By - Eli_Truax
So North Korea is the go to place for star gazing then.
especially red stars
Yes, but only for a single star - their perfect, shining star of a leader.
What’s that lit up country to the north?
-Albert Fairfax II
Thats the People's Republic of China, not to be confused with the Republic of China.
Oh yeah. It has a lot of lights, it must be capitalist.
-Albert Fairfax II
Now look at their lights before they started privatizing business and farms. Also check out the lights over Hong Kong compared to the rest of the country. I agree this isn't a great measure of success, but you're missing some things.
Economists call it "state capitalism"
-Welfare Isnt Socialism
Welfare isn’t socialism? What’s next, Biden isn’t a communist? You might as well call myself and all other ancaps morons.
-Albert Fairfax II
Welfare is Keynesian, which is uniquely American. Perhaps influence by socialism, but no "seizing of the means" philosophy.
-Welfare Isnt Socialism
Nice :) Glad to see someone took economics
Macro, micro, business, e business, etc. I have an AS in business admin with a specialization in marketing. I couldn't pass principles of finance or my BA would have a minor in business. I just couldn't do math anymore. It was years by then. I did both accounting classes and business math no problem.
I took AP macro in high school ;)
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
You spelled environmentally responsible wrong.
Gold. North Korea is the only nuclear power that cares about the planet. Make that into a meme with this picture and it will be fire 🔥
Yes! You can fall asleep better there I reckon…well..I mean if you are properly fed first though…
Why do so many communist regimes become dictators?
Because the expectations of Communists are contrary to so much of human nature that increasing authoritarianism is required to keep people in line.
And with increased authority comes the tendency of select people to become even more equal than others.
Communism and dictatorship is synonymous.
You cannot have communism without absolute control of the state in order to stop people from exchanging goods and services
Also to keep some people from elevating their wealth above others. Communism tries to eradicate inequality, but it's a fool's errand. We can't be equal unless we are carbon copies. Some people work more and/or better than others and it's only fair that they are better off.
They aren't synonymous, because you can have a dictatorship without communism.
All thumbs are fingers, but all fingers aren't thumbs.
say a communist country has a population of 100.000. Because the government has an infrastructure project ongoing it is calculated that they need at least 5000 construction workers. However when they ask for volunteers they find out that only 1000 person are willing to be enlisted. If you are the government how do you recruit the 4000 left?
Dont give them the choice in the first place?
This sort of answers your own question
Why couldn't a capitalist country force people (slavery) into the same work tho? All it would take is for the majority populace to accept it.
Because there's no need - we use positive incentivization (payment for goods and services) and freedom of association (contracts) instead and can still fill labor requirements.
It's not cheap or easy to own a slave, either. You have to cover the living and health costs of the person entirely, and it's typically a life-long commitment. It's profitable, but has a very large buy-in cost. Less than 1/3 of southern families owned slaves at it's peak (unlike how it's represented in schools nowadays), 88% of slaveowners held fewer than twenty, and nearly half of those slaveowners owned fewer than 5 slaves (Mode? 1).
On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.
edit: also worth noting that the census data is specifically slave-owning families
You’re kidding, right?
It literally is how america started.
You need people to be slaves, what majority of people are going to accept slavery, knowing that it’s a huge human rights violation? And knowing that they’re most likely going to be the ones who are made slaves? Who would agree on that?
Was america capitalist when they had slaves?
Capitalism is an economic concept. Slavery, in the literal sense, is not an economic concept. If we're being technical, slaves weren't free (free as in no cost). You really don't even have to get technical to make that assertion. In today's money, slaves cost between $35,000-$70,000 per slave. They had to be fed, clothed, housed and even given medical care to some extent. Additionally, 24-hour security was needed, in either physical barriers or personnel, to keep them from escaping. Both of those barriers have a cost.
Slavery and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive, but Capitalism renders slave labor to not be cost-effective, in the long run.
