Then how you will get most of your resources? Even if countries like the USSR, that disliked the idea of importing cheap reasources, face price inflation and high rates of debt thanks to their interest in increaseing resources explotation in limited quantity. @Maksim

@Maksim The USSR did that. Natural products, such as Tabacco and Sugar (mainly from Cuba), didn't stop the economic collapse.

I said Cheap Resources, no all resources too.

They still followed the same model of stali economy of Capital Acummulation, and did re-open factories from Stalinist Era. Also, it is not like they were all bad. Expansion and creation of Natural Gas pies througth Siberia were actually successfull during the Cold War period.

They have the supply, but it was still limited. As I said before, price inflation and resource mis-management.

@Maksim How they would have been solved? Like I said before, Soviet's did basically everything. They opened old Factories from Stalin Era, they created large comolex infraestructures, they give up subsidies to the factories to cover the wages of the workers.

I'm not talking about corruption. Robert C. Allen (2003) for example, explained that the seriousness that the explotation of depleted Siberian steel reserves led to a "cut in productivity in existing operarions, that the led to" vast investments that maintained output with more expensive inputs".

@Maksim

Even if it was a problem of bureaucracy by itself (which im not prone to dent or accept), there were still problems under the Soviet protectorist economic policy.

Well, maybe the could have survived if they decided to invest all of their resources in civilian industry and tegnology rather than in the military. But still I would be doubtfull of that.

If you wan't to study it I would recommend you "Farm To Factory" by Robert Allen. I even have a summary of the book if you want a copy of it @Maksim

It's not like Strategic Bombing was effective tho. Factories could still produce if they weren't constantly shelled.

Even the Vatican?

Having kids at latter ages may be as a "good sign", but there is a large probability of negative biological and psycological consequences for couples bearing children at older ages. To quote a whole paragraph of M. Mills (2011):

"The detrimental individual consequences of involuntary childlessness are considerable, with individuals shown to have higher levels of clinical depression and relationship dissolution, lower levels of self-esteem, guilt and isolation (Meller et al., 2002). Older mothers also have considerably more problems during gestation and delivery, have a higher risk of birth defects and have more complications after delivery, all resulting in higher morbidity and health-care costs (Allen et al., 2006; Luke and Brown, 2007). Delay of childbearing also leads to more breast cancer. From age 20 to 25 onwards, the relative risk of breast cancer increases by 3% for every year a woman delays having her first child (Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, 2001)."

The paper also talks about the positive effects of having kids at older ages like better family functioning, higher family stability, more autonomous adulthood for children and a more stable economic position of parents; but the difference between the negative and positive effects, is that the negative effects don't have any solutiom due to them been inherently biological. Even *In Vitro* fertilization does not fully compensate for age loss of fecundity during the 30's onward. Meanwhile, negative effects (mostly due to social and economicall issues) may have a higher posibility of being fixed with the accomodation of social beneficts for parents (for more references on the latter subject, there is RA Moffitt, 1998 and Ja Haaga, 1998 in NCBI).

Sorry for the large text btw.

If you don't have the sufficient economic resources, industry and military organization and effevtiveness, (just like Italy during ww2), it is better to stay as a isolationist autarchy during a period of chaos (like Spain did), than to go into a "Blaze of Glory" with the probabilty of being completely destroyed (like Imperial Russia).

Do you mean bc of the NEP @OrthoGoat?

> It went from gay to nazbol to cringe
Just asking due to the NEP being the economic model during the 20s of the U.S.S.R.

But recently built/used factories (80's to present) or all factories, incluiding the old ones?

It doesn't look that idealistic, in fact it sounds very reasonable, but to that for the reason of getting everyone a well paying job seems a little bit off. The only case I have recently study that did the same thing, was the U.S.S.R during the 60s-80s; and they did need at lot of capital investment with some innefienciency rates.

Still, if the factories are modernized to meet modern demands, then I don't see any problem with the idea.

>Anti-Science
>Ignores the fact that Catholics (alongside with Muslims) were the first ones to open modern universities and instituted an educational model partly based on science (Quadrivium, of Liberal Arts Education); made large discoveries in Physics (Mean speed theorem, Relative velocity), Astronomy (Gregorian Calendar, Big Bang Theory), Biology (foundation of modern genetics); Geography (record explorations on the New World, Africa and Asia) and Philosophy (New Platonism and reintroduction of Aristotelian ethics)

That's why I hate the New Atheism movement. Is has somewhat become of a cult justifying being againsn't the lord than anything else.

Still would consider industrial societies/economies superior. Industrial societies, in the rigth consideration, have largely possibilities of political manouvering than agrarian ones.

Heck, we have to consider that humans, before the industrial revolution, destroyed largely their natural enviorments. After the fall of the Roman Empire, there was a heavy increase of forest deforestation to accomodate agricultural land. Since the Middle Ages, there were Blast Burnaces which, in forest and urban areas, did contaminated large areas and lower living standarts of the local population. Even before the Industrial Revolution, there was a serious lack of Lumber due to being heavily utilized in the production of Shipyards, Home Construction and as fuel; which led to the use of mineral coal as a main fuel material. It's not like they didn't do anything to their enviorments and live as peacefully as they could

It's so beatiful.

Your perception of "unless you're a historically important figure" is wrong. The development of a nation history is not given itself on the individualistic history of important figures, but in the larger scope of things related to normal day life and/or the actions that wouldn't be possible without large groups. For example, armies are collectivists groups; as they different ramifications (for example artillery, infantry, cavarly), all work together for a achieving a goal. Another example, would be economical history; like the development of guild and agrarian communties which established together an estructural economy. Is the participation of different members, or parts, of a society in the development and modeling of a nation state.

*In a way*

Wydm by "before his time"?

Welp, it is something you cannot blame for. The development of historical national pride normally originated from A. Normally is was used as a method to create celebration, which allowed large quantities of people to be together (pre-industrial) or B. As a political way for the state to create and homogenous spirit based on tradition; like, for example the *espirit the corps*.

Yeah, but they normally do adapt to jail circumstances.

So it's not like that effective by causing psycomogical effects on the abuser population.

"I choose Planned Parenthood, RAINN and Saving Our Sisters, the three that I felt best counteracted the religion I was raised in"
Not only to be a non beleiver, but to acutually opose directly the Church and not fullfish your last parents wishes. Damn, that's fucking harsh.

I really do not know. @moira

The only ones I can say "self-segregate", at least in my country, are Jews. But it is mostly due to religious and cultural reasons.

Wait, what are we disscussing about?
I haven't seen anyone bringing this topic on rn.

Like, what sounds "meaningless".

May I quote a paragraph of how the perception of Latin America countries perceive ethnic distinction by Villareal (2014)?
If not, I will try to resume it.

"In contrast to Afro-Latin American countries such as Brazil, in Indo-Latin American countries, which include not only Mexico but most countries in Central America and the Andean region, the primary socially-recognized ethnic distinction between the indigenous and non-indigenous population is not based on phenotypical differences. The social boundary that separates the indigenous population is instead constructed around other criteria such as cultural practices, language use, and a subjective sense of belonging (Harris 1964; Pitt-Rivers 1968; Bartolomé 1997). Such criteria are used to distinguish what are often referred to as ethnic groups rather than racial categories"

This may answer somewhat yo your question in a different way.
Since in Latin America country the disproportion of wealth is huge, the differentiations perceive by normal people, between ethnic groups, is mostly due to social factors. For example, I'm meztizo, but since I do locate in the middle class; I could consider myself white to other people.

Normally I do investigate about it in NCBI.

If not, I decide to find studies by their name in Google, since most of the time they mentione other studies to further study.

Still to make it clear, I'm not assuming that there is no difference in races, which in fact they do, but when we take racial PERCEPTIONS we reach a very different scope from simple biological studies.

Still I'm investigating, so I would not consider myself expert on the subject, maning I don't propose any course of action to it.

Ok <:wtf:591182282648190986>

Wdm by "concise"?

I never implied segregation, but, funnily enough, that is something common in Mexico.

At least according by P Monkkonen (2012).

Sure. Acording to him, mostly, in urban areas in there have been a rise in the diacrimination and marginalization agaisn't other racial groups, mainly indians done by the general population. @moira

He also, mentioned other studies, which I haven't read, containing that these marginalizatin is acutally increasing in countries like Argentina, Chile and Brazil.

Let me see if I can translate something rf.

Tf are you talking about. Can you give any source on any Chrstian teaching about "the punishment of sin is dead", bc as far as I know if that were it would mean that would be true every human would be dead rn.

https://www.bibleref.com/Romans/6/Romans-6-23.html
"He [Paul] compares the two types of lives he has been describing. Those without Christ are slaves to sin. Their work of sinfulness earns a paycheck of death. In other words, they earn eternal death, eternal separation from God."

It doesn't mean literal death.

Unless some nationalist group decided to use violent means to protest agaisn't it.
***Unless***

Answer: Yes.

That's not true. The corw difference between Jews and Christians about the interpretation of the Old testament; is that the Christin saw it as a fullfilment of the actions of Christ (Jesus) while Jews did not.

Yes it is

How? Are you ignoring the whole context of the New Testament and the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers?

Mathew 23:1-3
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:   “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

<:cringe:591181675426217995>

High mobilization tare, authoritarian economy, conscription of the normal pleb except for industrial workers, policy of importation.

@Deleted User That's not the true. If you don't have military organizarion, you will completely fail are your job. The only time when "everyone has guns" a gun is good idea is during the first stages of a war (example, Spanish Civil War); or if the peasents/militia is higly militarized.

That logic doesn't make any sense.

What type of literature you read? @Ater Votum

>"Go back to the good old days before the Industrial Revolution"
><:cringe:591181675426217995>

No.

I'm just agaisn't the Maosit Thot only. Everything else, except for the song, is not something I support.

And what has to do with it?
Guerilla doesn't mean a lack of general militarization, but it a a form of amymetrical warfare which is used due to not having the abilities to take an enemy direcly. The NVA guerrilas and the partisan groups of the Soviet Union were in the same position.

It's is not. Afagan are not militias per se. They follow a very structural organization that follows under a military heriarchy.

Toyota family tree.

Now that I think about it, that's why most of the Middle East is in war rn. They are farming xp for the technicals.

^

Hol up, this is'nt the meme channel 🤔

Albania 💪

The possibility of obtaining autarky is a impossible for most countries in the modern world; so it should no means be taken into consideration.

Also, Isolationism + Autarchy os practically a bullet througth the head. Most modern attempts of autarchy were not derived from isolationist policy, but the contrary, expansionist policies (Japan as an example).

I said "most" for a reason. North Korea is a very special case.

You could probably do that, but that wouldn't be a good idea chief.