|
Raenir Salazar posted:The US doesn't need to have a perfect system to have the moral high ground in regards to a literally communist country invading another country. And once again "might makes right" being put as the foremost argument here. If Iran is invaded and China didn't wish it would they be morally correct to defend their ally?
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:And once again "might makes right" being put as the foremost argument here. If Iran is invaded and China didn't wish it would they be morally correct to defend their ally? If Iran is invaded by some country and they ask China for help defending themselves then...sure? If Iran were like "no gently caress off China, we can handle this ourselves, we don't want you here" then no? This seems all pretty clear to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
How are u posted:If Iran is invaded by some country and they ask China for help defending themselves then...sure? If Iran were like "no gently caress off China, we can handle this ourselves, we don't want you here" then no? Good to hear it, what level of involvement would be fine BTW. MAD or such like being fine if that happened? A lot of the problems are that, once again, any claim to moral legitimacy by almost all nations is now in the toilet. There is no gap between "what is good for [people in power]" and "what is good for [nation]" on any level, even the rhetorical ones seem played out. That is dangerous because it immediately means that we are already inside a "might makes right" world and such things do not end well. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Oct 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
Smeef posted:Can you elaborate on this? I don't find it hard at all to criticize any country — socialist or not — that jails journalists and press freedom activists and has Nobel peace prize winners die in prison. The former is a different issue than just having no free press. You don't need to enforce it through prison time or death in prison. I mean specifically the act of deciding to not have free press. Smeef posted:And I can't really follow the argument in your second sentence about command economies not being able to fund intelligence (?) agencies. That's not what I said. The US uses it's intelligence agencies far more multifaceted than for instance the USSR used theirs for. There was not an extensive KGB propaganda network attempting to overthrow the US because there was no money for it. There is and was an extensive network of various CIA attached orgs in the USSR/China/Cuba/Venezuela with the goal of overthrowing the government. It would be better if all those nations mentioned had a free press and with the possible exception of China and obviously the one that no longer exists they most likely all would have one except for the fact that US interests is to pour money in having the governments overthrown.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:That's not what I said. The US uses it's intelligence agencies far more multifaceted than for instance the USSR used theirs for. There was not an extensive KGB propaganda network attempting to overthrow the US because there was no money for it. There is and was an extensive network of various CIA attached orgs in the USSR/China/Cuba/Venezuela with the goal of overthrowing the government. Oh ho ho man you need to talk to anyone from the Baltics or Scandanavia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Oh ho ho man you need to talk to anyone from the Baltics or Scandanavia. The KGB had money to try to overthrow much smaller nations ergo they clearly had the budget to do the same thing to a large rival?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:The former is a different issue than just having no free press. You don't need to enforce it through prison time or death in prison. I mean specifically the act of deciding to not have free press. The existence of the Communist Party of America trivially disproves this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:There was not an extensive KGB propaganda network attempting to overthrow the US because there was no money for it. The poor USSR, they only had a few nukes to rub together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:The poor USSR, they only had a few nukes to rub together. Nukes are notoriously good at preventing a coup not so much at starting one. Raenir Salazar posted:The existence of the Communist Party of America trivially disproves this. I think the height of Moscows funding of CPUSA was a few million dollars. Not sure if that's really in the same ballpark of funding the CIA has thrown at even a country like Cuba. Incidentally the US response was to ban the party outright!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:I think the height of Moscows funding of CPUSA was a few million dollars. Not sure if that's really in the same ballpark of funding the CIA has thrown at even a country like Cuba. Have you seen how much the USSR spent stationing troops and nukes on Cuba?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Have you seen how much the USSR spent stationing troops and nukes on Cuba? I forgot my claim was that the USSR had zero dollars and not they had less money to work with. Silly me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:I forgot my claim was that the USSR had zero dollars and not they had less money to work with. Silly me. How much less money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:How much less money. I think something like 20-30 times less over their respective histories?