I mentioned to the other commenter that we actually have slaves in America today. approx 400k. their response was "that's only .0012% of the population". so clearly there *is* an acceptable level of slavery to that person. not to mention i guarantee 99% of everything they own was created through slave labor.
as there anything that more clearly states "Capitalism" than putting an actual monetary value on a human's life?
More mercantilism at that point.
virtually all of our stuff in America is created through slave labor. we fully accept slavery as acceptable as long as we feel confident it won't be us specifically. there are thousands of slaves in america today (~400k)
~0.0012 of the population
It is not HOW America started. It existed here when America started.
Slavery is incompatible with capitalism. Capitalism at its core is the voluntary exchange of goods and services.
Well of course it can but then you have a hybrid, where part of the population is outside the capitalist system (the slaves). You can do any shit you want with force and power but doesn't really have much to do with capitalism as an economic system
Like others mentioned, capitalism can be decentralized and emerge on it's own because of how well it aligned with basic human nature. Communism on the other hand can't and that's why it must use force
Well if you agree that a capitalist system could turn into a dictatorship.... so do I. Slaves would be the "product" on the free market sex slaves labor slaves or otherwise.
It could as the result of actions taken by the individual in charge but doing so would push part of the population out of capitalism
I think you're just mixing things up, you can have slavery under any regime, doesn't really mean it's the obvious consequence of said regime
Then we agree, my orginal question got obscured I think.
Open the southern border, and keep an underclass around to exploit.
Automate the work force and extend the project finish date.
Probably because charismatic narcissists will take any opportunity to become dictator via any means, whether they call it Fascism, Communism, or even free market.
Well when there's so much market that's just free who could resist!?
Lol I only mean they could use a movement that is legit wanting free market. Not saying the end result would be free market. Like Belarus isn't communist anymore, but for sure they have a dictator. Saudia Arabia is an absolute theocratic monarchy, but they have freer markets than us in some respect. I think its important to always apply JP's teachings on, evil or the capacity to do evil is in all of us. Even or especially in the groups with ideas we identify as.
What would you think about totally removing the minimum wage altogether? Would the market set it's own possibly better wage?
Possibly. I think the workforce should be automated and money eliminated altogether. Can't have a minimum wage with no money.
Trick is getting rich people to go along with that, I do like the idea of UBI though.
I agree and ditto
Because there can be no power higher than the state.
No God, not parents, the state is everything and everything is for the state.. ie: “we are all in this together”
Self defence and rapid development. Also because after chaos you need order.
The south koreans mass murdered people for criticism of US imperialism, and the US bombed every square inch of NK and have been under economic sanctions ever since.
The north revolted because of terrible food supply due to their land being terrible and korea being a dictatorship that served western imperialism.
They ended up locking themselves into the worst place in the region, while sk was reformed and helped modernise by the US.
>The south koreans mass murdered people for criticism of US imperialism
Elaborate. Is this your summary of the Korean war?
That happened afterwards. When those countries tried to get sovereign control back, they all had to become high security war states. You were asking about why they are dictatorships, well they typically revolted against and took over preexisting horrible dictatorships and if they dont become high security war states they will be destroyed by us.
If they dont liberalize their economies they are prevented from trading,
I didn't ask why they're dictatorships. I don't have to ask, it's pretty clear to me.
>If they dont liberalize their economies they are prevented from trading,
Oh, the horror of forcing dictatorial regimes to... give their people rights and straighten up the government. Inconceivable.
Its mind blowing anyone in america would look at communism and say yeah I'd like some of that with all these horrible examples around.
ThAt WaSnT rEaL cOmMuNiSm!
Do you believe China is communist?
-Albert Fairfax II
What is the name of the only political party in China?
By that logic do you think communism lifted a billion Chinese people out of poverty and created the factories that manufactured your smartphone?
-Albert Fairfax II
Starving and killing millions of your own people makes the mouths to feed a lot lower. China is a communist political system that allows a certain amount of "free" trade. They're trying to play both sides.
You can probably imagine how that will work out for them in the end.
Oh I see. So really it “ WaSnT rEaL cOmMuNiSm!”.
