullshit. In the past, pederasty certainly existed in Western culture, especially ancient Greece and Rome (and likely fueled some of the early Christians' animus against it), but today's gay communities overwhelmingly condemn pederasty and other such acts just like the rest of us.
​

Homosexuality and choice​

Homophobes often claim that those living the "gay lifestyle" have simply chosen to be gay. This could be correct for any given individual making this argument, but only if they are bisexual. Most people are attracted primarily to either men or women, and can exercise very little, if any, choice in the matter. Bisexual people, however, could conceivably choose to act on their attraction to the opposite sex and ignore their similar attraction to the same sex. But this would not make a bisexual person heterosexual.

Also curious and rarely discussed is why this should even be relevant; it's not as though societies routinely ban behaviors just because they appear to be choices rather than innate and inflexible preferences, whatever that distinction can be said to mean in an apparently deterministic universe. Blind to their own irony, the same people who revile the gays with the non-argument that homosexuality is a "choice" and thus wrong (…implying that it'd be okay if it weren't, as most evidence suggests?) are often very pleased to attempt to inflict a distinctly choice-based religious lifestyle on anyone who'll sit still and listen to their crazy, and none of them ever flips on his gay switch to show us just how easy it is to swap boning preferences.

Also, why would people choose to be gay when they have a higher risk of being harassed?
​

Sexually transmitted infections​

Men who have sex with men are prone to some sexually transmitted infections, most notably HIV. This is mostly because anal sex transmits HIV and other infections and a rate 18 times higher than vaginal sex. Some people have transmitted these infections to heterosexual partners.

STIs are indeed a public health problem. However, most gay people are not infected. And most know how to protect themselves. Just like straight people. It is simply not a problem unique to homosexuality. Also, some STIs may not really be much more common among men who have sex with men, such as genital herpes.

If one is to believe Warren J. Blumenthal, homophobic conservatives might well be shooting themselves in the foot: "Anti-gay bias causes young people to engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove that they are straight. Anti-gay bias contributed significantly to the spread of the AIDS epidemic. Anti-gay bias prevents the ability of schools to create effective honest sexual education programs that would save children's lives and prevent STDs."

HIV rarely spreads through lesbian sexual intercourse. Does this mean we ban all marriages except between two women? I mean, stopping AIDS is super important enough to justify criminalizing loving relationships, right? Nope.
​

Promiscuity​

First, even if this were universally true and demonstrable with convincing evidence (which it clearly isn't), it wouldn't mean anything. Promiscuity is not a vice in and of itself, unless someone is religious and wants to force everyone else to be as miserable as them. Second, while some gay communities encourage casual sex, some straight communities do too. Meanwhile, many gay people prefer lifelong, monogamous relationships. All people, no matter their sexual orientation, have different tastes.
​

Anal sex​

Many homophobic jokes and arguments center around anal sex, taking as read that it's a despicable act and implying that The Gays are obsessed with it. Male-on-male anal sex seems to matter more to homophobes than to gay men. There are some health issues with penile-anal penetration, but these also apply to male-on-female anal fun, which is popular among some young Christians and usually not condemned in the same way. Also, some gay men don't do anal sex anyways. Furthermore, due to the invention of the "strap-on", straight female-on-male anal sex is also possible and common.
​

Not reproductive​

Most sexual encounters, including those within straight marriage, are non-reproductive. These include barrier birth control, biochemical birth control, fertility awareness, non-penetrative sex, sex with sterilized people, sex with less fertile people (due to old age or other reasons), and homosexuality. Oddly enough, when someone makes the claim that it's all about children, they tend to become very unhappy if someone suggests that sterile couples should also be banned from marrying… almost as if that wasn't their real reason for opposing same-sex marriage.

Same-sex couples also commonly do something that is arguably more humanitarian than creating new people: they adopt children. There is also no requirement to make new people anyway, and a growing childfree movement against the entrenched emphasis on family and reproduction, while the world's population is still increasing. Does the planet desperately need more reproductive sex that badly? Same-sex couples can also procreate using artificial means, such as artificial insemination or surrogate mothers. Some closeted or semi-closeted homosexuals also have children through marriage before coming out.
​

Homosexual erasure​

Some organizations (and even entire countries) simply deny the existence of homosexuality, seeing it as a rebellious phase, a simpler way to "get some," or simply bisexuality, as opposed to a genuine lack of opposite sex attraction.

Common arguments:
​

• Most homosexual men enjoy women as friends. (Answers in Genesis used this argument.) People making this argument may be thinking that opposite sex friends (sometimes thought of as a psychological impossibility) are some sort of repressed desire for the opposite sex. This argument is even more ridiculous when considering the fact that most heterosexual men enjoy men as friends.​

• All homosexuals have some degree of OS attraction (also used by the same AiG "Scientist" on the same article). First of all, there is some confirmation bias in the study. He was a reparative therapist, who deals with people who want to "change". People who are in accepting communities, who are content with the same sex, may not feel the urge to change. Secondly, having past straight relationships does NOT make a person straight, any more than eating soup makes it someone's favorite food. Third, if homosexuals DO feel heterosexual feelings, they are very weak, in the same way that straight people may have faint homosexual feelings. Does that make everyone bi? Fourth, many homosexuals do not find the opposite sex attractive, describing it as "indifferent". Some may describe forced heterosexual relationships as feeling "unnatural" and compare them to incest. Sorry to leave you with that image.​

• There are no gay men. They are just too lazy to be with a woman (Used by various homophobes) The homophobe's train of thought probably goes like this:
  
  1. Men are naturally promiscuous.​
  2. Women are naturally choosy, slow, and hard to get.​
  3. Men have to go through great struggles just to "get some".​
  4. Since there is no woman in the mix, homosexuality provides men with a simple, lazy, unsophisticated way to "game the system".​

• I can't even imagine how you would like a man instead of a beautiful woman with beautiful breasts and luxurious hair! (used by various homophobes to deny the orientation). That's because you are straight. Also, how could heterosexual women like a man instead of a beautiful woman with beautiful breasts and luxurious hair?​

@alriodai @Ekil73_YT @thenewhebbe @NateJacobs @DR. NICKGA @Gonthar @NationalWarrior @dreamcake1mo

Refuting myths about transgender people

Transphobia remains disturbingly common, and it is typically "justified" with various lies and slanders about trans people. In order to combat this bigotry, it is necessary to provide solid and easily understandable rebuttals to these common myths.


Idealist
This argument, often professed by self described "Marxists" stems from a rugged metaphysical materialist understanding of trans existence. It argues that being transgender is inherently idealist as it is not based in the material understanding of human development. This is false, though may spark affirmation by people new to Marxist theory as it is seemingly a correct observation. However as Marxists we must understand the world not from a metaphysical, but a dialectical perspective. Using the method of dialectical materialism we can effectively analyse the process in which a person commits a change in gender, it spawns first, as in all phenomena, with a contradiction. The specifics of this contradiction differs from person to person, in which gender dysphoria can, though is not necessarily apart of the contradiction. An example may be, that there is an antagonistic contradiction between the persons view of themselves psychologically, and their physical body. In this there also spawns a contradiction to societal gender roles. As ideas and thoughts may be transformed into material reality by way of practice, it is philosophically speaking indeed possible to change ones gender. There are many factors contributing to ones role in society, this may include external or quantitive changes such as clothes and or makeup. However also qualitative changes by way of modern medicine, we can change many of our secondary sexual characteristics (fat distribution, hair growth, bone growth and so on) completely and indeed also ones primary sexual characteristics (genitalia, chromosomes). Within these stated examples the contemporary superstructure views our second sexual characteristics as determinant in our social standing and thereby influences and changes our material standing. Therefore, it is only correct to say that a person undergoing a transition of gender eventually becomes their desired gender materially.


Dangerous
Perhaps the most common and pernicious myth spread about trans people is that they are somehow dangerous. This was the main line of argument behind the so-called "bathroom bills" in the United States, and it still sits at the root of much transphobic bigotry in countries like the US and UK. Trans women typically bare the brunt of this particular slander, with the claim being that they are supposedly just men lying about their gender identity in order to commit crimes.

