Schizophonia

Everything

You’re already infinitely stupid and still able to awake. 🫨

It’s a fantasy

It’s certainly not very pleasant to be Bonnie blue; she does this because it's all she knows.

You just imagined it. You just imagined it too. The semi-planned Chinese economy and to a lesser extent the French one functioned very very well after the war, and Stalin's USSR transformed a group of corrupt eurasian states into an industrial superpower where living standards and life expectancy skyrocketed despite civil war, the First and especially the Second World War, and western embargoes. The USSR essentially collapsed due to Brezhnev's spending/laxity, bureaucracy and corruption, a lack of openness to global capital (I discuss this in my article about Trotsky if i rememer well), and nationalists. The USSR would have survived were it not for Boris Yeltsin's conspiracy and the support of the United States. No it's not the countries of the former Soviet bloc that have a lot of corruption, it's poor countries in general. Central American and African countries are also very corrupt, perhaps even more so, and they are very capitalist countries; because they are poor. Countries are poor because they lack capital, skilled labor, and raw materials. Now the question is, which production and distribution system throughout history has most fostered such a surge in production? I've provided ample evidence that communist states who are well planned, benefited from this surge or at least are stable while capitalist states only collapse in on themselves due to crises before rebounding by enslaving themselves in a Ponzi scheme called debt. I also talked about it in my topic on Trosky; I should make a V2 because from memory it is too shaky for my taste.

Thanks; i knew you were kidding ofc.

I know. These days it's subtle but I'm opening my heart; I experience a little more love even if it also makes me more anxious. It's like going from ADSL to VDSL or from 480p to 720p, a comparison of that kind.

What more manly than a big mustache I have to.

No; the USSR collapsed and liberalized because Boris Yeltsin basically staged a coup. That's what I said; you're paraphrasing me. If the transition to a free market is a medicine why did Ukraine have a lower GDP per capita than even Algeria just before the Russian invasion; most of the former Soviet bloc countries are still poor including Russia; Russia is overall a very poor country. The USSR had a GDP around the half to that of the United States, and now Russia, despite the opening to the global market that the end of the USSR allowed, isn't even worth a quarter of it. There has only been regression.

It was a dictature yes. I don't promote Staline No it is precisely the bourgeois who can have the privilege to be "lazy and unproductive"; the characteristic of being a bourgeois is precisely to earn excessively compared to others simply through the right to private property; because you were in the right place at the right time. And if there are people who earn a lot because they own the capital, it means that on the other side there are people who earn less even if they are productive. And it's natural for people to be productive if they're in good physical and mental health and not high on alcohol or heroin, lol; and even under any socialist system, even a lax one, you can't live on welfare alone—that's the bare minimum. There are 5% of people in France who don't work and receive welfare and France is particularly lax; the French are also still one of the most productive populations in the world in terms of wealth generated per hour on average. So you're fixated on this but it's just not true. Ceaușescu was one of many communist leaders with their own vision of communism, and he was a rather foolish dictator. Colonization means that you directly control a territory through colonists; this is not colonization. I've already explained all of this elsewhere, I'm not going to repeat myself. Western Europe was much less affected by the war and benefited greatly from the Marshall Plan particularly West Germany. After the war France implemented a semi-planned economic policy due to the Communist Party's victory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_French_legislative_election)in the parliamentary elections, and this coincided with the greatest period of growth in its history. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses) You're comparing Western Europe, where there were relatively few conflicts and deaths, and which ultimately received generous aid from the United States, with Eastern Europe which was devastated, undergone tens of millions of deaths, and had to rebuild itself on its own And once again you're lying; it depends on the country. Ukraine has always been poor, but East Germany industrialized well despite the dictatorship and lack of aid. France and East Germany did recover in the west, but Spain remained quite poor. Of course they do; all factories and infrastructure in general are capital. Russia's transition to a market economy went badly and increased poverty, corruption, violence, and inequality; a large portion of that capital was simply stolen by a handful of oligarchs. Poland's transition went very well, the best transition of all ex USSR's satellite states; it's a matter of organization, and here you're admitting that the shift to a market economy tends to jeopardize living standards and institutions more than the other way around ahah; perhaps you don't realize it but that's your own deduction. Today the vast majority of poor and very poor countries are capitalist countries; capitalism doesn't systematically increase wealth it doesn't work that way; the causality is reversed, because a state industrializes it becomes more liberal by developing a bourgeois class that will in fine strive to increase its rights. The French Revolution for example was bourgeois; among the first measures taken by the Jacobins were liberal ones such as the abolition of guilds. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chapelier_Law_1791) No that's not it; words have a definition.

