USA Goes to War Against Iran

The CCP is authoritarian which means their primary concern is maintaining power at all costs. If they can be the ones in power, even if everything turns to dust around them they will fight. If they lose power they will be exiled/neutered at best or tortured and executed at worst.

paintrape is killing me 😂

I drink root beer. Does that count?

Because you're funny. Don't know those other folks.

You're quite welcome! If you change your mind, PM me.

LB and I discussed the possibility of meeting at a poker room in Oceanside while he was in San Diego County several months ago. Didn't work out, though.

I think Dunyain said he also lives in Orange County.

Looks like JackHi first to use the term "Torah Jew", based on my quick 2p2 search of all forums.

At the time, microbet attributed the term to JackHi, which apparently was in a deleted post by JackHi.

addendum: No indication Victor ever used that term.

Like I said it was Bill Haywood. Victor acted like it was ridiculous when I said I had never heard that term.

Victor has never used the term because it’s not really a term that’s used. The people who he gets his talking points from don’t say it. I’m not sure why he’s trying to argue this, probably because he has to argue everything regardless of what the truth is.

Apparently it was sickhuman who initially used the term: 'Lukud Bibi Torah Jews' before JackHi did.

(I missed it in my initial search because I searched for 'Torah Jew.' I found the sickhuman reference by searching 'torah Jews'.)

It’s looking like the US is preparing for a ground invasion to take over the Straight of Hormuz.

I hope this gets done quick so my trip to Israel isn’t ruined. The backup plan is to vacation in Saudi Europia which I am not looking forward to.

Was mong even banned? Why is he here on a new account?

Kharg Island maybe.

Did Mong even care about ME affairs? I remember him mentioning that stormfront said he had bad blood to be part of the in crowd so am not sure that he'd be scheduling trips to Israel but who knows and who cares.

...I'll concede that bad blood does point in favor of him visiting Israel.

I was on the fence but I remember Mong making that same joke ? about going to Israel as a tourist.

How I remembered a random post from November idk.

Let’s not do this again. You’re evidently clueless and brainwashed about the nature of the USSR or you wouldn’t call it socialist.

It reached the point where almost every reply he got was ridiculing him about his paint fume seduction technique or other things. Admitting this is a mongidig sock puppet would be pointless

oh no, vacation ruined!

Very Insoo'esque take btw.

Good research.

Elway = Mong confirmed!

If your primary account was known for the **** it was known for and you TOTALLY DONT CARE ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET THINK ABOUT YOU you would look to rebrand yourself too

Mongo (boncos fan) stopped posting and this guy shows up as ‘Elway’ posting a tapered down version of the same tripe and thinks posting about his upcoming trip to Israel is a take

It ain’t rocket science

Sure. As long as you're not a prohibitionist.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

I think that pretty accurately describes the nature of the USSR. You can argue definitions all day, but at some point outcomes matter more than labels.

And the consistent outcome is that attempts to create a socialist state collapse into either totalitarian regimes or some form of authoritarian / quasi dictator capitalism. That’s not incidental or an accident; that’s part of the nature of trying to centrally organize an economy and society at that scale.

Even Marx warned about this very issue: forcing socialism onto a population or trying to impose it before capitalism has fully developed and run its course risks exactly this kind of result. So the issue isn’t that people are “misunderstanding” socialism. It’s that, in practice, it keeps producing the same kinds of outcomes.

Sounds like a good defensive of socialism as capitalism runs it's course. And giving kudos to Marx

At least it means recognising the total lack of data despite people talking as if they have definitive proof.

That’s not a defense, it’s a constraint.

[QUOTE=Karl Marx]“In a higher phase of communist society,after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”[/QUOTE]

That “only then” is doing a lot of work there. His framework depends on socialism emerging after a highly developed industrial economy and productive base, not being imposed on a society that hasn’t gone through that stage. That’s also why he questioned whether places like Russia - given its relatively undeveloped, largely agrarian economy at the time - could realistically reach that stage. Or even the US anytime soon.

Modern self-described socialists often treat the “from each…to each…” line as a guiding principle or means to an end of some utopia they have in mind. But Marx presents it as something that only becomes possible after all those prior conditions are met....not something you can just decree into existence.

So no, it’s not a “lack of data.” It’s that the attempts we do have skipped the conditions he said were necessary and produced exactly the kinds of outcomes you’d expect when you try to force it.

But to the heart of what Karl Marx spoke about, we all want that outcome, even people like Victor. The only real difference is he doesn’t believe capital will ever willingly allow it. But that’s not really a system failure. It’s more a human nature issue, ie, people with more tend to want more, regardless of others not having enough. I agree we lack data on that, though.

It's more than a constraint. It's saying that 'capitalism thriving' and 'capitalism having run it's course' are different phases with different properties. So even if you somehow think that a few highly correlated data points tell you everything about the 'thriving' phase, they tell you almost nothing about the 'run it's course' phase.

Which is something I've been pointing out for a while and it now seems that marx dude is smart enough to copy me.