The primary source for this claim is typically a study from the Swedish Karolinska Institute, which (supposedly) found that transgender women "retain male-pattern violence." This is (unsurprisingly) nonsense, and the lead author of the study (Dr. Cecilia Djehne) has denounced this interpretation of it. In an interview for TransAdvocate, Djehne stated that those "making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, [are] misrepresenting the study's findings... we were certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk."

So, what exactly was the study saying? Well, while trans women studied from 1973 to 1988 did demonstrate a "male pattern of criminality," Djehne states that this pattern was not present in trans women studied from 1989 to 2003. She makes this quite clear in the interview, where she says "for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality." She attributes this change over time to differences in trans healthcare and social stigma:

What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse.

In other words, the study was demonstrating that when trans women are given access to proper gender-affirming treatment and reduced social stigma, they don't retain a "male pattern of criminality." Transphobes have literally flipped the study's findings upside-down, in an attempt to justify their irrational fear and hatred of transgender people. Keep this study tucked in the back of your mind, by the way; it comes up again later.

Clearly, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that transgender people pose a violent crime risk; if anything, it is far more likely that they will be the victims of violence. Let's look at public restrooms again; according to a report from the UCLA School of Law, 68% of trans people reported experiencing at least one instance of verbal harassment in gender-segregated public restrooms, while 9% had been physically assaulted at least once in gendered bathrooms. Our priority should be protecting transgender people from bigoted harassment and violence, not "protecting" bigots from transgender people.


Gender Affirming Treatment
Another common claim made by transphobes is that gender-affirming treatment (hormones, surgery and the like) does not work, and may even increase the risk of suicide among people with dysphoria. The primary source for this claim is the Karolinska study, which was cited as providing "the most illuminating results yet" by former Johns Hopkins psychiatrist (and religious anti-LGBT activist) Dr. Paul McHugh.

So, what does the Karolinska study actually say? Well, it did report that post-transition trans people had a higher suicide rate than the general population; however, it clearly states that "the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment." For further clarification, we can once again turn to lead author Cecilia Djehne's interview with TransAdvocate, where she says the following:

Medical transition alone won’t resolve the effects of crushing social oppression: social anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress. What we’ve found is that treatment models which ignore the effect of cultural oppression and outright hate aren’t enough. We need to understand that our treatment models must be responsive to not only gender dysphoria, but the effects of anti-trans hate as well. That’s what improved care means... People who misuse the study always omit the fact that the study clearly states that it is not an evaluation of gender dysphoria treatment.

In other words, trans people who receive gender-affirming treatment continue to be a high risk for suicide due to external social oppression, not because the treatment doesn't work. Later in the interview, Djehne gives her actual view on gender-affirming treatment:

Of course trans medical and psychological care is efficacious... If we look at the literature, we find that several recent studies conclude that WPATH Standards of Care compliant treatment decrease gender dysphoria and improves mental health.

The links contained in the above quote are to studies which demonstrate the positive impact of gender-affirming treatment, which we will now assess in more detail. However, before we dive in, it should be noted that some of these studies use the term "gender identity disorder" to refer to dysphoria; this term is generally no longer used, as it is considered stigmatizing. With that said, let's get clinical.

First up, we have a 2014 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, which found that "A marked reduction in psychopathology occurs during the process of sex reassignment therapy, especially after the initiation of hormone therapy." That's rather self-explanatory, I think.

Secondly, we've got a 2009 paper in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which looked at a group of Swedish adults with gender dysphoria "after 5 or more years in the process [of transitioning] or 2 or more years after completed sex reassignment surgery." The researchers found that "almost all patients were satisfied with the sex reassignment; 86% were assessed by clinicians at follow-up as stable or improved in global functioning."

Next up, there's a 2010 meta-analysis from the Mayo Clinic, published in the journal Clinical Endocrinology, which looked at various studies discussing hormonal therapy and sex reassignment. The results were as follows:

Pooling across studies shows that after sex reassignment, 80% of individuals with GID reported significant improvement in gender dysphoria; 78% reported significant improvement in psychological symptoms; 80% reported significant improvement in quality of life; and 72% reported significant improvement in sexual function... sex reassignment that includes hormonal interventions in individuals with GID likely improves gender dysphoria, psychological functioning and comorbidities, sexual function and overall quality of life.

Moving on, we've got a 2015 study from the Archives of Sexual Behavior. According to the authors, the aim of this study was "to re-examine individuals with [gender dysphoria] after as long a period of time as possible. To meet the inclusion criterion, the legal recognition of participants’ gender change via a legal name change had to date back at least 10 years." In other words, these were all people who had begun the process of changing their gender at least a decade prior to the study. The results were as follows:

[Participants'] overall evaluation of the treatment process for sex reassignment and its effectiveness in reducing gender dysphoria was positive. Regarding the results of the standardized questionnaires, participants showed significantly fewer psychological problems and interpersonal difficulties as well as a strongly increased life satisfaction at follow-up than at the time of the initial consultation.

In short, there is an enormous amount of evidence for the efficacy of gender-affirming treatment, and it should be made more widely available to those who need it. Treatment should also take into account the effects of social oppression, and work to resolve them.


Regret after transitioning
This is another very common claim. Simply googling the phrase "trans regret" will result in an immediate deluge of articles from conservative news sites, claiming to have hundreds of stories by regretful trans people, who wish they had never transitioned.

In reality, such people are extraordinarily rare. A 2018 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine reviewed all the patient files of a gender identity clinic in Amsterdam from the years 1972-2015. They found that "Only 0.6% of transwomen and 0.3% of transmen who underwent gonadectomy were identified as experiencing regret." This is an extremely small percentage, and when taken alongside the earlier cited studies on the efficacy of gender-affirming treatment, it indicates that the vast majority of trans people are satisfied with their transition.

Of course, the Netherlands is a more progressive country than the United States or Britain, and so it could be the case that trans people in the latter two countries would experience a higher rate of regret due to harassment and social stigma. However, this would say nothing whatsoever about the efficacy of gender-affirming treatment; rather, it would be a comment on the damaging effects of transphobia.


Conclusion
The propaganda spread by transphobes has no basis in reality, and ought to be cast aside as the despicable crock of nonsense that it is. Transgender people are not dangerous, gender-affirming treatment does work, and most people do not regret transitioning. It's time we move past these damaging and bigoted notions, and create a society where all people can live freely.​

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Who is funding the anti-trans movement?​

It is better not to mention that. It would be too painful for the hypocrites who for centuries didn't give a damn about child marriage, church paedophilia and pervasive domestic violence, and now suddenly pretend to be concerned.​

 

[Sasuke177]

The social fabric that was created on the capitalist economic ground - one way or another will have to be torn apart and reorganized. The disintegration of the social fabric naturally proceeds under capitalism, and without any interference from the femboys. It's about economics, not femboyism. And the cultivation of gender roles that capitalism has created is itself reactionary - especially because male gender roles continue to belittle men and reduce men to substitutable objects. Then, when capitalism is somehow destroyed - these social relations will lose their economic basis, and then the femboy seems to be the only way out.

Capitalism cultivates gender roles truly. legitimate!

Such a common delusion is to believe social roles/culture follows from some economic/politcal system implemented when in reality it's the opposite

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Capitalism cultivates gender roles truly. legitimate!

Such a common delusion is to believe social roles/culture follows from some economic/politcal system implemented when in reality it's the opposite

I have explained why your way of thinking is wrong. ​

 

[Sasuke177]

I have explained why your way of thinking is wrong. ​

no

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

no

prove me wrong​

 

[Sasuke177]

prove me wrong​

I'll revisit this thread on the 13th and prove you wrong. Clear your calendar.

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Privatization in the 1990s
​

POLAND

"Achievements" of the Polish transformation led by Leszek Balcerowicz included:

- nearly 3 million unemployed;
- an 18% drop in national income;
- price increases of several hundred percent.

According to economists, "gradualism" was better than the Balcerowicz Plan; other countries underwent transformation much more smoothly. The overly rapid pace of capitalist reform caused hyperinflation. The Plan was based on unrealistic assumptions about the rate of economic growth, falling inflation and rising unemployment. The plan put Polish enterprises at a loss in competition with foreign capital. The plan also led to deep wealth inequalities and gave fodder to populist politicians.​

UKRAINE

On 24 August 1991, the Ukrainian SSR seceded from the Soviet Union. After seceding, Leonid Kuchma and Leonid Kravchuk began mass privatization programs. Their neoliberal policies decreased life expectancy by three years, which did not recover until 2010, and poverty increased from 2% in the late 1980s to 63% in the mid-1990s.


ROMANIA

In December 1989, the military-led National Salvation Front overthrew the socialist government of Romania and killed Nicolae Ceaușescu. They banned the Romanian Communist Party, sold Romanian industries to foreign capitalists, and repealed a law from April 1989 banning loans from the IMF. By 1994, millions were unemployed, inflation was at 300%, and half of the population earned less than $160 per month. Racist attacks against Jews, Hungarians, and Roma people occurred all over the country. 20% of the country's population emigrated and there are now U.S. military bases across Romania.


MOLDOVA

In 1990, the regions of Gagauzia and Pridnestrovie declared independence from Moldova. Moldova fought to regain control of Pridnestrovie from 1990 to 1992 but was defeated because Pridnestrovie had Russian support. Gagauzia was reintegrated into Moldova in 1994. Since the return of capitalism, there has been widespread poverty in Moldova, and the poverty rate increased from 4% in the late 1980s to 66% in 1993. In 2020, Romania threatened to break relations with Moldova because President Igor Dodon sought to join the Eurasian Economic Union and EU instead of NATO.

@alriodai @ReadBooksEveryday @Joe Rogancel @Latinus @radicalrationalist @Pretty @Gonthar @NationalWarrior @anticel

 

[Joe Rogancel]

Privatization in the 1990s
​

POLAND
View attachment 2594421

"Achievements" of the Polish transformation led by Leszek Balcerowicz included:

- nearly 3 million unemployed;
- an 18% drop in national income;
- price increases of several hundred percent.

According to economists, "gradualism" was better than the Balcerowicz Plan; other countries underwent transformation much more smoothly. The overly rapid pace of capitalist reform caused hyperinflation. The Plan was based on unrealistic assumptions about the rate of economic growth, falling inflation and rising unemployment. The plan put Polish enterprises at a loss in competition with foreign capital. The plan also led to deep wealth inequalities and gave fodder to populist politicians.​

UKRAINE

On 24 August 1991, the Ukrainian SSR seceded from the Soviet Union. After seceding, Leonid Kuchma and Leonid Kravchuk began mass privatization programs. Their neoliberal policies decreased life expectancy by three years, which did not recover until 2010, and poverty increased from 2% in the late 1980s to 63% in the mid-1990s.


ROMANIA

In December 1989, the military-led National Salvation Front overthrew the socialist government of Romania and killed Nicolae Ceaușescu. They banned the Romanian Communist Party, sold Romanian industries to foreign capitalists, and repealed a law from April 1989 banning loans from the IMF. By 1994, millions were unemployed, inflation was at 300%, and half of the population earned less than $160 per month. Racist attacks against Jews, Hungarians, and Roma people occurred all over the country. 20% of the country's population emigrated and there are now U.S. military bases across Romania.


MOLDOVA

In 1990, the regions of Gagauzia and Pridnestrovie declared independence from Moldova. Moldova fought to regain control of Pridnestrovie from 1990 to 1992 but was defeated because Pridnestrovie had Russian support. Gagauzia was reintegrated into Moldova in 1994. Since the return of capitalism, there has been widespread poverty in Moldova, and the poverty rate increased from 4% in the late 1980s to 66% in 1993. In 2020, Romania threatened to break relations with Moldova because President Igor Dodon sought to join the Eurasian Economic Union and EU instead of NATO.

@alriodai @ReadBooksEveryday @Joe Rogancel @Latinus @radicalrationalist @Pretty @Gonthar @NationalWarrior @anticel

Capitalism is the biggest evil in this world.

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Critique of Markets

Overproduction
Currently the market produces 50% more food than it would need to feed earth's entire population.

Distributional Inefficiency
And yet, despite the market producing 50% more food than it would need to feed earth's entire population, 10,000,000 people starve to death every single year with another billion suffering from malnutrition.

Ruthless Competition
Everyone who does not do the best to get ahead of everyone else is actively punished by being overtaken by somebody else, leaving no space for anything that isn't the most profitable.

Inequality
With economy controlling so many aspects of society, it only makes sense that people with more economic power can have better life and better opportunities.

Generational Inequality
With better opportunities, people with more economic will have children that will have better opportunities (such as education and better social contacts), this will exponentially increase over generations, with people with less economic power having progressively less and less and people with more progressively more and more.

Corruption
With the massive amounts of money that can be amassed by individuals, buying influence becomes easy and common, leading to oligarchies, imperialism and general opression.

Poisoning of Society
Slavery, racism, anti-semitism, transphobia, homophobia, nationalism, misogeny, castes, ableism, ageism, anti-intellectualism, aporophobia were all caused in one way or another by market economics.

Monopolies
With rampant corruption, any sort of government will eventually become a puppet of the economy, leaving no democracy or freedom to speak of.

Inevitable Feudalism
With political monopolies forming, the society will eventually become more or less owned by one person and because of generational inequality, the corporate positions will become more or less inherited.

Critique of Markets: Addendum

The boss is not the only one who takes risks
The working class is also taking risks by investing their labor into a company that they do not own. Workers risk their time, energy, and even their health in the workplace, and they are not compensated fairly for this risk.

The boss does not create value alone
Value is created by the labor of workers. The boss may provide capital, but the workers are the ones who actually create the products or services that generate profits. Therefore, the workers deserve a fair share of the value they create.

The boss's power is based on exploitation
The power of the boss is based on the exploitation of the working class. The boss uses their position of power to extract surplus value from the workers, paying them less than the value they produce. This is the basis of capitalist profit.

Workers could manage the company democratically
The workers could manage the company democratically, without the need for a boss. In a socialist or communist system, workers would collectively own the means of production and make decisions democratically, without the need for a hierarchical structure that concentrates power in the hands of a few individuals.

On the Jewish Question
Anti-Semitism can be seen as a natural result of capitalism's systemic inefficiencies. When capitalism fails, a scapegoat is needed, and often a poorly assimilated minority is blamed. This creates a narrative that deflects blame from capitalists and onto a certain minority group, often linking them to left-wing movements. Examples include Henry Ford's book The International Jew and the Russian Empire's Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These narratives allow capitalists to avoid criticism and put the blame on others.

Human nature
The argument that "communism is against human nature" is an appeal to nature fallacy, as it assumes that humans are inherently selfish and competitive. However, there is no empirical evidence to support this assumption, and human nature is shaped by social, cultural, and historical factors. Different societies have developed different economic systems, and there is no reason to believe that communism is inherently incompatible with human nature.

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (Human Nature)

The economic calculation problem
It is overstated and there are alternative ways to allocate resources efficiently in a planned economy. For example, it is possible to use mathematical models to simulate market processes and determine prices and resource allocation decisions. A planned economy could also use other criteria, such as labor time or social welfare, to allocate resources instead of market prices.

How Capitalist Giants Use Socialist Cybernetic Planning

A money is "fiction"
It does not have any inherent value in and of itself, but rather it is given value through social agreement. The current monetary system is based on scarcity and competition, and is not sustainable in the long term. In communism, the focus would be on creating an abundance of resources and ensuring equitable distribution of goods and services, rather than on the accumulation of money and property. This would allow for a more sustainable and equitable society, where access to resources and opportunities is not determined by one's wealth or social status.

Zeitgeist Addendum - Money Creation and Fractional Reserve Banking​

@Mr. President @radicalrationalist @ReadBooksEveryday @Chadpreet_ @;-; y'all stubbornly defend capitalism, so show what you can do and debunk (point by point) what I wrote ​

 

[Sasuke177]

I was going to respond to something else capitalism and gender roles, but this seems way more interesting.

