You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
devotech2 on scored.co
14 days ago0 points(+0/-0)
>Venezuela is literally a starving Communist shithole
No. It's still not communist. Look up bolivarianism. It's a quasi socialist 3rd world shithole. Hell, if I remember correctly most of the venezuelan businesses are private. In fascist italy it was 70% nationalized. The actual Venezuelan communist party is in opposition to Maduro. I wasn't necessarily pointing out every *good* country that isn't jewed, just all the ones that *aren't*. And, yes, pretty much every single one of them is going to have severe socioeconomic issues because, well, every part of the world that is jewed (most of it) wants non-jewed countries to go away. Maduro is an incompetent retard and venezuela never diversified its economy, while that's true, it's also true that Venezuela would be a lot better off without oil sanctions.
>North Korea is as Marxist as they have ever been
Here's the biggest counter point: ethnonationalism, which is absolute poison to marxist dogma and which North Korea is absolutely abundant in. North Korea is syncretic at best. At any rate, they have evolved well past where they started at.
>Neither Libya nor Iraq were ever anything resembling Communist
They were somewhat close, but they were also syncretic. The Arab world exists in a weird state where communism and nationalism are not really diametrically opposed (with some exceptions) and often give and take from each other. Why? You can mainly blame israel for that, as well as, capitalism, and the west+israel that represents it, being seen by both sides as a big enough threat that they need to work in tandem. Hamas is in coalition with Palestinian communists, for instance. The arab ideals of socialism are quite a bit different, but they ultimately drew quite a few things from leninist orthodoxy - with some differences - and applied those things to society. Mass-scale nationalization, welfare, secularism, womens suffrage, protectionism, planned economies, free education, etc. They differed from the soviet union in atheist dogma (especially Libya), class warfare, and private property, but agreed on enough that Iraq was probably the best friend of the late-era ussr abroad.
>If you think that basically nationalizing everything to turn a nation into a Command Economy run by what were essentially cartels acting at the government's behest while skimming off the top and leaving the common people as impoverished as ever DOESN'T constitute socioeconomic issues, then I've got a bridge to sell you
How the hell did mussolini leave the average italian impoverished? They had the first economic miracle and completely sidestepped the great depression. Mussolini was adored by almost everyone until he entered ww2, which was a fucking disaster, but doesn't reflect particularly much on his domestic policy which was overall incredibly well received by Italians and foreigners. Mussolini did precisely what he wanted to do and he did it well. Take everything good that the ussr was doing, take everything good that the capitalist west was doing, and remove all of the bad things from them.
Mussolini was good enough at domestic policy that hitler was very much inspired by *most* of what he was doing, but believed in more liberal economics (but not exactly. The closest modern parallel would probably be china's economics), but that's fine. Italy did fascism with corporatism and Germany did natsoc with quasi-capitalism. They both worked. The biggest difference was that italy had less industry in existence to begin with, Germany was already one of the most industrialized countries on earth. Italy needed more time to develop an industry capable of war, and before the late 30s, an industry for war wasn't even a priority for mussolini. This is why ww2 was a disaster for Italy. Germany didn't need much to Kickstart its already existent infrastructure and shift it into 5th gear. For Italy this capability simply did not exist. Although mussolini did make Italy industrialized, there were a million other problems on the plate for him in the 20s that diverted attention away from the issue. Creating the infrastructure for industry to even happen in the first place was a paramount one.