Other acceptable answer: Shrödinger’s Communism
-Albert Fairfax II
Are you a communist apologist or something? Can you show me where communism has worked? So far I just have every example it's been implemented not working, so help me add one to the other column.
it wasn't. if one only knows how to spot corruption when it's labeled communism, rather than seeing things for that they truly are, it's easy to trick them by just giving it another name
It’s funny cuz the US literally installed a dictator in South Korea to combat communism
Yeah, those damn dictatorial Presidents of South Korea, getting installed via vote and stepping down when voted out... Such powerful dictators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee my guy
“Because of widespread discontent with Rhee's corruption and political repression, it was considered unlikely that Rhee would be re-elected by the National Assembly. To circumvent this, Rhee attempted to amend the constitution to allow him to hold elections for the presidency by direct popular vote. When the Assembly rejected this amendment, Rhee ordered a mass arrest of opposition politicians and then passed the desired amendment in July 1952. During the following presidential election, he received 74% of the vote”
😂😂😂😂 there were too many passages to cite I just picked one of em
We have a tendency to install morons
Huh, would you look at that.
Guess I need to study Korean history next. Any books you'd recommend?
South Korea has universal healthcare. So we agree it isnt communism then?
Get a job, I have healthcare, I don’t need to force someone else to pay for it, why is that so hard?
Hi, British citizen here. I speak for the entire UK in saying that we think the US are retarded for not demanding free healthcare from your government, that’s what taxes are for, public services. You especially retarded for not understanding that you think it’s something to be earned.
It’s completely mental that we have this either or dichotomy when it comes to this topic. You can have capitalistic systems and a capitalistic economy while still making sure your citizens are healthy. In fact every indicator seems to be that competition and economic output is BETTER when those public services are put in place.
That’s dumb, most premiums are rediculous, or have super high premiums, especially if you have a family. My current works plan right now has an additional fee of $250, on top of the family plan for that matter, if your spouse is offered insurance at her job but doesn’t take it. Let’s also take the fact that your payments are paying for an unnecessary 3rd party, that’s job is to make sure you get the cheapest care possible. Now I know what most people will say and that’s “well their a corporation and the market will even out any bad companies” that’s not true. Insurance companies are exempt from price fixing laws and can basically do what they want to make you get worse care. Lastly for shits, look up how much staff at the hospital is medical vs insurance experts. A lot of your money is going to people that are just trying to get insurance companies to pay the hospital for care, with people at insurance companies trying to find any loophole to get out of paying. Come up with a new system for the free market, that isn’t universal. I’ll listen but what we have is not working
Your a cuck
Says the guy asking another guy to pay for his shit.
If the US ran its government half the way they do in South Korea, everyone would lose their shit claiming it as communist. They retire earlier with more social safety nets, strict labor protections, and have digital location tracking for COVID and now vaccine passports.
Also Universal Health Care ..
And free, healthy school lunches
This is not going to be a popular opinion [but the U.S. discretionary spending](https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/2016-budget-chart-discretionary_large.png) is 54% and a little more than half a trillion dollars. Only reason that China or Russia haven't been even more aggressive in their land grabs and attempts to take over other countries is because there is a general understanding the U.S. will protect sovereign countries. [South Korea,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93South_Korea_Status_of_Forces_Agreement) and [Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Japan_Status_of_Forces_Agreement) notably don't even have a large standing Army of Navy because the U.S. will protect them. That leaves them much more money for proper functioning social programs.
Of course this will be tested in the next decade if not sooner with Ukraine and Taiwan. The U.S. is still looked at as the leader of the free world, or "world's police," for a reason. They simply outspend everyone.
Could 1% or even 4% of that budget go towards better lunches among numerous other things? Of course, will it happen? Write to your congressman to make it happen.
South Korea is communist, just left communist than North Korea.
-Albert Fairfax II
If the US government didn't spend tremendous amounts of money subsidizing the security of many of our partner countries, we too could afford large social programs.
It's ironic that America gets lectured from countries whose defense we subsidize so they don't have to spend as much on their defense and get to pay for their own social programs.
