“You call our country Amerikkka and cheer on when our troops are killed or maimed overseas”

60

"cheer on when our troops are killed or maimed overseas" idk man the way youre talking really seems like either you dont agree with all of the points mentioned. troops shouldnt be there. the troops are there to exploit those countries so we can remain as the "economic superpower" our adversaries largely dont do anything, our allies often are problematic.

43

Anonymous #4 1w

cant have all those things together man its just not possible. us economic power is literally not internal. either you bring the troops home and lose that, or you have the troops there and theyre doing awful shit and kinda earn what they get. our adversaries are determined mostly by economic needs, and our troops fight those fake adversaries. its a spool of bullshit

31

“Cheer on when our troops are killed” sure Bud. Do you remember who started this stupid ass war? Aside from the actual fact of starting a war without congressional approval, it was supposed to last a couple weeks. Now it’s lasted months and has cost over 40 billion dollars. 19 service members dead. But don’t worry we’re changing the plaque to the department of war so we’re cooler. Fuck you and fuck trump

36

And “cheering on adversaries” is insane trump just sent 40,000 bombs to Israel and you morons still think it’s America first

41

oh look, the dumb fuck stopped responding once his point was contested. what a surprise /s

35

You’re ability to read is not very good i see. Because i don’t want the troops to die, i think they are in a shitty useless war that president pedo started so people would stop talking Epstein. Im not happy they’re being blown up, and I’ll continue to use my brain to fight against the person putting them out there for no reason.

7

Anonymous #9 1w

Your* which is so ironic considering my first sentence, but its what i get for not proofreading.

15

The United States murdered over one million innocent civilians in Iraq and operated concentration camps. Of course I want US imperialism to fall, its killed 200,000 people in Libya, 300,000 in Afghanistan, 600,000 in Syria, and the list goes on

11

Anonymous #5 1w

Post a link to said research

-9

Anonymous #12 1w

I personally don’t agree but here’s the study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656625000704

12

Anonymous #10 1w

Lmfao please tell me how I'm the one who is brainwashed and not the person resisting making their life better

6

Anonymous #7 1w

Being a communist, I disagree. From Chairman Mao: “Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions. There is the ‘patriotism’ of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler, and there is our patriotism. Communists must resolutely oppose the ‘patriotism’ of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler”

2

Anonymous #7 1w

Well… we beat the Nazis/Imperial Japanese + several tyrannical dictators. Our scientists/environmentalists have saved numerous endangered species. We secure global trade a deter hostile aggression between other countries just through our forward presence alone. America certainly isn’t getting 5/5 stars on yelp, but I wouldn’t rush to give it a 1/5 star review and hold hate in your heart for an entire country.

-1

Anonymous #12 1w

Saying we stop aggression between other countries when our actions in the Middle East are causing a global oil crisis is an extremely funny thing to say Also we’ve installed multiple dictators in countries we thought were getting a little too socialist for our tastes

6

Anonymous #2 1w

I was more referencing our naval footprint in SE Asia + the pacific theater but I was personally part of the stabilization efforts combating Iran taking American flagged/American protected vessels through the straights years ago. This war with Iran has been happening far longer than people want to admit. We are just finally going on the offensive now.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

But you’re right about the installing dictators thing. I would hope our “friends” and I really hesitate to call them that, in the intelligence community learned their lesson from that. It’s a terrible long term solution for regional stability.

4

Anonymous #12 1w

They do not care about regional stability. Dictators backed by the US are fantastic trading partners, and an unstable region creates demand for weapons & military technology. These and other factors form the motivations for US intervention in a place

2

Anonymous #14 1w

Yeah it’s an okay plan for 5 to 10 years, but everything comes back around. We were fighting the children (grown up by then) of the generation that my team leaders had killed (their parents) in Iraq’s initial invasion. People don’t forget when you take something like family away from them for the sake of resources or power. They just want their parents back. Easier to do business (I guess) short term, but a very wicked way to do business if you plan on existing more than a decade.

4

Anonymous #12 1w

I can see that you’re coming at this from the direction of sustainability. While it would be ideal if business leaders approached their enterprises this way, it is to their disadvantage for them to do so. Those who gain massively in the short term out-compete those prioritizing stability in the long term. By the nature of the economy, they are incentivized to conduct themselves in this “very wicked way”. Because business that put profits before anything else have an advantage, stability suffers

1

Anonymous #14 1w

Do they? Cuz right now most of them are sitting on so many assets that exist digitally alone a certain software might indicate most of the SP500 is committing fraud with every quarterly earnings report. The well seems to have run dry on what could get sucked out of the public without causing a total global financial meltdown/famine. But as always, time will tell. It’s the great scale balancer even if this was a problem that took generations to create.