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:I think something like 20-30 times less over their respective histories? Armaments are vastly more expensive than broadcasting and other forms of 'soft' power projection; the size of the USSR's economy has had no sign over the entirety of the cold war of being unable to compete in the information space, in its capabilities and functions of its intelligence agencies and ngo's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:I forgot my claim was that the USSR had zero dollars and not they had less money to work with. Silly me. Your original claim was that the USSR had to shut down free speech because otherwise the US would have funded media that would have explained to its citizens how poo poo their lives were and outside of an oppressive environment the USSR would have been unable to win that argument with its citizens. And I think we probably all agree with you on that one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Your original claim was that the USSR had to shut down free speech because otherwise the US would have funded media that would have explained to its citizens how poo poo their lives were and outside of an oppressive environment the USSR would have been unable to win that argument with its citizens. I think there was a paper in the 90s? 80s? Somewhere right before the fall of the USSR using the world banks own data that kinda showed this was bullshit. Less free certainly but unarguably with a higher standard of living. Raenir Salazar posted:Armaments are vastly more expensive than broadcasting and other forms of 'soft' power projection; the size of the USSR's economy has had no sign over the entirety of the cold war of being unable to compete in the information space, in its capabilities and functions of its intelligence agencies and ngo's. This is kind of a pointless claim. If you have less money you have less money. You can get more bang for your buck by utilizing intelligence agencies but those intelligence agencies are still going to be less funded. They can still be effective but they are going to be able to do significantly less long shot projects just to see if they go anywhere and less fun money to see if you can overthrow Cuba thirty years after the cold war has ended. Sedisp fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Oct 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
But where's the evidence the USSR directed less resources into its intelligence agencies? You're kinda just extrapolating this because the US had a larger economy; and ignoring the multiple states where the USSR and the Soviet bloc did in fact pour in resources to overthrowing US backed governments or to shore up control over nations that had already fallen into their sphere and required resources to maintain control over because as it turns out, its expensive being a dictatorship? Like people in Britain during WW2 could easily turn on the radio to listen to Soviet radio programs in English back when they were fighting the Germans, your claim just doesn't make any sense. You originally claimed the USSR was less capable of looting various civilian industries; and then seemed to switch to the idea that the US had simply a larger economy. Like going back to your original claim: quote:It's really hard to criticize socialist countries press decisions without acknowledging US interference. A big draw back of command economies is it is incredibly difficult to counter foreign propaganda interests as you can't loot public services and funnel it to an alphabet agency as easily as a capitalist economy so often the smart move is to not bother and just do a big ol no non state approved press. So during the cold war I don't think its ever really been the case that the US has ever looted any public services; some of the largest expansions to the social safety net happened during the cold war, such as LBJ's Great Society precisely because it made the US more resilient to resist communism. Perhaps as Alchenar alludes to, the USSR's difficulties are because they naturally have a greater handicap responding to information from the west that refutes their own obvious lies? quote:I think there was a paper in the 90s? 80s? Somewhere right before the fall of the USSR using the world banks own data that kinda showed this was bullshit. Less free certainly but unarguably with a higher standard of living. Not true; you could look at gdp per capita comparisons in the 80s and see the USSR and the Eastern bloc were considerably behind much of the West. In 1989 for instance the USSR's gdp per capita was 9,211$ the US was 21,000; the average American had double the standard of living! Josef bugman posted:And once again "might makes right" being put as the foremost argument here. If Iran is invaded and China didn't wish it would they be morally correct to defend their ally? To respond to this, we aren't discussing Iran; this isn't the thread to discuss Iran hypotheticals unless it actually comes up in the news, we're discussing China hypothetically invading Taiwan and people shooting themselves in the vote with indefencible arguments about why that would be a good thing to let happen. No one said anything about Iran until you brought it up. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Oct 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:No one said anything about Iran until you brought it up. Going, "what if something else happened and we extrapolate from there to see the differences to how we would react to the currently discussed scenario" is still okay I trust? Also if we don't want to discuss anything other than China, stop discussing the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Going, "what if something else happened and we extrapolate from there to see the differences to how we would react to the currently discussed scenario" is still okay I trust? Why are you telling that to me and not to the person who brought up the USSR? Don't really get what you're saying here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Why are you telling that to me and not to the person who brought up the USSR? Don't really get what you're saying here. Your the one responding to it as much as they are the person bringing it up. I am pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of going "shut up about anything other than X" when you are spending a lot of time discussing something other than "X". I am perfectly happy with tangents inside of threads, but if you wish to police threads for going on tangents at least do so consistently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