Critique of Markets

I'm not surprised to see that you do what every single communist/leftist does when they argue against capitalism. Just throw a bunch of legitimate and illegitimate critiques of capitalism without ever explaining how socialism is better, or ever pointing out any socialist systems that we can document function better than the capitalist version.

Overproduction
Currently the market produces 50% more food than it would need to feed earth's entire population.

More clarification and a source is needed. Feed in terms of the minimum amount of calories needed to feed the earths population, or 50% of the food produced goes to waste, and even so, food production, transportation, and distribution is something that markets do extraordinarily well, especially capitalist markets. You take for granted the fact that you're always within 10minutes of store where you have access to all kinds of food even in agricultural recessions.

Distributional Inefficiency
And yet, despite the market producing 50% more food than it would need to feed earth's entire population, 10,000,000 people starve to death every single year with another billion suffering from malnutrition.

Capitalist markets seem to work a heck of a lot better than whatever was before it. Granted this could fit into your argument if you're a capitalistphile like Marx who values capitalism as a necessary precursors to socialism, but since you criticized capitalism for overproducing I doubt it.

Ruthless Competition
Everyone who does not do the best to get ahead of everyone else is actively punished by being overtaken by somebody else, leaving no space for anything that isn't the most profitable.

Where is the critique? There might be one as it relates to art and competition/profit (infinite marvel movies ), but you didn't make that critique

Inequality
With economy controlling so many aspects of society, it only makes sense that people with more economic power can have better life and better opportunities.

Legitimate point, capitalism is a driver of wealth and inequality, now you have to explain why that inequality is bad and how another non-market based economic system would fix it, and at least include a source like Piketty or something so there is something to fight over. Overall this isn't a critique or argument, just an observation.

Generational Inequality
With better opportunities, people with more economic will have children that will have better opportunities (such as education and better social contacts), this will exponentially increase over generations, with people with less economic power having progressively less and less and people with more progressively more and more.

Yes, there is generational inequality in capitalism/market based systems, richer parents will produce kids that healthmog/looksmog/statusmog/IQmog poor kids. This is most definitely a negative outcome of capitalism that needs to be alleviated through legislation, but still even communist countries (do they even exist?) suffer from generational inequality as great or greater than that of capitalist countries. So even if it is an accurate critique of market based systems it still isn't a point in favor of communism.

Corruption
With the massive amounts of money that can be amassed by individuals, buying influence becomes easy and common, leading to oligarchies, imperialism and general opression

This is not legitimate political analysis. The amount of influence rich people can exert over first world democracies is negligible compared to how much the people can. Please provide a source/example that can be argued with if you're gonna make such bold claims. Please quote the princeton oligarchy study at me I would LOVE to discuss it AT LENGHT. Also all these problems would be present in a non market based system.

Poisoning of Society
Slavery, racism, anti-semitism, transphobia, homophobia, nationalism, misogeny, castes, ableism, ageism, anti-intellectualism, aporophobia were all caused in one way or another by market economics.

Retarded. Please provide a source or anything if you're gonna make such an outlandish claim lol. Like Native Americans and old niggas weren't transphobic (inb4 two spirit bs), or anti-intellectual.

Monopolies
With rampant corruption, any sort of government will eventually become a puppet of the economy, leaving no democracy or freedom to speak of.

Good thing you can't point to this happening.

Inevitable Feudalism
With political monopolies forming, the society will eventually become more or less owned by one person and because of generational inequality, the corporate positions will become more or less inherited.

Good thing this isn't happening either.

The boss is not the only one who takes risks
The working class is also taking risks by investing their labor into a company that they do not own. Workers risk their time, energy, and even their health in the workplace, and they are not compensated fairly for this risk.

The boss of a company takes a risk by using his own time, energy, and CAPITAL to create a company that has a huge chance to fail making it so that his time, energy, and CAPITAL goes to waste.

A worker trades their time and energy for money. There is minimal risk to the worker when they are constantly receiving payment for their work and are not putting a significant amount of their own resources into the company. The only things the worker is set to lose are career opportunities or time.

There is a clear mismatch between the risk a boss takes and the risk a laborer takes.

The boss does not create value alone
Value is created by the labor of workers. The boss may provide capital, but the workers are the ones who actually create the products or services that generate profits. Therefore, the workers deserve a fair share of the value they create.

Most workers can't really generate profit without capital

The boss's power is based on exploitation
The power of the boss is based on the exploitation of the working class. The boss uses their position of power to extract surplus value from the workers, paying them less than the value they produce. This is the basis of capitalist profit.

Capitalism is great because it's works out the most efficient allocation of capital and produces the greatest amount of surplus possible. Just saying that you don't think it's "fair" how capitalism does it isn't an argument, and even so that is what you have government for - to harness the positives of capitalism and correct the negatives through legislation.

Workers could manage the company democratically
The workers could manage the company democratically, without the need for a boss. In a socialist or communist system, workers would collectively own the means of production and make decisions democratically, without the need for a hierarchical structure that concentrates power in the hands of a few individuals.

Yes they can. In fact they can go do it right now. It's not illegal and is perfectly compatible with capitalism.

On the Jewish Question
Anti-Semitism can be seen as a natural result of capitalism's systemic inefficiencies. When capitalism fails, a scapegoat is needed, and often a poorly assimilated minority is blamed. This creates a narrative that deflects blame from capitalists and onto a certain minority group, often linking them to left-wing movements. Examples include Henry Ford's book The International Jew and the Russian Empire's Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These narratives allow capitalists to avoid criticism and put the blame on others.

Mohammed was a capitalist

It's funny how the USA is the most Jewish accepting country of all time whilst being the global vanguard of capitalism, funny how that works.

Human nature
The argument that "communism is against human nature" is an appeal to nature fallacy, as it assumes that humans are inherently selfish and competitive. However, there is no empirical evidence to support this assumption, and human nature is shaped by social, cultural, and historical factors. Different societies have developed different economic systems, and there is no reason to believe that communism is inherently incompatible with human nature.

I hate the human nature argument.

All the different societies that developed different economic systems lose to capitalism in the end, why?

The economic calculation problem
It is overstated and there are alternative ways to allocate resources efficiently in a planned economy. For example, it is possible to use mathematical models to simulate market processes and determine prices and resource allocation decisions. A planned economy could also use other criteria, such as labor time or social welfare, to allocate resources instead of market prices.

This is a hilariously stupid argument. Do you honest to allah think that if there were mathematical models that could accurately stimulate market processes that some quant autist, or multination global financial institution wouldn't have found out by now? A planned economy would probably be a competitor to capitalism if the technology needed to make all the calculations necessary actually existed, but for now it doesn't.

A money is "fiction"
It does not have any inherent value in and of itself, but rather it is given value through social agreement. The current monetary system is based on scarcity and competition, and is not sustainable in the long term. In communism, the focus would be on creating an abundance of resources and ensuring equitable distribution of goods and services, rather than on the accumulation of money and property. This would allow for a more sustainable and equitable society, where access to resources and opportunities is not determined by one's wealth or social status.

Again there isn't really an argument to respond to here. Can you point to any communist countries that exist or that were more sustainable in the long term than capitalism? inb4 Catalonia was a utopia bro.

A mathematical explanation of why capitalism doesn't work

A worker will not become a capitalist, because a capitalist is not someone who works hard but someone who owns the means of production, on these means of production work the people who generate profits for this owner.

View attachment 2353199

How is profit generated and what is exploitation?

The price of goods (goods or services) is made up of 3 parts: the cost of labour (wages), the cost of consuming the means of production and the additional value (the income of the capitalist - the owner of the means of production). After the workers have produced the good, the capitalist adds up the cost of labour and the cost of consuming the means of production and, in order for production to bring him a profit, he adds the additional value to the good produced. He adds absolutely nothing to the use-value of the good and therefore all the value added by the capitalist has been produced by the workers. Society, in producing goods, gets as remuneration only the cost of labour (wages) and with all the goods it produces the added value, which is taken from society by the capitalist. Society, in order to buy the goods it has produced, has to cover all the components of the price (wage, cost of consuming resources and additional value) from the wage. It is mathematical and logical that wages cannot cover all of this because 1+1+1= 3 >1. This is why capitalism does not work. Hence in capitalism there is a perpetual shortage of money and in capitalism society will never buy what it produces.