0

Anonymous #14 1w

I mean it benefits my former coworkers in those intelligence services to just kill every business leader that thinks that way so their kids don’t end up wrapped up in an economy centered around cultivating hoards of enemies for them to fight off with drone swarms. Sort of cover their tracks for the mistakes of decades past.

0

Anonymous #14 1w

I don’t imagine they are committing to doing that, but if they were short term thinkers still, they might.

1

Anonymous #12 1w

Once again, you are displaying a lot more of a moral backbone than the most successful businessmen. But you are right to say that it often doesn’t benefit individual businessmen to act this way. Those willing to forego the most of their morals will have an advantage: this does not secure success every time, but it does provide enough of an advantage such that companies tend towards resource extraction with reckless abandon.

1

Anonymous #14 1w

There’s a reason that CEOs are about 20x as likely to be psychopaths: these are the most likely people to succeed. You also note that “[t]he well seems to have been run dry on what could get sucked out of the public without causing a total global financial meltdown/famine”. This tendency towards extraction is precisely what causes global financial meltdowns. When the economy reaches its breaking point in the boom/bust cycle, this sort of crisis occurs. TRPF makes this an inevitable thing

8

Anonymous #2 1w

oh nooo not the oil prices we should appease authoritarian regimes whenever it is financially convenient

1

Anonymous #14 1w

You appear to know your stuff #14. Kudos. That was very well stated/explained. It would be an interesting study to note the amount of business type psychopaths relative to the amount of military/intelligence type psychopaths and the interplay between them. I’m of the impression whatever the truth to that Luigi situation was, it was some sort of tipping point. Not that Luigi seemed like a professional of some former military/intelligence background, but all my coworkers who examined that 1/2

1

Anonymous #14 1w

2/2 after the details were released, had to admit despite his lack of formal training, his planning/execution was impressive for someone with limited resources.

1

Anonymous #14 1w

Do you have any proposed solutions for dealing with or at least disincentivizing that drive for rapid extraction?

1

Anonymous #14 1w

Consider the hypothetical: let’s say you had most of the resources of the U.S. Government at your disposal as potential tools for a solution/disincentivisaiton.

1

Anonymous #12 1w

This is an interesting question. I will approach it from three different perspectives. If I were a Republican, I would cut social safety programs and taxes for companies and the rich. The rationale for this seems to be “Giving companies free rein makes the economy do well. If the economy does well, people do well.” In a sense, they’re right. They recognize that a crisis is bad for everyone, so in an attempt to avoid it, they benefit the corporations. This is the most charitable view.

4

Anonymous #14 1w

However, republican policymakers operate from a fundamental misunderstanding. They assume that because a crisis is bad for everyone, periods of high profit are good for everyone. This is not necessarily the case. Marx talks about this in his Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, if you are interested. The long and short of it is, workers can only increase their quality of life by increasing the undue influence of the elite over their lives…

1

Anonymous #14 1w

…This amounts to “kicking the can down the road” until the next crisis arrives.

1

Anonymous #14 1w

Certainly saw that with the COVID rebound. But please don’t let my interruption break your train of thought.

1

Anonymous #14 1w

If I were a democrat, I might prioritize building social safety nets. This allows people to function better under the existing economic system. It also benefits corporations by decreasing the cost of Social Reproduction. Because people dont have to spend as much money on healthcare, education, etc., companies can lower wages to the minimum (according to the “Iron Law of Wages”). However, several industries are against this (i.e. healthcare, insurance) and lobby against it…

1

Anonymous #14 1w

…This approach treats the symptoms of the issue, but does not address the underlying issue directly. Living in this system isn’t as bad because people have social safety nets, but these are tested when crisis rolls around. In addition, it hasn’t addressed the cause of this tendency of extraction, which is the profit motive.

1

Anonymous #14 1w

Being a communist, I must first study the economy carefully. If I put myself in the point of view of a business owner, it is a similar situation to the prisoner’s dilemma. Say that I manufacture some sort of commodity: we will use Labubu as an example, but this goes for any commodity. Say that my factory’s machines can produce 20 labubus per hour, and that I need to pay 3 people to operate the machine. It requires special skills, so I pay them each $20/hr. The materials cost $5 per labubu…

1

Anonymous #14 1w

Also assume that the machine costs $10,000 and can make 10,000 labubus before breaking. This evens out to $1 per labubu. Taken together, the constant capital (the machines and materials) come out to $6, and the cost of labor comes out to $60/20, or $3. Say the labubu sells for $15 (truthfully, I don’t know how much these cost, but if it is inaccurate, substitute any other product of your choosing—the point is to demonstrate the tendency). I therefore have $9 of costs, $15 of income, & $6 profit.

