There might be another Capitol Riot-style clownshow, but like the first time, nothing of real significance will happen. A few zealots and or cops might die, but nothing rising to the level of a “blood bath”, let alone a “civil war”.
I don’t think Trump was being literal when he said bloodbath though. It’s a common English idiom.
In some cultural or ethnic sense, you’re probably right (though there’s the classic joke in Europe that the East starts one country to the east of theirs) but what I mean is that Poland operates as part of what you could call the North Atlanticist bloc.
Patents are not, at their core, a good thing. They are nice for an idealized and transient scenario, but the reality of capitalism is that the vast, vast majority of investment, production, etc. are done by a handful of large companies, and that includes R&D. Patents are, in reality, overwhelmingly one of the many tools large corporations have to shut out upstarts. In short, it entrenches the power of monopolies, trusts, and similar large businesses.
And that’s without even starting on how the law can be abused and, with the way our legal systems work, it is fundamentally more abusable for the side that has more money and can afford top corporate lawyers to concoct convenient arguments, leaving little Jimmy in the dust.
deleted by creator
The most significant western governments still finance Israel’s existence, that doesn’t mean every single western person or even country gets along with Israel
Poland is definitely The West too, honestly more than Mexico. It’s basically a code for white nations and the vassal states of white nations.
They ordered people killed or at least restrained who wouldn’t comply to them
This is what states do, they are tools of repression. You’ve basically limited yourself to reading from a subset of anarchists and no one else with this statement alone.
Just removing veto power seems like the simpler solution (not that that would happen either)
How brief? A few hours?
Not the person you’re responding to
Obviously Israel shouldn’t exist at all. It’s not a diplomatically expedient thing to say, but it’s the only real anti-colonialist answer because Israel is actively a colony. That doesn’t mean expelling all the Jews from Palestine – it might shock you to know there are non-Israeli Jews currently in Palestine – but it does mean that the proper boarders for Palestine are restored and thus that there is no ethnostate (Jewish or otherwise). Recent additions to the Israeli colony (for they are always recruiting) can be sent back to their homelands. Many of them have been there long enough that they have no connection to those homelands anymore (including the more direct descendants of Holocaust survivors, etc.) and they can stay on the land that was Israel, but a lot of them are only there because they like the Jewish ethnostate thing and will therefore flee of their own will. That volume of people fleeing will probably incite still more to flee, but some will remain and they should be treated humanely and as equal citizens, prosecuting whatever crimes they committed but not being treated like subhumans the way that Israelis treated Palestinian prisoners.
The US is a much more difficult question because unlike Israelis being a minority compared to Palestinians, there are many more Euro-Americans, etc than there are Native Americans because the genocidal project of the US is much more complete. Inevitably some land, the land recently taken and some of the more useful land than what the Natives have been left with, should be returned to them, but obviously deporting all the Euros, etc. is neither viable nor productive, like how (to a much, much smaller extent) deporting all the Israelis is neither viable nor productive.
That said, separate from demographics and land rights, the US government absolutely shouldn’t exist because it is terrorizing the world, including through proxies like Israel.
The claim the other person was making was very, very obviously not the absurdity you represent it as.
The residents of Palestine were peacefully coexisting Jews, Arabs, and Muslim descendants of the bronze-age indigenous people before the inception of Zionism by the British Empire in the early 1900s.
Nowhere does this say “were peacefully coexisting since the bronze age,” it says “these populations that descended from groups there since the bronze age were, during some period of time prior to zionism, peacefully coexisting.”
There are other problems with what you said, e.g. I wouldn’t blame the indigenous Christian inhabitants for the Crusades, but I don’t really want to get into this, I just want to point out that you wildly misrepresented your interlocutor.
If you were following burden of proof, you could stake your claim on particular billionaires who you say never exploited anyone, and it would then be on the other fellow to prove they did exploit people. Without example billionaires, however, your claim is nebulous and no one has any particular reason to believe in it.
An arrangement where employees bargain collectively with their employer to have more leverage, usually collecting dues from members to help with things like strikes.
I think it’s called a “sindicato” in Portuguese, though in English “syndicate” means something a bit different
I mean, my suggestion is to look at any other histories of the two famines, including ones by rabid anti-communists, and you will see that there were many other factors (not that I expect a rabid anticommunist to talk about crop blights or kulak sabotage, but still).
I’m unimpressed. The US has crushed rebellions from its inception, famously including the civil war but also many other attempts, and I would say that the patterns of what some call the New Afrikan nation within the US to revolt, going solidly up to the 1980s or further depending on your interpretation, are perhaps the most important.
As some guy said, “Revolution is not a dinner party” and establishing and maintaining a revolutionary state requires its own violence. No Marxist says otherwise, as it is the famous quote of Engels: “The proletariat uses the State not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the State as such ceases to exist.”
Capitalism has been struggling with the problem of collapse, and in fact it did from pretty early on in that history you mention, with Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, and so on. The problem isn’t just going to go away, because a system that needs infinite expansion in a finite world necessarily will collapse. It can sometimes “innovate” its way into having more time, and modern imperialism is just such an example of that innovation, pushing much of the poverty capitalism demands into the third world, but that just changes the specific circumstances of the problem rather than eliminating it. The US as we speak is continuously losing its grip on its hegemony as the imperial periphery and semi-periphery develop sovereignty. History will not end.
Technically it doesn’t legalize it, it just avoids the criminalization of it. This is significant because it makes it much easier to reform (which is how around half of states have reformed it at least a little), and this combined with the fact that most states lack significant reforms tells you a lot.
This is really pedantic, but conditionals do imply a specific inverted inference. Specifically in this meme though, the correct inversion is “If the billionaire class is not your enemy, then this budgeting is not relevant to you,” which I think we’d both agree with.
Billionaires are a political target. It’s not about forgoing ideology, but having correct ideology.
I’ve got bad news for you