This is the irresolvable contradiction of capitalism, the contradiction between labour and capital. This is how the capitalist's profit is made and this is what capitalist exploitation is all about. Of course, the capitalist himself also has a problem because how is he supposed to sell the goods he produces if society does not have the money to do so? This is where the banks come into action, lending money which society must repay with interest - meaning that the gap between wages and the price of goods widens even further.

This was all formulated by the genius Karl Marx. This is how capitalism works all over the world. To resolve this contradiction of capitalism, capitalism must be abolished, i.e. private ownership of the means of production must be abolished by expropriating the capitalists - and that is communism. ​

@alriodai @Bvnny. @thecel @Makhachev @thereallegend @Raskolnikovpilled @Manchild @tallnegga @dimorphism @Justin Trudeau @human304 @positivecoper @LetsDoThis

The capitalist adds capital to the worker which makes the worker more productive, which means they can produce more. Also the capitalist also creates value by managing the workers. Like Marx's economic philosophy this "argument" isn't suitable to the 21 century.

I propose direct democracy, I support open source and the creation of worker cooperatives

Go create them or work for them then capitalism isn't stopping you.



FYI using big words when you don't need to only makes you seem smart to dumb people.

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

I was going to respond to something else capitalism and gender roles, but this seems way more interesting.

I was about to disappear from this forum, but for you I will make an exception.
​

I'm not surprised to see that you do what every single communist/leftist does when they argue against capitalism. Just throw a bunch of legitimate and illegitimate critiques of capitalism without ever explaining how socialism is better, or ever pointing out any socialist systems that we can document function better than the capitalist version.

I have explained this thousands of times. Reading this whole thread is enough, but I can summarise it: if you look at countries with similar levels of economic development the socialist countries produce a better quality of life - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906 . More in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9o484wk3Iw
​

More clarification and a source is needed. Feed in terms of the minimum amount of calories needed to feed the earths population, or 50% of the food produced goes to waste, and even so, food production, transportation, and distribution is something that markets do extraordinarily well, especially capitalist markets. You take for granted the fact that you're always within 10minutes of store where you have access to all kinds of food even in agricultural recessions.

View attachment 2605461

Capitalist markets seem to work a heck of a lot better than whatever was before it. Granted this could fit into your argument if you're a capitalistphile like Marx who values capitalism as a necessary precursors to socialism, but since you criticized capitalism for overproducing I doubt it.

Am I defending feudalism anywhere? I'm just saying that you can go further than capitalism as a society. Although it is possible that this is a futile effort looking at how capitalism is destroying the planet. Nevertheless, the Scandinavian countries, for example, as the social democratic ones, show that the less wild capitalism - the better for ordinary people.
​

Where is the critique? There might be one as it relates to art and competition/profit (infinite marvel movies ), but you didn't make that critique

Legitimate point, capitalism is a driver of wealth and inequality, now you have to explain why that inequality is bad and how another non-market based economic system would fix it, and at least include a source like Piketty or something so there is something to fight over. Overall this isn't a critique or argument, just an observation.

These inequalities are bad because they are the result of factors beyond people's control - you don't choose your parents, after all. So it's hard to talk about fair competition here when the starting line in life is different for everyone.

Inequalities are also bad because they lead to social unrest. This unrest also hits the rich. The less inequality in a society, the more stable it is. Look at the crime statistics in Iceland, and Russia.

​

Yes, there is generational inequality in capitalism/market based systems, richer parents will produce kids that healthmog/looksmog/statusmog/IQmog poor kids. This is most definitely a negative outcome of capitalism that needs to be alleviated through legislation, but still even communist countries (do they even exist?) suffer from generational inequality as great or greater than that of capitalist countries. So even if it is an accurate critique of market based systems it still isn't a point in favor of communism.

There is no such thing as a 'communist country' because communism as the final stage of socialism is an era where society is classless and the state is no longer needed.

On the other hand, as far as legislation is concerned, it is the right initiative - full agreement. We need to mitigate the negative effects of capitalism like a fire, and while Keynesianism is like a fire extinguisher here, I think we could afford to do more.... in this case the fire hose would be socialism.
​

This is not legitimate political analysis. The amount of influence rich people can exert over first world democracies is negligible compared to how much the people can. Please provide a source/example that can be argued with if you're gonna make such bold claims. Please quote the princeton oligarchy study at me I would LOVE to discuss it AT LENGHT. Also all these problems would be present in a non market based system.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/22/1087654279/how-shock-therapy-created-russian-oligarchs-and-paved-the-path-for-putin

Why has the restoration of capitalism not helped the countries of the former USSR?
​

It's no secret that the West is trying to overthrow the Russian government – John Bolton was just saying it out loud

UK think tank’s Russia regime-change manual exposed

www.rt.com

Perhaps it is because the West is destabilising the rest of the world?

 

[chiefkeefsdick]

. Prettiest femboy ever

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Retarded. Please provide a source or anything if you're gonna make such an outlandish claim lol. Like Native Americans and old niggas weren't transphobic (inb4 two spirit bs), or anti-intellectual.

Good thing you can't point to this happening.



Good thing this isn't happening either.

I can. Today, a few companies control many other companies while remaining in the shadows. I recommend checking on your own what this looks like in the media industry at least.

Now imagine the competition with such giants.
​

The boss of a company takes a risk by using his own time, energy, and CAPITAL to create a company that has a huge chance to fail making it so that his time, energy, and CAPITAL goes to waste.

A worker trades their time and energy for money. There is minimal risk to the worker when they are constantly receiving payment for their work and are not putting a significant amount of their own resources into the company. The only things the worker is set to lose are career opportunities or time.

There is a clear mismatch between the risk a boss takes and the risk a laborer takes.

And for how long should the boss steal a surplus value from employees? To say that it's no big deal for an employee to lose their job is to not know life. It affects whole families.

The capitalist is in a much better bargaining position. Think of the exploitation committed by Western companies in third world countries where workers are paid a dollar a day - can you justify that too? This is treating people worse than cattle and only because they had the misfortune to be born into poverty. Does their nationality make the same work done by an American more valuable? ​

Most workers can't really generate profit without capital

Maybe it's because competition is an uneven fight and bosses are stealing a surplus value from them?
​

This is a hilariously stupid argument. Do you honest to allah think that if there were mathematical models that could accurately stimulate market processes that some quant autist, or multination global financial institution wouldn't have found out by now? A planned economy would probably be a competitor to capitalism if the technology needed to make all the calculations necessary actually existed, but for now it doesn't.

Project Cybersyn - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How Capitalist Giants Use Socialist Cybernetic Planning

www.palladiummag.com

Go create them or work for them then capitalism isn't stopping you.

It's true, I just need to get up earlier in the morning and meditate and I'm sure one day I'll be richer than Donald Trump's son!

@alriodai @thereallegend @Manchild @StalinCel​

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Has socialism failed? An analysis of health indicators under socialism - PubMed

This article analyzes the widely held assumption in academia and the mainstream press that capitalism has proven superior to socialism in responding to human needs. The author surveys the health conditions of the world's populations, continent by continent, and shows that, contrary to dominant...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

 

[Sasuke177]

I have explained this thousands of times. Reading this whole thread is enough, but I can summarise it: if you look at countries with similar levels of economic development the socialist countries produce a better quality of life - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906 . More in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9o484wk3Iw

There are major flaws with this study that the video ironically points out and fails to dismiss.

It is indeed an old paper from 1986 which is important considering the advancements that have been made in econometrics (not that the study knows anything about econometrics considering the endogeneity of the study) most importantly the credibility revolution.

Questionable data

To begin with the data used in the study can only be described as lacking especially considering the primary source used is the World development Report 1983 which collects data collected by the individual countries and "downregulates" extraordinary results. This is problematic for several reasons, first of which is the fact that autocratic countries skew their economic data more so than democratic ones (paper from 2021), this is relevant considering a whooping 0% of the socialist countries chosen were democratic at the time - Albania, China (fight me), Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea (lol), Yugoslavia (The most democratic of the bunch), and the U.S.S.R with it's satellites - Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany. The satellites all had varying degrees of freedom, but could never go to far away from the U.S.S.R 1, 2.

