Grover is a good example so is Kotkin

I'd mostly stick to documents really

The Finnish BOlshevik dude on youtube does a pretty good job with that format, but in general I find mose of the attempts along those lines fall apart when they leave the realm of historical analysis

I know Finnish Bolshevik but I don't watch too many of his videos

He seemed well read when I talked to him

But again I don't wanna argue for historical events that have no meaning when it comes to philosophy

https://twitter.com/wendellpotter/status/1206623259698974724

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiYJJr_Gp

ok here

here

yep

i got my sources

ok

i have proof

he has his sources

that socialism

works

in a country

it can work, it just won't produce as much wealth, which is capitalism's main advantage, due to creative destruction

yep

likewise capitalism can work, but will produce inequalities that drop the bottom out

see Libya had this leader called Mamour Al Gaddafi and he had socialist beliefs, and im gonna summarize it real quick

ok

aw man i cant send images

sad

lol

both have their place, and it's mostly a matter of phase and scale where you use each approach

you can once you 'level up' a bit

i guess ill dm u it

k

many 'capitalists' are in denail that inequality has real macroeconomic effects, which you can model

marx saw it, minsky, Fisher, keynes

what political ideology do you support

I am capitalist

I would say I'm a libertarian nationalist

i'm very right-wing, but I understand and respect what Socialists talk about

im not that much with nationalism but i didnt research about it so i cant critisize it

im kinda nationalist

It's become overblown, but basically nationalism just accepts that humans are social creatures, we aren't islands to ourselves

The 'tension' between the individualism of Libertarianism and the collectivism of nationalism I think gives us the best chance to enjoy the benefits of both

the thing is that now days Nationalism has a lot of different definitions