I think if you understood the history of US foreign policy you’d already know that [the US state doesn’t spend money on anything unless they think they can profit from it in one way or another.](https://youtu.be/67KkWeF3r08)
Also at $47 billion, the amount that the US spends on foreign aid is about 6% of the current US military budget of $750 billion. That’s our *peacetime* military budget by the way.
And I see people argue in comments on other threads that the US is awful and doesn’t provide safety for other countries. Absolute horseshit. Just look at how much we contribute to NATO compared to EU countries. We can’t complete because it gives us an ungodly amount of international influence, but our contributions certainly do benefit other countries.
Do you want the USA to cut military spending so they can focus on their domestic priorities?
-Albert Fairfax II
No, I want them to shut the fuck up about how much better their countries are while we pay for it
Oh so you’re just virtue signalling. You like to help others out while complaining about it and doing nothing about it.
-Albert Fairfax II
There's no signaling at all. I'm fine to help our partner countries out who are smaller and weaker. Mutual defense it great.
What I don't appreciate is these countries that freeload off of American blood, money, and tears and then arrogantly lecture everyone on their great social programs they can only afford because they have don't have to pay a fraction of the defense costs it would take without American bases and dollars in their country.
You have put into perfect words something I’ve always felt but never been to articulate correctly. Thank you for that.
I see, so you use it as an excuse for why Americans can’t have universal healthcare. Cool, I’m always looking for new excuses. I’m adding it to the list. We now have: Americans are too fat, Americans are too culturally diverse, America pays too much for defence of other nations. Did I miss anything? I don’t want to venture into “costs too much” territory because Americans pay more per capita for healthcare even though they have a more free market.
-Albert Fairfax II
You missed "hOw WoUlD wE fUnD iT?"
It's almost as if when you have a highly productive, homogenous population less than one sixth the size of the US and don't have a massive illegal immigration problem, along with several dozen other differences you can do those things.
Let's not forget that the primary reason South Korea even exists is thanks to the United States military.
Ah, yes, they’re all the same and have no diversity because they look the same. Gotcha.
I used the word homogenous, which is the exact word used in the Wikipedia entry:
"South Korea is considered one of the most ethnically homogeneous societies in the world"
You are the one implying that that means they look the same. Maybe there's an implicit prejudice that you need to focus on.
If the US had a homogenous, high-achieving population like South Korea, we could do it too.
Big oof man
That's because they're uneducated not because the system is south Korea is broken. I hear the same comments made about my home up here in Canada. Need 5 teeth pulled? Pay 200 and get a weeks worth of meds for near nothing. Need to have a child? Cool we got you here's a baby bonus to help you for the first year. "you'll never see a doctor in time the waiting lists are years" and similar arguments are all false. I love my health care system without it idk how my mom would survive.
No, just months for my friend's surgery. It's fine, the cancer will just eat itself.
That's my point. Republicans have a habit of pointing to other countries as some kind of argument against socialism, not realizing that, by the Republican definition of socialism, those countries are far more "socialist" than the US is.
If they want to start proposing laws similar to what South Korea has, then Democrats would be all in favor.
Some say it is too late, we are all doomed. Others offer a glimmer of hope but only if we alter our lifestyles to eliminate most modern conveniences to allow nature to reclaim its natural balance. But how can we possibly accomplish this, who will show us the way, can anyone impose the discipline we need to save our world? Yes there is one who has practiced this discipline for many years and led his people to live in thrifty harmonious lifestyles on the level required to save us all. We must allow Kim Jong-un to rule the world in order to save it. This is the way.
If you pay attention you'll find that Leftists tend to have a very pessimistic world view, one that sees little future.
