There is already the scallop war.

well, hope you live to mature politically in your society @RyeNorth - Eastern Europe's already there for a decade or so

US can sell weapons and get rich off Europe's want to kill one another

and we've learned it the hard way, believe me....

I think we're actually moving that way already...

don't worry, give it 50 years, you'll forget again

/s

apparently took us less time than that to forget why communism was bad

It didn't happen to us.

you never knew why communism was bad Granade

I mean, if you'd like to enlighten us, go for it, but My argument has always been that the utopian goal that is the objective of communism never happens, because dissenters to the goal will always need to be eliminated, meaning that an authoritarian regime is required to oversee it, and that all powerful regime will never want to release their power. It's a vacuum, and nature always abhors a vacuum.

What you end up with is massive amounts of death, freedom being eliminated, and power-mad dictatorships overseeing the whole thing without feeling.

It still exists in plain sight in North Korea.

This is objectively and historically not consistent (although authoritarian systems do tend to open the floor to shining examples). I can speak for my country and my parents and grandparent's experience - I'm from Bulgaria. We had a successful financial and society driven socialism. It way way way to broad and somebody probably needs to do a documentary about it, since I definately won't be able to type it all down. The day-to-day reality of a socialist system is not without it's merits. You are absolutely ensured you will have housing. It will also depend on how many children you have and receive the appropreate property. You will be given a car per family of 2 or more with a small tax (1 month's salary), food is calculated to be enough, so that you could have food on the table (it's what planned economy is for), you get state sponsored vacations on the seaside, mountain resorts, etc. The government finds you a job, so unemployment is practically zero, if there's no job for you, you still get a government salary, list goes on. As Tim mentioned in the video today, yes, the party does not tolerate decent, but nobody decented. The story about a woman being taken away - it could happen if there are other reports, and there will surely be some connections to show that it was a lie.

at least in a non-Ukrane one, since Ukrane was an absorbed state. The main reason socialism was bad and horrifying is it suffacated art, it stomped out ambition and it was traded in influence, rather than anything else.

this is why people revolted and wanted democracy, not because it failed financially... because contrary to popular belief, it didn't

then you were lucky to have more producers than consumers.

we exported to the USSR a huge portion of production. It was just that it wasn't a madman in charge.

same for Poland, same for Hungary, same for Romania, etc.

it wasn't a single country that did well

more did well than didn't (financially)

in the states we have a bit of an issue, a large group of people hitting ages where they cannot work, with a very small relative young population to support them.

now, i image when you don't need to worry about the cost of kids, this is less likely to happen

but i would imagine the suffocation of art is that you need to make sure you have enough extra production to ensure you can weather bumps along the way

Artistic endeavor thrived the most under systems with a noble class.

also, those are pretty small countries all things considered no?

well, maybe some medium

the extra production wasn't a problem in most socialist states. You obviously have the horrid examples shoved in your face, where that wasn't really the common occurance. Bumps were offset by distribution of resourses between different Warsaw pact countries

including the USSR

Ukrane was beaten down, because there are ethnic tentions between Russiand and Ukranians

same with Yugoslavia - big country, rich on resourses, varied ethnicly, failed miserably

All I'm trying to say, the argument it was a system of scarcity and terror is simply not true for the most part

then what crushed art?

well why would you? what would inspire you? Besides, to be an artist, you had to go and get an education to be one. You can't just pick up a guitar and be inspired and finance your record, the state would have to approve it and why would it? You are not educated anough to be a musician. Or if you draw a painting... it's probably pretty, but you are not educated in the area to have a mandated place in a galery, there are people that studied 4 years for that. Or a poet or a writer... who's gonna publish you?

artists need to be educated?

why would you show ambition? The state will find a job for you - you have a skillset you're good at, you do that for a living.

well yeah, art school 😃

is pretty new, and only useful to people not innately talented

Not necessarily

do you see now the sinister and scary bit about socialism...

You can have good hand eye coord but it doesn't mean you'll have a good grasp of the "rules" of art/perspective. You can self teach for sure but not everyone has the drive

(my cat is a fucking jumpscare, fucking came out of no where, and jumped from under by desk onto my lap. the fucker)

wait, isn't it ironic that a a lot of artists are of the hippy commie/socialist kind?

indeed, but that doesn't mean that you'd have a pool of artists as rich. Besides, you are mandated to be a painter or a musician, or a composer. And you are state mandated to be just that. What would inspire you 😉

No, artists rely on patrons

State as patron could easily be viewed as beneficial

oh did I mention that you are not allowed to NOT work if the state finds you a job? You might really want to be a singer and you probably have a tallent for it, but if you don't get an art education, or have a patron or the right connections, you are a baker... for life...

Also creativity/openness tend to be higher in lefties iirc

in liberals, not lefties.

In a liberal/conservative dichotomy the two are often used interchangeably

Mostly because it's not a good dichotomy

the more you use liberal as interchangeable with left, the more this is going to get worse imo

I generally don't use the dichotomy

Either left/right or liberal/conservative, beyond light shitposting

Left/right is especially arbitrary tbh

It is. I'm high in consciousness (right) but also high in openess (left)

exactly my point 😄

I don't just mean big5 traits

I mean "left wing" and "right wing"
Like what makes "the alt-right" right wing?

Right Wing? More like White Wing

Ayy

But, yeah, I don't know

It's a good question

But seriously, a lot of those memesluts love the welfare state

They're not for individual rights so they're definitely not libertarian. Some of them are traditional-ish, but they don't respect US cultural values (free speech being one of them)

for all that is worth, and this is an outsider looking in, US cultural values are inharently racist AF. This is so so so sad and brutal.

which values would those be?

you view citizens of a different race as a group with certain protections, advantages, privileges and even class them as culturally different.

oh, you mean the leftist views?

or at least the views the msm

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

you all use them to an extent. I can start a gender and or race debate, which is way too much for me (04:24 AM where I am)

an unfortunate necessity brought on by a bunch of racist

we were going in a good direction 10 or so years ago

we went way backwards in the last like 4

i remember when token characters were racist

now its racist not to have token characters

identitarianism is a method of power politics. in the past it was used by the callous and powerful to opress the weak, now its used by the weak and nihilistic to take power from the powerful and stupid

you always had a concept of "black culture" or "italian culture" or "mexican culture". Don't know, probably seems fine with you, but as a foreigner, it disturbs me greatly and most mono-ethnical countries see it as mean to say the least

people have a hard time getting over race

im not sure its nessicary to do so, but if you dont it becomes imposible to be multiethnic

at a young age people know race, then even when you grow to try and ignore race theres the cliff face delimma. a black man and a white man hanging from a cliff, who do you save?

interesting that you see not forcing immigrates to entirely erase their history to be considered American as "racist"

i think there is too much focus on the differences and not enough on what should be the unifying pieces and what doesn't matter

does nosoul think that?

i dont remember him saything that

i mean, if you don't have a concept for it, it means you can't have it. if you have something, generally you give it a name

no, all I'm saying if somebody wants to be an American, that's what one is. All I said is that I find it racist to distinguish between Americans ethnicly.

what does the word racist mean?

well i agree then, we focus too much on the differences

ironically one of my favorite comedians has a joke he had to go the middle east to finally be called american and not Latino

can i not be seen?

im typing but it seems like no ones reacting to what im saying

you need to tag/address the person you're asking Arch

no one else here is tag/addressing people

I am

the last time you tagged someone was an hour ago

what do you mean? i responded to your previous comment, not the word racist one because i was responding to nosoul

to someone not even here

I addressed you 4 lines ago