Not sure how saying the US shouldn't protect Taiwan is indefensible. We don't know what modern military conflict between 2 nuclear armed powers looks like I bet its loving horrifying and a potential extinction event. Even in just a conventional war ignoring nukes its still an insane ask for the US to protect Taiwan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Your the one responding to it as much as they are the person bringing it up. I am pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of going "shut up about anything other than X" when you are spending a lot of time discussing something other than "X". Sedisp brought up the USSR in response to criticisms about China (or strictly speaking implied the USSR as China isn't a command economy); I'm not sure why the onus is on us not to point out how obviously wrong their argument is. You brought up a completely irrelevant scenario because: 1. Iran isn't a liberal democracy. 2. China isn't justified in defending allies it has in order to subvert the international order. 3. The US shows no indication of invading Iran anytime soon; while China is consistently speedrunning a naval build up in order to invade Taiwan and deter the 7th fleet from interfering. You're shoe horning a completely irrelevant hypothetical comparison basically and there isn't much to respond to; everything about it has no bearing on the current discussion. When you make silly arguments you roll the dice as to whether people more knowledgeable decide to ignore it or to pants you for it. Terminal autist posted:Not sure how saying the US shouldn't protect Taiwan is indefensible. We don't know what modern military conflict between 2 nuclear armed powers looks like I bet its loving horrifying and a potential extinction event. Even in just a conventional war ignoring nukes its still an insane ask for the US to protect Taiwan. But this is indefencible and factually wrong. Pakistan and India both had nukes and fought each other and the US and the USSR fought in Korea. Second, even if we granted that a nuclear exchange is more likely than not; that just implies that any nuclear armed state can essentially hold the world hostage and invade whoever they want under that argument that it would be insane to oppose them. Deterrence is about stopping the other guy from nuking you in a first strike; not about letting you invade whomever you please; by your argument if the USSR decided to invade Western Europe the US should have sat back and did nothing? Perhaps it should be on China and they should be the ones castigated for endangering the world by making that gamble and not the US. Third, you're vastly overstating the possibility of an extinction event, simply because China is not the USSR, China doesn't have enough missiles capable of reaching the mainland US to result in any kind of nuclear winter; and even a full scale exchange between the USSR and USA there's been significant doubts of early studies regarding claims of nuclear winter. Fourth; and this is the crux; if it is just a conventional war then it is exceedingly indefencible to suggest that the US should stand by and let the international order come into an end and let aggressor states do as they will. It would completely break down the stability of the pax americana the world rests and depends on, including China who relies on the US navy protecting the sea ways to allow their trade with the rest of the world. By your argument Britain and France should have let Germany invade Poland since a massive amount of destruction occurred as a result, including the usage of nuclear weapons. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:1. Iran isn't a liberal democracy. 1. China isn't either. Does that mean they have no interests in the area and would not be justified if they did choose to defend them? 2. Oh wow that is a fun little area to walk down. If China invaded the UAE would that be allowable? What level of disruption of the international order is it okay to disrupt? More or less than an Iraq war? 3. Sure it doesn't. It just plonks ships nearby and assassinates generals on occasion. Way less threatening than flying planes around. I'm sure I am in good company here on that point however.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
Terminal autist posted:Not sure how saying the US shouldn't protect Taiwan is indefensible. We don't know what modern military conflict between 2 nuclear armed powers looks like I bet its loving horrifying and a potential extinction event. Even in just a conventional war ignoring nukes its still an insane ask for the US to protect Taiwan. Maybe the CCP should reconsider starting a war between two nuclear powers through an act of imperial expansion against a sovereign nation? A sovereign nation allied with a nuclear power? Like, the CCP does not have to invade Taiwan. Nobody is putting a gun to their head and saying "you'd better invade the nation of Taiwan or else". That's a choice they get to make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Nukes are notoriously good at preventing a coup not so much at starting one. Is that because of Madman theory applied domestically, or is it because outside parties will take steps to stabilize a country that has nuclear weapons before a credible rebel force could take control of the establishment's nuclear arsenal? Or some other thing I am missing? How are u posted:Maybe the CCP should reconsider starting a war between two nuclear powers through an act of imperial expansion against a sovereign nation? A sovereign nation allied with a nuclear power? I thought the CCP's whole deal was that Taiwan is already part of China, always was part of China, and that anything they do to Taiwan is them dealing with an internal matter and has nothing to do with any other sovereign body but the CCP. If your starting point for an argument is "this so-called country isn't a sovereign body and all attempts to prop it up or support it or recognize it are foreign meddling in our internal politics" well, there's not much room for negotiation. Particularly if it is in your political interest to have a boogeyman you can point at whenever elements of your system start to tread into treacherous ground. John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:1. China isn't either. Does that mean they have no interests in the area and would not be justified if they did choose to defend them? Lets just clarify something before I answer, are you honestly of the opinion, that China should be allowed to invade Taiwan?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Lets just clarify something before I answer, are you honestly of the opinion, that China should be allowed to invade Taiwan? No. I would hope obviously? However I would also like to hope that it's obvious that any moral legitimacy that the USA has to resolve such a conflict, which I hope does not occur, will have been severely damaged because of obvious hypocrisy of it's actions over the last several decades. This is the point I am getting at, if we are operating purely from a realpolitik PoV then we should make it obvious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