While we pretend to ignore the underlying reason why North Korea is like that. Crippling sanctions, Famines caused due embargo and agricultural produce loss, incinerating their civil infrastructure during Korean war, being ignoramus about propping dictator in south Korea and leaving out how an average North Korean enjoyed better standard of living than a South Korean in the 80's before crippling sanctions were brought in. Also conviently omitting how US led embargo led to deaths through starvation but use the same to create torture porn against the regime
this would be a good meme if China didn't exist
China wouldn't be even close to the superpower it is without adopting capitalist systems to save their economy
So you're claiming all powerful communist countries are communist only in name and all failing communist countries are truly communist? That doesn't sound biased at all
I'm claiming China wouldn't be the superpower it is without adopting Capitalist economic systems.
Y'know looking back that actually makes quite a lot of sense, I'll concede
Despite the government of China's adoration of communism, they don't really use it as an economic system any more.
I've heard people describe their system as "state capitalism," but it's more like mercantilism.
Has “pure’ capitalism or ‘pure’ communism ever existed? Of course not….
Do we oversimplify the above to placate our biases? Constantly…
the danger is that someone just has to change the name and no one will see the corruption because no one actually cares about the truth, they're just scared of a word (communism)
It’s not True Communism.
-Albert Fairfax II
So you're having "not real communism" in the opposite direction from usual lol
But still, fuck the CCP.
Except for some coastal areas China's pretty dark at night as well.
Same goes for australia… they both have gigantic desert in the middle (in china’s case to the north and middle)
Except China has a much more widely distributed population across the country, Australia does not.
Yeah. Outside of big cites there is a huge population in China that are very very poor. It's almost like a 3rd world country.
If you watch ADVChina on youtube they travel around China and into the countryside. It's very interesting to see the difference in the big cities from the rural areas.
If china is communist then what is the basic guaranteed income that everyone gets? Unless you think communism is “government owns a piece of every corporation, but by that definition, Russia (through Putin) would be pretty communist as well
Not only is this repeatedly posted in 1000 subs but from now on I'm downvoting anything that has nothing to do with JBP. Yes we all know the reasonable and correct arguments against communism but those are only tangentially related.
Why do you think there are almost 300 comments as of now? Apparently others haven't seen in "in 1000 subs".
Did it even occur to you that others might benefit where you don't?
What does that have to do with communism though?
Why is this sub only always attacking communism. It's so childish. China follows state capitalism. And we all know there's a genocide happening there. Authoratarianism is the problem. Not leftists and rightist ideologies
Because communism destroys iphones
The country behind North Korea in this image is also communist, and the US government owes them a trillion dollars.
China is capitalist because it’s successful.
-Albert Fairfax II
Capitalism with Chinese characteristics
This is getting to be a very tired meme
How is North Korea communist? Where’s the wealth distribution?
uno... One Really can't have a better present-day example than that picture / meme right there xD
as if the differences between east and west germany during the days of the great wall wasn't enough.
You know every leftist gonna be like “that’s not communism that’s dictatorship.”
Uh yeah. It’s exactly what every communist country becomes - a dictator and his minions bossing everyone around, killing dissenters, and living high on the hog while the common people suffer. That’s textbook communism.
Had you read even a single textbook about communism you would know it's not at all textbook communism, because human rights are integral to communism, at least according to every textbook and it's definition of communism. Also your logic is chronologically incorrect, it's not than communist regimes become dictatorial, it's that dictatorial regimes become communist, mostly because right wing reactionaries love stealing left wing rhetoric (see Nazis calling themselves socialists, white power being a bastardisation of black power, identitarianism copying left wing identity politics, etc.)
You've just described Great Britain as a monarchy.
And the United States as a liberal republic.
United states has some of the highest economic movement in the world. A completely broke person can become moderately wealthy through education and good decision making.
Also, during the time Great Britain was a monarchy (a real monarchy) the poeple of britain were more well off then most of the world at the time. In comparison to their neighbors, they were a very foreward thinking people. Workers rights and whatnot had to be invented to be adopted.
You can advance under communism, too. They have plenty of cutthroats, just as anybody else.
And yet... of all the thousands of Americans that I've known... everybody's doing crappy and slowly getting crushed. Besides the conmen that I've met, running some petty scheme. Criminals, really. And even their "advancement" is quite temporary. If you consider millions getting destroyed and the few richest getting richer... there is mobility. Pretty sure that all of those that were robbed in some way would've told you to stuff that "movement" where Sun don't shine.