1

Anonymous #14 1w

As a business leader, I am thinking this: “I don’t even know if these things will sell, and I have to pay these workers upfront” (this is what is commonly referred to as “taking the risk”). Thus, I am incentivized to cut costs. I do not want to cut the cost of materials, or my product will suffer in quality. It is most efficient to cut my labor cost. This drives innovation in the means of production…

1

Anonymous #14 1w

Now say there is a new machine that comes out. It only requires two people to operate and produces 40 labubus per hour and 20,000 before breaking. It is $15,000. Having produced and sold 5,000 labubus at $6 profit each, I can afford it. Now, I still have to pay off the remaining $5,000 of the old machine, so here is my total: $15,000 new machine $5,000 left from old machine $20x2 workers/hour 40 labubus per hour Therefore, cost of labor per labubu = $40/40 = $1, cost of materials $5…

1

Anonymous #14 1w

And cost of machine $1 per labubu. This amounts to $7 per labubu with an $8 profit. My profit has increased, the efficiency of labor has increased, the amount of labor I need has decreased. This is advantageous for me. I keep selling my product at $15. However, I realize something: if I undercut my opponent, my products are guaranteed to sell. So, I now sell at $14 with $7 profit. Eventually, my opponents get ahold of this technology, and they copy it: now the process must begin again.

1

Anonymous #14 1w

By the repetition of this process, labor becomes more ruthless and efficient. Business leaders benefit. But because everyone does it, they all lose in the long-run. This is why I say the economy is like a giant prisoner’s dilemma. Am I explaining this in a way that makes sense?

1

Anonymous #12 1w

Absolutely, sorry I’ve been typing for a while, but yes, that would be an example

3

Anonymous #14 1w

Not to mention the cost that carries over as similar “labulu” companies trade hands via private equity and investment banks, not doing proper inventory of machines/assets. Hiking their own price for the time of sale and leaving the next bag holder with liabilities no longer recorded on line items in an attempt to dodge an investigation by the feds because “the assets weren’t in our possession when they became liabilities, we just inherited this mess” (Again, please pardon & continue)

1

Anonymous #12 1w

Yes, this is another wrinkle in the whole situation, which adds another layer of complexity. The long and short of what I’m saying is that the drive for profit by private individuals is what accelerates this race to the bottom. Even in industries not traditionally considered “extractive”, the act of producing for a profit could be considered that way (as companies attempt, in their own rational interest, to get the most out of their product). The only way to address this inherent issue is by…

1

Anonymous #14 1w

…a complete re-ordering of the political-economic structure. The profit motive cannot be removed under capitalism, which measures success by accumulation of profit; thus, continuing in this system ensures that its core issues and their consequences remain. To return to your hypothetical, given the tools and power of the US government, I would transfer the means of production to the workers themselves. This involves a change in the governmental structure, which is another issue.

1

Anonymous #14 1w

Again, hypothetically imagine the feds have dirt on 99.9% of large corporations and their executives since a specific date kicked on a search algorithm and gave them a map of all the internal corruption within the USA. Shortly after a similar algorithm (this one measuring weapons capabilities of our enemies) indicated the only sustainable economy is a decentralized small business economy. (The more centralized, the more single points of failure… think of it like arteries bleeding out if 1/2

1

Anonymous #14 1w

2/2 you have the stomach for such a thing. What, in this hypothetical, was not given, was a bridge between a decentralized small business economy, and the present situation we find ourselves in. BUT, it is enough like what you say about putting the means of production in the workers hands (in this case the owners of the small businesses) Seizing and redistributing stock/bonds is out, causes a whiplash… Instinct tells me none of the historic systems are going to be the bridge mainly due 2/3

1

Anonymous #12 1w

3/3 to, frankly it really want their fault, their inability to conceptualize technology as it exists today. But my search continues for such a bridge so if anything comes to you, please let me know. No rush. You’re welcome to DM me if this thread gets deleted.

1

Anonymous #12 1w

As you note, there will be problems with the execution of any system. The benefit of Marxism is that it is not a belief (though many people erroneously treat it that way) but a science. From my view, in order to confront the enormous issues we have in front of us, we must understand them in-depth as well as the attempts to address them. This means reading on political economy and history.

5

Anonymous #14 1w

This is why I try to get people to read Marx as much as possible. If they agree with his analysis, I’ve gained an ally. If they find fault with it, we can have a discussion and perhaps come to an improved solution. It is also important to engage with and benefit your community. I forget who said it, but there’s a quote that goes “Theory without praxis is moral self-pleasuring”.

3