How are u posted:Maybe the CCP should reconsider starting a war between two nuclear powers through an act of imperial expansion against a sovereign nation? A sovereign nation allied with a nuclear power? Taiwan is in a little bit more complicated of a situation than just being a soverign country despite how largely this thread protests. It might be easier to think about this in video game terms, if anyone is familiar with Europa Universalis, but Taiwan is in Chinas sphere of influence and always gives them a strong casus belli. I would never suggest to do anything illegal on this website but if the more martial minded folks feel compelled to do something about China I believe they could find several willing fraternal military orders in the Eastern Turkestan area, I'm sure they're always taking recruits. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:
Well sure, that's their stated CB. Every imperial power finds excuses to go on wars of aggressive expansion that are more than "we want it, you can't stop us." Of course they are dressing up war with fancy trimming, they understand that naked aggression isn't exactly sympathetic. That doesn't change the fact that Taiwan is an independent nation, has been for 70+ years, has a functioning, thriving democracy, and the Taiwanese people don't buy into the bullshit "rogue province" narrative for a single minute. I'm entirely comfortable dismissing the CCP's argument out of hand. It's complete bull and everybody, everybody knows it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Sedisp brought up the USSR in response to criticisms about China No I didn't YOU did. Is this the DARVO thing I've heard so much about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:No. I would hope obviously? I'm not really sure what your stake in this argument when the original argument was: quote:I believe the only real purpose Taiwan serves American interests is to just provoke China and certainly not valuable enough to spark a hot war with China if they call our bluff. In terms of trade alone with the US China dwarfs Taiwan. In any case, I do not believe "Oh man, sorry, we were hypocrits this one time, so we can't lift a finger to stop 30 million people from being put under the control of a morally bankrupt totalitarian regime. Shucks." is a particularly good argument regarding whether it is justifiable for the US to sink the entire Chinese navy in response to said Navy steaming ahead to take over Taiwan. And no we are not operating from a purely realpolitik point of view and this was clear from previous posts. Certainly the people of Taiwan are not going to care about the US supporting Israel or whatever when they're the ones in the foxholes. So in any case, Taiwan is a democracy is a pretty good reason for the US supporting them. The UAE and Kuwait, may not be democracies but that doesn't mean its justified for them to be invaded unprovoked whether it be Iran, Iraq or China. That China has decided to ally Iran because its convenient to their interests does not mean it is justified for them to defend them, because China is doing specifically to undermine the international US led order and to avoid containment for their aggressive actions. Sedisp posted:No I didn't YOU did. Is this the DARVO thing I've heard so much about? You're literally confusing me for a different poster? e: Plastic_Gargoyle posted:I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Was the very first poster responding directly to your argument. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
How are u posted:Well sure, that's their stated CB. Every imperial power finds excuses to go on wars of aggressive expansion that are more than "we want it, you can't stop us." Of course they are dressing up war with fancy trimming, they understand that naked aggression isn't exactly sympathetic. Most nations of the world, including the USA, have not recognized Taiwan as an independent nation formally. The bullshit has a whiff of plausibility as long as that's the case. Until the USA formally recognizes Taiwan, it is playing by (or around, but still treating seriously) the CCP's rules about what Taiwan is. By not forcing the issue before China could do anything of substance about it the problem has reached a head where to address it is to start an actual war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You're literally confusing me for a different poster? Another poster ALSO brought up the USSR and then YOU brought up the KGB which is related to last I checked the USSR. So are you confusing posters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Another poster ALSO brought up the USSR and then YOU brought up the KGB which is related to last I checked the USSR. So are you confusing posters? But they (a) did it first (b) I responded on a different page after other posters had posted including them (c) you literally defended the USSR here: Sedisp posted:The former is a different issue than just having no free press. You don't need to enforce it through prison time or death in prison. I mean specifically the act of deciding to not have free press. And again your original post didn't specify China, only command economies which hasn't included China for 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:But they (a) did it first (b) I responded on a different page after other posters had posted including them (c) you