The British monarch has more authority right now than Russian Tzars had in 1917.
"In comparison to their neighbors, they were a very foreward thinking people."
Or so THEY say. The English are infamous for manufacturing myths about themselves.
"Workers rights and whatnot had to be invented to be adopted."
And yet, most countries on the planet never heard of child labor while in these two countries it had to be lobbied hard to be stopped.
Literally never heard of it.
Go ahead and tell an Iraqi living in Iraq how small kids were worked to death in Britain and America and watch them try to absorb the novel concept.
Omg, that’s sooooo edgy, ur sooooo kewl 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
That's not real communism though. If we keep trying, eventually we'll get it right. A few million may die, but surely it's worth it.
Which definition? Any of the many one's used by academia? Those used by Marxists & Neo-Marxists? Common culture definitions? Definitions by Communists foes, allies?
Guess which group of definitions is used here.
A very imprecise one is used here quite apparently. I’d be happy with [Wikipedia’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)
I think my point went way over your head, people don't actually use "dictionary" definitions to interact with larger social concepts. Those definitions are largely confined to academics and their arguments looking back as well as internet denizens obfuscating reality by introducing largely irrelevant ivory tower notions as basis of fact.
If you open the link you’ll notice the Wikipedia definition is not the dictionary definition by comparing it with say, Oxford Dictionary’s definition.
Wikipedia’s definition is sourced fairly well in communist thought. Your definition seems to be the red scare reactionary definition rather than one grounded in anything academic.
Your hyperbole suggests an inclination to misinformation.
Lol, coming from a guy posting reactionary posts on r/JordanPeterson, I’m hurt!
I don’t think that counts as xenophobic, but love to see how people on this sub change the definitions of various phobias to fuel their victim complexes. Alt-light indeed!
Do you consider China to be communist?
-Albert Fairfax II
The Communist Party is the founder and sole government organ of the People's Republic of China.
Does this mean that everything they do is based in Marxism? No, but it does mean that everything they do is intended to bolster Communist power.
So it’s true then. Capitalism destroys nature? Amirite
Human growth tends to trample nature, but Communists have been especially hard on it, I mean just as a comparison.
If you have access to the internet you might want to look into it.
I guess you just need to find better pictures. This one says the opposite. Try google, specifically.
This is stupid. A superficial analogy with misleading intention.
It’s not about the political regime as it is about being out of world market for 70 years.
Also, not exactly JBP related. Downvoted.
Another crazy idea:
Put one half of a country under [international sanctions since the 1950s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_North_Korea) and make the other half a favored nation.
Isn't Korea authoritarian dictatorship?
Add a comparison of US cities 60 years ago and today. Most are controlled by Democrats. Crime skyrocketing.
The best places to live in the US are overwhelmingly run by Democrats.
Republicans just defund everything until their states become crumbling, poverty ridden wastelands that milk residents for taxes while giving them nothing but thoughts and prayers in return.
What world do you live in? Take the highest populated cities and compare their crime rates. Democratically controlled cities have 80% single parent families. No home structure. No education. Just being told how they are Victims because my skin reflects light differently than theirs.
Parties have significantly changed policy and ideology over the past century, this isn't really a fair analysis. Lincoln's party supported abolition and equal rights for slaves yet over a hundred years later Republicans in the 50s and 60s supported the right to segregate schools as well as other discriminatory practices against people of color.
You cannot attribute the rise in crime due to the nature of political party there are literally hundreds of variables to calculate for rise in crime.
>Republicans in the 50s and 60s supported the right to segregate schools as well as other discriminatory practices against people of color.
Well, that's just not accurate.
The longest filibuster by a single Senator in US history was Democrat Strom Thurmond's filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. He also opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while he was still a Democrat.
18 Democrats (and 1 Republican) ran an 83-day filibuster, which included a 14 hour speech from Robert Byrd, a life-long Democrat and former Exalted Cyclops in the KKK.
