communism is both an economic and political system, actually

sure

and a mode of production, and a philosophy

as capitalist countries and governments undergo different ruling governments with different ideologies, but they're all united by a desire to preserve markets

but also an economic system so

but all communist countries throughout history have displayed equivalent totalitarian tendencies

albeit with varying severity

Do you understand my statement now? @Deleted User

"I don't count military intervention as the consequence of a country having a specific economic system"
But a country with a specific economic system would have a specific incentive to retain influence within a certain economic sphere? so I guess I understand your statement but it's incorrect

How do you make a distinction between a capitalistic intervention and a regular military intervention?

especially in the cold war

can you give me an example of what you think is a 'regular military intervention'?

take any example from history

so, German support for Austria during WWI, for example?

Sure

although that's a direct response to war close to their front

I guess because of cultural, geopolitical and constitutional alliances between Austria and Germany, which could exist if both countries collectivised their fuel allocation for example, whereas something like the Iraq War being motivated by oil would be considerably harder for a country with a socialist mode of production (wherein the ruling class cannot financially benefit from the war's enactment) to justify

Have some faith in Leninism my bois

But the allied forces profited from winning WWI greatly

As would Germany and Austria if they won

no question

they'd be richer

but that wasn't the primary incentive for fighting the war

an economic incentive!

What I'm arguing is that almost all military interventions have a positive economic incentive

incentive =/= consequence

Hard to distinguish one from a ''capitalist'' intervention

I could kill you for trying to kill me, and take your money, the money I could take wouldn't be my driving force behind killing you

it would be fear of destruction

Right, but the end result is the same

And as I already pointed out, the U.S was isolationist at the period in time they had the freest market

politics is a continuous process, there isn't an end result when you're talking about nations' motives for adopting certain command structures

we should hope that lessons from the past would inform the politics of the future, it's perhaps utopic but as a socialist perspective to reduce the intentions and reasons behind war we could eventually see a reduction of said wars

At the cost of totalitarianism in countries

Anyway I'm done, too much time spend here

What do you think of him?

hasn't read you

Ikr

isn't he antifa?

Idk