The second reason why this is problematic is the fact that the Soviet's most likely lied about their economic data at both the administrative and factory level to the point where even the supposed downregulating mentioned in the paper is not enough (can't find this book in PDF form). With all these factors it's clear the data used is not credible or at least not up to modern standards, and should be taken with a kilogram of salt.

Lack of controls/variables

The time period for the study is 1978 and 1983, and the study classifies countries into Socialist and Capitalist whilst ranking them based on their level of economic development from low-income, low-middle income, upper-middle-income, and High-income. The study also mentions to independent variables a) level of economic development and b) political-economic system (pp 3-4). When we look at the countries used in the study we can see several relevant variables/controls that should have been included but weren't namely:

a) Geography

For just the capitalist low-income countries there were 24 African countries of which 10 of these are/were landlocked, whilst for the socialist countries there were 0 African countries used in any income brackets, and of ALL the countries in ALL income brackets there were 3 landlocked countries present (Appendix 1, pp 13-14). That means that there are more AFRICAN LANDLOCKED COUNTRIES IN 1 CAPITALIST INCOME BRACKET THAN IN ALL OF THE SOCIALIST INCOME BRACKETS. I don't think I have to explain how important geography and especially waterways/coastline is for economic development, but here's a paper anyways.

b) Political stability and WHETETHER OR NOT A COUNTRY IS IN A FUCKING WAR.

Both Chad and Libya are included in the capitalist countries despite them actively being in a war against each other from 1978-1987

Other noteable unstable capitalist countries included in the paper:

Iran and Iraq are part of the capitalist group even though they were waging a war against each other that lead to 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 causalities.

Syria was dealing with an Islamist uprising that eventually led to the Hama Massacre.

Israel was in a war against the PLO and invaded Lebanon

Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) had 2 (3?) coups just in the 3 year time period of 1980-1983.

And there are probably a bunch more that I don't know about.

C) Religion, Culture, History, State capability,

The lack of controls are so comically stupid that they speak for themselves, I don't even need to explain anything more, I could literally just include this and the study would be deemed as hilariously unreliable.


Retarded choice and classification of countries

Let's take a quick look at the capitalist and socialist countries used in the study

Capitalist Countries:

Low-income: Bhutan, Chad, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, Mali, Malawi, Zaire, Uganda, Burundi, Upper Volta, Rwanda, India, Somalia, Tanzania, Guinea, Haiti, Sri Lanka, Benin, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, Niger, Pakistan, Sudan, Togo, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Mauritania, Yemen (Arab Republic), Liberia, Indonesia.

Lower-middle-income: Lesotho, Bolivia, Honduras, Zambia, Egypt, El Salvador, Thailand, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Morocco, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador, Jamaica, Ivory Coast, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Tunisia, Costa Rica, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Paraguay, South Korea, Lebanon.

Upper-middle-income: Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, Argentina, Chile, South Africa, Uruguay, Venezuela, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Ireland, Spain, Italy, New Zealand.

High-income: United Kingdom, Japan, Austria, Finland, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, France, United States, Denmark, West Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland.

High-income oil-exporting: Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates.

Socialist Countries:

Low-income: China.
Low-middle-income: Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea, Albania.
Upper-middle-income: Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, East Germany.

Recent Postrevolutionary Countries Low-income: Kampuchea, Laos, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Mozambique, Yemen (People’s Democratic Republic), Angola, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe.

pp 13-14

I'm glad you linked the Hakim video considering he accurately explains why doing this study in the current day would be hard considering you would be comparing a handful of countries to over a hundred (2:42). This is funny considering the study he is citing isn't comparing a "handful" of countries to a hundred, but 1 country to 34, and the 1 low-income socialist country they compare is China which has great geography, relatively unified culture, and a long history of economic prosperity and stable governance. Something that the mostly African ex-colonial countries have barely any history of. Another reason this is funny is because the leader of China at the time, Deng Xioaping, is famous for the numerous market reforms he made and the prosperity that followed from them, granted the reforms probably weren't in place enough to have a serious economic impact.


Another salient aspect of the countries included is the fact that 0 Socialist High-Income countries were included in this study. Why is that? BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE. Yes according to the source they used there were 0 socialist High-Income countries (pp 148). That means that when they say there were comparing Socialist and Capitalist countries what they actually meant was that they are comparing Capitalist and Socialist countries excluding Western-Europe, THE U.S, and Japan. This means that capitalist countries that go from low to high income like Japan isn't included as a data point in favor of capitalism because there are no socialist countries to compare them too. The high income capitalist countries of course outcompete the socialist ones on all almost all metrics, but that's to be expected.

Something interesting to explore is also what countries they chose to put under which category. I've already mentioned Iraq and Lebanon which was lead by an offspring of the Arab SOCIALIST Ba'ath Party, what I haven't mentioned is the fact Somalia at the time was lead by the SOMALI REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST PARTY, interestingly enough the authors did not care about the rampant nationalization Somalia was doing in the name of "scientific socialism" since they placed them in the capitalist group. Misplacing poor socialist countries into the capitalist group seems to be a recurring theme in the paper, because not only did they place the poor socialist country Somalia in the wrong category but also:

Tanzania : "Julius Kambarage Nyerere (Swahili pronunciation: [ˈdʒulius kɑᵐbɑˈrɑɠɛ ɲɛˈrɛrɛ]; 13 April 1922 – 14 October 1999) was a Tanzanian anti-colonial activist, politician and political theorist. He governed Tanganyika as prime minister from 1961 to 1962 and then as president from 1962 to 1964, after which he led its successor state, Tanzania, as president from 1964 to 1985. He was a founding member and chair of the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) party, and of its successor Chama Cha Mapinduzi, from 1954 to 1990. Ideologically an African nationalist and African socialist, he promoted a political philosophy known as Ujamaa."

Benin: "Kérékou seized power in Dahomey in a military coup on 26 October 1972,[1] ending a system of government in which three members of a presidential council were to rotate power (earlier in the year Maga had handed over power to Justin Ahomadegbé).[5]

During his first two years in power, Kérékou expressed only nationalism and said that the country's revolution would not "burden itself by copying foreign ideology ... We do not want communism or capitalism or socialism. We have our own Dahomean social and cultural system." On 30 November 1974, however, he announced the adoption of Marxism-Leninism by the state.[6] The country was renamed from the Republic of Dahomey to the People's Republic of Benin a year later; the banks and petroleum industry were nationalized. The People's Revolutionary Party of Benin (Parti de la révolution populaire du Bénin, PRPB) was established as the sole ruling party. In 1980, Kérékou was elected president by the Revolutionary National Assembly; he retired from the army in 1987"

India: "At the 1931 Karachi session of the Indian National Congress, socialist pattern of development was set as the goal for India. Through the 1955 Avadi Resolution of the Indian National Congress, a socialistic pattern of development was presented as the goal of the party. A year later, the Indian parliament adopted 'socialistic pattern of development' as official policy, a policy that came to include land reforms and regulations of industries.[19] The word socialist was added to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution by the 42nd amendment act of 1976, during the Emergency. It implies social and economic equality. Social equality in this context means the absence of discrimination on the grounds only of caste, colour, creed, sex, religion, or language. Under social equality, everyone has equal status and opportunities. Economic equality in this context means that the government will endeavour to make the distribution of wealth more equal and provide a decent standard of living for all."

Guinea: " During his presidency, Touré's policies were strongly based on socialism, with the nationalization of foreign companies and centralized economic plans. He won the Lenin Peace Prize as a result in 1961"


Burma: The Burmese Ways to Socialism Capitalism!


And probably more which I'm not aware of.


All these factors taken together makes me think this study isn't stupid, but deliberately misleading. let's just say I was not surprised when I found at that one of the authors is a delusional Marxist https://www.jstor.org/stable/45130489 , https://archive.scienceforthepeople.org/vol-10/v10n6/a-marxist-view-of-medical-care/

My advice to leftist is to actually read your study before you post it, something you clearly didn't do

Here's a study for you to practice with

The links from the images doesn't say anything about capitalism killing the people, it just says that's how many people die every year in the world. I'm guessing the connection is that we live under global capitalism and therefor since global capitalism can't literally prevent every single death (only most of them) then that's capitalism killing them. That means this infographic ignores War, Political instability, weather conditions, geography, and way more that I can't think of. I don't really think this is convincing or relevant at all.