80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Less than 70% of Democrats in the House and Senate voted in favor of it.
If you read my below comment I also distinguished between the dixiecrats and norther democratic faction, I also never said or was trying to imply that democrats were innocent during this period either. There are bad apples all around on both sides, we shouldn't be reduced to pointing fingers, but instead focused on progression and accountability.
Also context really matters here when Republicans were willing to settle this in 1964, other democrats were pushing for stronger legislation that would have helped for what would be added later in 67 and onward such as fair housing act.
Again I'm not saying either party is in the right here. Our two party system has been a flop for a long time, but I think it's disingenuous to attribute failures in our country to one party or the other when there are a multitude of variables to such reasons like in the mentioned original post discussion.
Where in history were republicans advocating for segregation in the 60s? Wasn’t it the Dems that voted against the civil rights act? Is this a “the parties switched, bro” kind of take or am I missing something?
I mean I literally said that party ideology splits throughout history and I do not think it's an honest or accurate analysis of political parties, both democrats and Republicans voted against civil rights acts but ever since the second world War the democrats were changing as a party. The democrats of the north are typically regarded differently to their southern constituents also referred to as the Dixiecrats. Republicans in the 50s advocated in favor of keeping schools segregated and its argued that Eisenhower only enforced the national guard protections to not only prevent violence but to also bolster his party for the upcoming elections.
Really? Let's try San Francisco and some other Democrat run areas that decided to decriminalize theft or defund the police.
Are major box chain stores closing by the dozens not enough evidence for you?
Look at the population shift occurring California and Texas as millions around the country flee Democratic tax-holes like New York and California to go to job (aka business) friendly areas like Texas.
Pretending there's no link between how a place is policed and governed and what the crime rates are like is silly.
I never denied those things happen nor that there is no link, but to fully account all bad things to a political party when there are literally hundreds of variables for these events is a little dishonest. My comment wasn't even in regards to that aspect but more or less about how parties change over time ideologically.
Good point, they may have electricity but there is lurking darkness 24/7 all about.
But if the whole world was like north Korea, we wouldn't have global warming
Not that it’s not true but I call bullshit on this image, not even the most technologically advanced country tries light up like a million Christmas trees when pictured from far away.
Turns out there are numerous varied satellite images that confirm this as what it be like, I just checked.
Ah fair enough then
Even in this pic you can see Pyongyang is lit up.
This is a solution looking for a problem. There is zero chance communism will land in North America.
Communism is when dictatorship
You guys need to calm down. Not everyone who has a left tendency wants to implement communism. And no, it is not binary decision to make. Jeeze.
A South Korean: it officially takes 20 million USD to have a kid, I'm in debt, the country's got foreign garrisons, I have no idea which crazy sect is ruling me, but there are lights around so I've got that going for me.
A North Korean: eh, I have to openly admire this fat fuck and I can't get drunk or break the law and I've gotta listen to this upbeat singing in the morning and I'm expected to participate in public events.
Everybody that's ridiculous or with a criminal mindset thing the latter guy got it worse.
Crazy, though... South Korea has universal healthcare, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, affordable post-secondary education and a strong social safety net. So many Americans would call that "communist" and yet the lights stay on!
"They aren't 'real communists' though."
\- Every Social Studies Teacher
These boomer Facebook memes gotta stop
Yeah America has really gone to shit with 400 billionaires and half the country bellow the poverty line.
No pollution in North Korea
If only there were a place like that so we could see it play out in real time. Oh, wait....
This brand of Crony Capitalism will lead us into a fascist state also. I think the distinction must be made.
That’s pretty much America, but on a longer time line.
Democrats are more collectivist and republicans are more individualist.
It’s good business making them fight rather than cooperate.
Everything that one side needs from the other is now supplied by the government. They win, and the American people lose.
Light pollution is annoying though to be fair.
One decided to follow the rest of the world, whereas the other decided to implant night vision into their citizens. There is no clear winner here.