literally defended the USSR here: So first you blame me for the tangent when you were off on it then when this was pointed out you also blamed me for confusing posters when this confusion was started by you. Then after all this is pointed out instead of just saying "whoops my bad" it's my fault for using terminology you misunderstood. Premium Trump logic. Gaslights have been out of fashion for nearly a century my friend time to modernize. I also would absolutely consider China a mostly command economy unless we're doing that thing when it's bad it's socialist when it's good its capitalist super position. Sedisp fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:In any case, I do not believe "Oh man, sorry, we were hypocrits this one time, so we can't lift a finger to stop 30 million people from being put under the control of a morally bankrupt totalitarian regime. Shucks." is a particularly good argument regarding whether it is justifiable for the US to sink the entire Chinese navy in response to said Navy steaming ahead to take over Taiwan. And no we are not operating from a purely realpolitik point of view and this was clear from previous posts. If you truly think this then I am afraid you appear to be ignoring all the times when the USA has done exactly the thing that you are arguing they should prevent. Recent examples include Afghanistan and Iraq, but can also include Iran and almost every single country in Central and Southern America. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that the USA's actions are morally righteous. This is not a view shared by large sections of the international community and, increasingly, not by sections of the USA's own populace. I do not want to see Taiwan invaded by anyone. However I am also worried that you seem to believe that any action committed by the USA is inherently justified. Raenir Salazar posted:So in any case, Taiwan is a democracy is a pretty good reason for the US supporting them. The UAE and Kuwait, may not be democracies but that doesn't mean its justified for them to be invaded unprovoked whether it be Iran, Iraq or China. Do you not see the inherent hypocrisy which you are presenting here? You are presupposing that "just because they are not democracies that doesn't mean they can just be invaded" and then following that up with "it is not justified for China to defend Iran, in this hypothetical, if they got invaded". You seem to be saying "this is good only when the USA supports this action". To which I have to ask, is this because of moral right? Or "Might makes Right"? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
see: https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam040304.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:So first you blame me for the tangent when you were off on it then when this was pointed out you also blamed me for confusing posters when this confusion was started by you. Then after all this is pointed out instead of just saying whoops my bad it's my fault for using terminology you misunderstood. But this is literally false? I even quoted the post that brought up the USSR first, and was clearly earlier than mine? quote:I also would absolutely consider China a mostly command economy unless we're doing that thing when it's bad it's socialist when it's good its capitalist super position. It's not mostly a command economy, that is quite literally impossible when most of the economy is privately owned. 60% of China's GDP and 80% of urban employment is from the private sector, it seems to me like you maybe don't know very much about China? Josef bugman posted:If you truly think this then I am afraid you appear to be ignoring all the times when the USA has done exactly the thing that you are arguing they should prevent. Recent examples include Afghanistan and Iraq, but can also include Iran and almost every single country in Central and Southern America. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that the USA's actions are morally righteous. This is not a view shared by large sections of the international community and, increasingly, not by sections of the USA's own populace. I do not want to see Taiwan invaded by anyone. However I am also worried that you seem to believe that this would not be a realpolitik set up. You seem to be making a whataboutist argument here, what the US has done in Afghanistan or Iraq has no bearing on China's actions and how other nations should respond to it. It is unambiguous that Taiwan should be protected by the rest of the free world, and since you seem to agree on that point who else will defend them if the US doesn't? Canada? What western nation in your mind would be wholly justified in defending Taiwan, Japan? As it turns out worrying about hypocrisy doesn't result in a workable international order; Poland certainly wasn't a nice country when Germany invaded them since they ate a chunk off of the Czech Republic but enough was enough and Germany needed to be stopped. I can't imagine it being moral to let injustice happen because it would break with some kind of precedent or "hypocrisy", my opinions as an individual are a separate set of concerns from the concerns of nation-states which operate on a different set of moral axioms and hypocrisy doesn't have a place there. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:But this is literally false? I even quoted the post that brought up the USSR first, and was clearly earlier than mine? Try and read this slowly. You confused the poster who brought up the ussr with me. Then YOU asked me if I was confused over who posted it first when the whole reason for this conversation was you. You Raenir Salazar. Were the one who had initially confused the USSR poster with me. Sedisp. Raenir Salazar posted:It's not mostly a command economy, that is quite literally impossible when most of the economy is privately owned. 60% of China's GDP and 80% of urban employment is from the private sector, it seems to me like you maybe don't know very much about China? Ah I am sorry I am unintentionally conflating command and planned. Post should read centrally planned economy apologies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 00:44
|
|