Am I defending feudalism anywhere? I'm just saying that you can go further than capitalism as a society. Although it is possible that this is a futile effort looking at how capitalism is destroying the planet. Nevertheless, the Scandinavian countries, for example, as the social democratic ones, show that the less wild capitalism - the better for ordinary people

The problem with Socialists is that it's impossible to attack them for whatever their countries do, because there aren't any socialist countries to begin with. I could point to the destruction of the ARAL Sea done by the USSR, but you could just turn around and say that the USSR isn't your type of socialism/centrally planned system so that doesn't count. I could also point to the fact that China is the largest emitter of C02, but you would just turn that around and say that China is actually State-Capitalist (probably true) and therefor that doesn't count. That means that I'm left criticizing a type of central planning/socialism that really only exists in your head whilst you constantly attack all the capitalist countries that exist in reality.

I agree somewhat with the Scandinavian countries, but that's just another point towards capitalism. The fact that capitalism can function together with stuff like socialized healthcare just proves the superiority and flexibility of capitalism as an economic system. Also let's remember that the U.S is undoubtable the richest country in the world if you go by PPP adjusted disposable household income, this becomes even more evident when you look at American salaries as compared to Scandinavian/European ones.

These inequalities are bad because they are the result of factors beyond people's control - you don't choose your parents, after all. So it's hard to talk about fair competition here when the starting line in life is different for everyone.

Inequalities are also bad because they lead to social unrest. This unrest also hits the rich. The less inequality in a society, the more stable it is. Look at the crime statistics in Iceland, and Russia.

These inequalities WILL EXIST in WHATEVER socialist system that exists in your head. They are not exclusive to capitalism. The fair competition that is talked about is never going to be literally perfect, but it can still be good whilst being improved upon. Again these inequalities will still exist under socialism.


Inequality leading to social unrest is legitimate, but still, poverty and economic stagnation (socialism) will probably lead to more social social unrest than capitalism. Russia has a Gini coefficient of 0.38 closer to the USA at 0.42 than Iceland at 0.28.

There is no such thing as a 'communist country' because communism as the final stage of socialism is an era where society is classless and the state is no longer needed.

On the other hand, as far as legislation is concerned, it is the right initiative - full agreement. We need to mitigate the negative effects of capitalism like a fire, and while Keynesianism is like a fire extinguisher here, I think we could afford to do more.... in this case the fire hose would be socialism.

Lovely. It's kinda hard to navigate communist and socialist definitions especially as they relate to people that are against markets in general. Considering earlier I saw you describe yourself as in favor of worker coops, yet most socialist that are in favor of worker coops want these worker coops to exist within a market based system thereby describing themselves as libertarian socialists, still though considering this would uphold the parts of the capitalist mode of production mentioned by your daddy Marx you could never be in favor of market based libertarian socialism, yet your in favor of worker coops. Confusing.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/22/1087654279/how-shock-therapy-created-russian-oligarchs-and-paved-the-path-for-putin
Why has the restoration of capitalism not helped the countries of the former USSR?
​

Mainstream economists agree now that shock therapy isn't ideal when transitioning a former "communist" country to a capitalist one,

But even so it seems like most of them have recovered from the dip in GDP per capita PPP and are actually growing nicely. Even unstable countries like Ukraine whos had significant Russian interference where still actively improving before the Russian invasion.

Your brain is conspiracy rotted as much as any "cuckservative" if you think Elon Musk was aiding the US government in couping the Bolivian government. I can't engage with silly meme images.

It's no secret that the West is trying to overthrow the Russian government – John Bolton was just saying it out loud

UK think tank’s Russia regime-change manual exposed

www.rt.com

Perhaps it is because the West is destabilising the rest of the world?

Your source is RT which is literally Russian Government owned and they aren't even subtle in posting their lies

https://www.polygraph.info/a/rt-russia-ukraine-propaganda-poll-fact-check/6741953.html
https://www.polygraph.info/a/rt-misrepresents-article-about-kremlin-trolls-on-twitter/6741795.html


https://www.rt.com/news/413029-nato-gorbachev-expansion-promises/, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

And more that I couldn't be bothered to dig up.


The west was engaged in destabilizing parts of the world at the same time the Soviet union and socialist countries was, that is true.

I'm not going to bother going in depth about the map or the book it's based on, but I would probably agree the U.S like the U.S.S.R and China was destabilizing a lot of these countries.

"For four years, numerous Americans, in high positions and obscure, sullenly harbored the conviction that World War II was "the wrong war against the wrong enemies". Communism, they knew, was the only genuine adversary on America's historical agenda. Was that not why Hitler had been ignored/tolerated/appeased/aided? So that the Nazi war machine would turn East and wipe Bolshevism off the face of the earth once and for all? It was just unfortunate that Adolf turned out to be such a megalomaniac and turned West as well."

This is the first paragraph of the first country (China) discussed in the book. I can already tell from this paragraph that this author is not very serious so won't even bother spending hours on his retarded book and get cancer.

"It is often customary to speak of a four-level structure: the chief, the noble, the freeman, and the dependent-slave. Actually no one simple generalization covers the whole Philippines. We have combined the chief and the nobility. The bottom class is often termed slave erroneously. There were varying levels of dependency, from what might be termed sharecropper (not a slave at all), to term-debtor (an economic function, such as a bonded debtor, arising from economic causes), to judicial dependent (poachers who ran afoul of the "laws" of the datu), to captive dependent (those caught in interregional raids, or purchased captives of slaving sallies). Dependency often was hereditary, but there were bewildering complications in the regional variance of such patterns, further complicated by social obligational rules of reciprocity which functioned both upward and downward. Elevation in social status was possible, but sinking into dependency, particularly economic-service dependency, was far more common. The preservation of many of these relationships into modern time accounts for much of the economic and social dependency found among the "depressed tenancy" of the modern" pp 672

Doesn't sound like the most utopian and/or non-market based society

but anyways for every example of 1 progressive part of any old society I can probably find like 3 that oppose them. Like the fact that Jews have been persecuted since the Neo-Babylonian Empire, or the fact that Greeks were calling gay men un-masculine as early as the fourth century BCE

I can. Today, a few companies control many other companies while remaining in the shadows. I recommend checking on your own what this looks like in the media industry at least.

Now imagine the competition with such giants.

This is "cuckservative" levels of conspiracy thinking. You didn't even name any companies, at least name something like blackrock so I can fight over that.

I have checked what it looks like and I think that anti-trust legislation in the U.S is lacking, but it's nowhere near an oligarchy. Too make such an extraordinary claim you need extraordinary evidence not just "look into it urself bro".

And for how long should the boss steal a surplus value from employees? To say that it's no big deal for an employee to lose their job is to not know life. It affects whole families.

The capitalist is in a much better bargaining position. Think of the exploitation committed by Western companies in third world countries where workers are paid a dollar a day - can you justify that too? This is treating people worse than cattle and only because they had the misfortune to be born into poverty. Does their nationality make the same work done by an American more valuable?

The boss should """"""steal""""" surplus value from the workers for as long as it's economically advantageous to do so.

I'm not saying getting fired is not a big deal for worker. I'm saying that the risk a business owner takes is greater than that of a worker, so a small business getting fucked in the early stages is worse for the boss than the worker.

Their productivity makes their work that valuable, and in their case their work is worth a dollar, and in most cases either the country WANTS foreign capitalist to come in and set up shop, or their political institutions are so weak that they might as well get fucked in the ass by whatever breathes their way. Even so might as well be fucked by capitalist that at least give you a dollar instead of socialist revolutionaries that will take away your dime.

Maybe it's because competition is an uneven fight and bosses are stealing a surplus value from them?

I somewhat agree. I think owners might have a bit too much power in the current system, that's why I would maybe advocate for stuff like bigger unions. Either way this "problem" is solvable inside of capitalism.

Project Cybersyn - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How Capitalist Giants Use Socialist Cybernetic Planning

www.palladiummag.com

a 2 year long Chilean project from 1971-1973 does not beat the Economic Calculation Problem, and by the looks of it this Chilean project wasn't even central planning, it was more about a coordinated economy. I'll say it again, if computers could accurately read market situations and predict them, do you seriously think that the "evil" financial institutions wouldn't use them to get mega rich? And why wouldn't any of the enemies of the U.S implement any of these systems?

It's true, I just need to get up earlier in the morning and meditate and I'm sure one day I'll be richer than Donald Trump's son!

I'm not saying that you can get rich if you just wake up earlier. I'm saying that you (leftists) can create the supposed superior worker cooperatives right now inside of this capitalist system. If more successful worker cooperatives existed you might have more of a legitimate argument for socialism, but for some reason almost all the successful companies are not worker cooperatives.

Has socialism failed? An analysis of health indicators under socialism - PubMed

This article analyzes the widely held assumption in academia and the mainstream press that capitalism has proven superior to socialism in responding to human needs. The author surveys the health conditions of the world's populations, continent by continent, and shows that, contrary to dominant...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Not gonna read this but I wouldn't be surprised if socialist countries might have better health outcomes. Still though posting this study won't save you for the absolute dumpster fire of a study you posted to prove your point.

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Not gonna read this but I wouldn't be surprised if socialist countries might have better health outcomes. Still though posting this study won't save you for the absolute dumpster fire of a study you posted to prove your point.

I wouldn't be surprised if socialist countries might have better health outcomes.​

Interesting. I know why this is so. What about you?
​

I'm not saying that you can get rich if you just wake up earlier. I'm saying that you (leftists) can create the supposed superior worker cooperatives right now inside of this capitalist system. If more successful worker cooperatives existed you might have more of a legitimate argument for socialism, but for some reason almost all the successful companies are not worker cooperatives.

We organise ourselves. The countries where workers live best are those where the position of trade unions is strong, and here I am referring to Scandinavia.
​

a 2 year long Chilean project from 1971-1973 does not beat the Economic Calculation Problem, and by the looks of it this Chilean project wasn't even central planning, it was more about a coordinated economy. I'll say it again, if computers could accurately read market situations and predict them, do you seriously think that the "evil" financial institutions wouldn't use them to get mega rich? And why wouldn't any of the enemies of the U.S implement any of these systems?

If you had read the other article I linked to then you would know that companies like Walmart/Amazon use central planning.

Yes, a Planned Economy Can Actually Work

Mega-companies like Amazon and Walmart are already using large-scale central planning. We can wield that tool for good. Socialists need to renew our embrace of democratic planning and fight for a real alternative to capitalism.

jacobin.com

​

I somewhat agree. I think owners might have a bit too much power in the current system, that's why I would maybe advocate for stuff like bigger unions. Either way this "problem" is solvable inside of capitalism.

I am glad that we agree. As I mentioned earlier, Scandinavia proves that stronger unions = better quality of life.

I will address the rest at a later date, I appreciate that you are the only one to address my work substantively.​

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Your source is RT which is literally Russian Government owned and they aren't even subtle in posting their lies

https://www.polygraph.info/a/rt-russia-ukraine-propaganda-poll-fact-check/6741953.html
https://www.polygraph.info/a/rt-misrepresents-article-about-kremlin-trolls-on-twitter/6741795.html


https://www.rt.com/news/413029-nato-gorbachev-expansion-promises/, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

And more that I couldn't be bothered to dig up.


The west was engaged in destabilizing parts of the world at the same time the Soviet union and socialist countries was, that is true.

I'm not going to bother going in depth about the map or the book it's based on, but I would probably agree the U.S like the U.S.S.R and China was destabilizing a lot of these countries.

"For four years, numerous Americans, in high positions and obscure, sullenly harbored the conviction that World War II was "the wrong war against the wrong enemies". Communism, they knew, was the only genuine adversary on America's historical agenda. Was that not why Hitler had been ignored/tolerated/appeased/aided? So that the Nazi war machine would turn East and wipe Bolshevism off the face of the earth once and for all? It was just unfortunate that Adolf turned out to be such a megalomaniac and turned West as well."

This is the first paragraph of the first country (China) discussed in the book. I can already tell from this paragraph that this author is not very serious so won't even bother spending hours on his retarded book and get cancer.

Censorship
In 2022, RT and Sputnik News were censored by the European Union, as well as private firms in the USA. Latin American news outlet TeleSur and independent media inside the US have condemned this action. YouTube, Google, and other search engines and social media outlets have blocked RT. Canada censored RT from broadcasting by revoking their broadcast licence in March 2022.

Is the BBC independent? Not at all!
1. BBC producer Victoria Cook was funded by NATO from 2007 to 2008. Former BBC correspondents Oana Lungescu and Mark Laity and producer David McGee left the BBC to work for NATO. BBC information security specialist Terence Sach was previously a security analyst for the British military. Technical consultant Bojan Lazic worked as a psychological operations specialist for NATO during the bombing of Yugoslavia.

2. During the premiership of Boris Johnson, the Tory government exercised significant sway over the BBC. Emails and texts that were leaked in 2023, along with insider testimony, indicated that the government had orchestrated headlines for the BBC on a "very regular basis". The BBC also refrained from using the term "lockdown" to describe the Johnson government's response to COVID-19 — after the government pressured the BBC on the issue. This actually differentiated the BBC from even right-wing tabloids, such as the Daily Mail, at the time. In 2023, BBC refused to broadcast an episode of a nature documentary featuring Sir David Attenborough fearing a "right-wing backlash" over “…its themes of the destruction of nature…”

3. The BBC has a long history of platforming right-wing thinktanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs, and portraying them as impartial commentators rather than lobbying groups funded by oil and tobacco companies pushing for what are often extreme policies with little public support. There have been repeated complaints from journalists such as George Monbiot and Carole Cadwalladr, but the BBC remains relaxed about explaining who the crazy right-wingers on its news programs are.


​

NATO expansion
In 1990, in a meeting between United States secretary of state James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev, the US official guaranteed that "not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction."

Svetlana Savranskaya & Tom Blanton (2017-12-12). "NATO expansion: what Gorbachev heard" National Security Archive.

James Baker, Mikhail Gorbachyov (1990). Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow (p. 6). [PDF] National Security Archive : “Baker: We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in Germany that is part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.”

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg described how NATO expansion provoked a military response from the Russian Federation:​

"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders."​

NATO Chief Openly Admits Russia Invaded Ukraine Because Of NATO Expansion - TheAltWorld

During a speech at the EU Parliament, NATO Secretary General clearly and repeatedly acknowledged that Putin made the decision to invade Ukraine because of fears of NATO expansionism.

thealtworld.com

​

Mainstream economists agree now that shock therapy isn't ideal when transitioning a former "communist" country to a capitalist one,

View attachment 2611942

But even so it seems like most of them have recovered from the dip in GDP per capita PPP and are actually growing nicely. Even unstable countries like Ukraine whos had significant Russian interference where still actively improving before the Russian invasion.

Your brain is conspiracy rotted as much as any "cuckservative" if you think Elon Musk was aiding the US government in couping the Bolivian government. I can't engage with silly meme images.

2014 coup d'état
In 2014, the IMF asked Ukraine to raise taxes and cut social spending. Yanukovych's government refused because the changes could cause hundreds of thousands of people to lose their jobs. In 2014, the United States of America helped finance and arm the Euromaidan coup d'état to overthrow the government of Ukraine, because of its allegiance to Russia. As a result there has been a subsequent rise of Nazism in Ukraine, especially in the government of Ukraine, two regions (Donetsk and Luhansk) have seceded to form their own governments, and Crimea has voted to rejoin the Russian Federation. After the coup, the Ukrainian government banned communist symbols, and anyone who sings the anthem of the USSR may be sent to prison for up to five years. The coup led to reduced social spending in Ukraine and increase of over 400% in the military budget.
​

I don't trust those who lied about the alleged weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was supposed to have...

 

[alriodai]

the best thread i've ever stumbled on in off-topic