I want a girlfriend who talks about me like that

Imperialism means the exploitation and oppression of one people by another; carrying out a coup d'état is not imperialism. Stalin isn't USSR, even less communism/marxism. Stalin did not "steal" Eastern Europe, eastern europe developed under communism; you can say that Stalin was a dictator and that the Eastern Bloc countries were de facto satellite states yes, but they weren't colonies and these states industrialized. China was broken up into several random states controlled by warlords so the western countries could sell goods especially opium; drugs lol; that's an example of imperialism, as Lenin meant. India wasn't even colonized by the British state but by the British East India Company which was basically the equivalent of FedEx today lol. Then there was the random partitioning of Africa, the settlement of Ashkenazi Jews in Palestine, Rohingya in Burma etc. There was the displacement of Chechens in the USSR because Stalin was afraid of their nationalism and nationalisms in general; but again it was Stalin and this was denounced and reversed by Khrushchev after Stalin's death.

Average french moustache

What are you getting at

Idk because I did and continue to do this and it works; and I see plenty of older people who have socialized a lot and are neurotic. Because socialization isn't just about humans but objects in general, it's the "territorialization" as Deleuze would say so in fact socialization happens everywhere and all the time; when you vape your watermelon-flavored e-cigarette you're socializing with it.

That's about me

https://webmshare.com/play/5JObn

Indeed Lenin made a mistake; he should have pulled the elder wand out of his ass and fixed the collapse in production caused by World War I, the Civil War, and the droughts. Meanwhile in the following decade Stalin's USSR experienced has been the greatest growth in population, living standards, and industrialization in modern history with the semi-planned economy of Deng Xiaoping's China. And you say this as if I were some great defender of Lenin; all I did was post a book of his that addresses the issue raised by OP.

It was a giant, cold, reactionary shithole under a constitutional monarchy. Russia did not become the Soviet Union; the Soviet Union was a federation like the United States, and Russia was a state. The Russian Soviet Socialist Republic

With a harpoon

What do you mean.

De facto of nothing because Imperialism is just a word to which we give a meaning and I've been using the one given by Lenin this whole time. The topic is about the invasion of states by the United States for their resources; I posted this book because it is what Lenin was talking about when using this term; and there is no hypocrisy because the invasions of the Soviet Union—whatever one may think of them—have no pecuniary interest. In the sense of personal benefits for a class of people. The United States wages war because of lobbyists; that's essentially what Lenin described. There were no lobbyists in the Soviet Union, nor was there ethnic domination. Here you're associating warmongering with imperialism; but we don't care what you think because we're not playing with the notion of imperialism you have in your head, but with Lenin's one. Just because you stop waging war doesn't mean production will magically rebound; the USSR wasn't operating in a war economy like it was against Germany. But as you yourself say, there is a geostrategic interest in these interventions. It's a case of "the end justifies the means," as Trotsky would say.

And you have the right not to know how to read. I didn't deny that Lenin was an interventionist and invaded states; I denied that it was for imperialist purposes.

Vladimir Lenin; the most known communist thinker after Marx and Engels; and the one who sponsored rusian revolution and who ruled URSS some years before dying.

There was an invasion of the new Polish state in an attempt to impose Bolshevism. We can think what we want of this intervention but imperialism is a spoiling venture; which was not at all Lenin's objective.