Most of the problems that italy had came about after the war started. It was a terrible idea to enter ww2, which you can fault mussolini *and* hitler for, their communication with each other was absolutely piss-poor. Italy wasn't ready to enter but Germany, with some exceptions, wasn't exactly the best ally either. Hitler had big problems in properly communicating with mussolini and had a tendency to just do shit, the worst example was barbarossa which blindsided the italians entirely, as Germany had promised them 2 extra years to prepare for war by 1943 (and that didn't happen, evidently). Mussolini in turn had pretty much the same issue, he never communicated the invasion of the balkans. Which stalled barbarossa, which mussolini didnt even think was supposed to happen yet. Fuckery all around. Regardless, his policy at home was pretty damned solid.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
No. It's still not communist. Look up bolivarianism. It's a quasi socialist 3rd world shithole. Hell, if I remember correctly most of the venezuelan businesses are private. In fascist italy it was 70% nationalized. The actual Venezuelan communist party is in opposition to Maduro. I wasn't necessarily pointing out every *good* country that isn't jewed, just all the ones that *aren't*. And, yes, pretty much every single one of them is going to have severe socioeconomic issues because, well, every part of the world that is jewed (most of it) wants non-jewed countries to go away. Maduro is an incompetent retard and venezuela never diversified its economy, while that's true, it's also true that Venezuela would be a lot better off without oil sanctions.
>North Korea is as Marxist as they have ever been
Here's the biggest counter point: ethnonationalism, which is absolute poison to marxist dogma and which North Korea is absolutely abundant in. North Korea is syncretic at best. At any rate, they have evolved well past where they started at.
>Neither Libya nor Iraq were ever anything resembling Communist
They were somewhat close, but they were also syncretic. The Arab world exists in a weird state where communism and nationalism are not really diametrically opposed (with some exceptions) and often give and take from each other. Why? You can mainly blame israel for that, as well as, capitalism, and the west+israel that represents it, being seen by both sides as a big enough threat that they need to work in tandem. Hamas is in coalition with Palestinian communists, for instance. The arab ideals of socialism are quite a bit different, but they ultimately drew quite a few things from leninist orthodoxy - with some differences - and applied those things to society. Mass-scale nationalization, welfare, secularism, womens suffrage, protectionism, planned economies, free education, etc. They differed from the soviet union in atheist dogma (especially Libya), class warfare, and private property, but agreed on enough that Iraq was probably the best friend of the late-era ussr abroad.
>If you think that basically nationalizing everything to turn a nation into a Command Economy run by what were essentially cartels acting at the government's behest while skimming off the top and leaving the common people as impoverished as ever DOESN'T constitute socioeconomic issues, then I've got a bridge to sell you
How the hell did mussolini leave the average italian impoverished? They had the first economic miracle and completely sidestepped the great depression. Mussolini was adored by almost everyone until he entered ww2, which was a fucking disaster, but doesn't reflect particularly much on his domestic policy which was overall incredibly well received by Italians and foreigners. Mussolini did precisely what he wanted to do and he did it well. Take everything good that the ussr was doing, take everything good that the capitalist west was doing, and remove all of the bad things from them.
Mussolini was good enough at domestic policy that hitler was very much inspired by *most* of what he was doing, but believed in more liberal economics (but not exactly. The closest modern parallel would probably be china's economics), but that's fine. Italy did fascism with corporatism and Germany did natsoc with quasi-capitalism. They both worked. The biggest difference was that italy had less industry in existence to begin with, Germany was already one of the most industrialized countries on earth. Italy needed more time to develop an industry capable of war, and before the late 30s, an industry for war wasn't even a priority for mussolini. This is why ww2 was a disaster for Italy. Germany didn't need much to Kickstart its already existent infrastructure and shift it into 5th gear. For Italy this capability simply did not exist. Although mussolini did make Italy industrialized, there were a million other problems on the plate for him in the 20s that diverted attention away from the issue. Creating the infrastructure for industry to even happen in the first place was a paramount one.
Most of the problems that italy had came about after the war started. It was a terrible idea to enter ww2, which you can fault mussolini *and* hitler for, their communication with each other was absolutely piss-poor. Italy wasn't ready to enter but Germany, with some exceptions, wasn't exactly the best ally either. Hitler had big problems in properly communicating with mussolini and had a tendency to just do shit, the worst example was barbarossa which blindsided the italians entirely, as Germany had promised them 2 extra years to prepare for war by 1943 (and that didn't happen, evidently). Mussolini in turn had pretty much the same issue, he never communicated the invasion of the balkans. Which stalled barbarossa, which mussolini didnt even think was supposed to happen yet. Fuckery all around. Regardless, his policy at home was pretty damned solid.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed