MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]

Stupid tankies asking for sources. That’s basically thought police - aren’t you bozos supposed to hate the police? Hahahaha gottem.

What no theory does to a mf.

No, this isn’t trickle down economics. It’s called superprofit/super exploitation, a marxist concept. The West™ in general, but a few powers specifically (subject of our discussion here, the USA in particular) have enforced extremely brutal oppression in the global South. This has kept the global South from developing competitive or even self-sufficient industry and reliant on imports. This gives American firms a massively unfair advantage, one which is used to placate the American working class so they don’t develop solidarity with the global South. Throw in some bog standard racism and you’ve got a stable empire of misery. It’s classic divide and conquer tactics, same used to pit managers/white collar workers and more blue collar or service workers against each other. Let some people feel superior to others, and they’ll be so busy looking down they won’t mind the boot on their back standing above them.

There’s a rich body of theory here (which you are plainly ignorant of) but I would recommend reading about the phenomenon of unequal exchange by Jason Hickel

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802200005X

It’s a good starting place for understanding how wealth is extracted from the south for the north.

Unfortunately for all of us, Capitalism has a long-term rate of profit problem. Even with super exploitation profit falls in the long run. To maintain their power and the rate of profit the capitalists begin ripping out and further oppressing the once (relatively) privileged working class of the north too. That’s why social safety nets are being torn to shreds and constantly under attack, and gains in quality of life/life expectancy have either stalled or regressed in so called “rich” countries.

We say “workers of the world unite” for a reason. It’s a global struggle.

Oh, nice whattaboutism. Didn’t say shit about Russia dumbass. What the fuck does that have to do with a conversation about the US engaging in direct imperialism during the 20th century? You sick fucks are obsessed with Russia, it’s kind of cute. Like you’ve got a crush or something.

My guy I’m just talking about well recorded history here. Go Google operation Condor, or if you’re really feeling adventurous, literally any history book about Latin America. US violence and meddling is a core part of what gave the country a deeply unfair advantage. There was only dramatic reduction in poverty and a “growing middle class” because we were actively preventing that from developing abroad. Pretending foreign policy and domestic issues are separate realms is completely juvenile. Look at OPEC for the easiest example in the world.

It also coincided with the US propagating violent dictatorships and committing unparalleled war crimes abroad. The Korean War, Vietnam War, Indonesian Mass Killings, rise of the House of Saud, Shah in Iran, and incredible meddling and history of coups/death squads in Latin America.

That middle class wasn’t made by just engaging in good business, unless you consider the violence of imperialism good business… In which case absolutely go fuck yourself… But only if you stand by all that foreign aggression and murder and downstream oppression.

you would be surprised

Well, at least you’re learning something today, despite your best efforts not to.

Dunking is pointing out the stupidity and hollowness of liberal rhetoric with flare. It’s cathartic to call the smug morons who think they’re the good guys idiots with easily demonstrated facts. For example, all the self-respecting morons who have swallowed historic revisionism regarding the use of atomic weapons vaporizing 200,000+ civilians, one of the greatest war crimes of the 20th century, and still somehow think America are the good guys when it comes to foreign policy.

Your wild inferences about fear and ganging up are pretty weak logic in action lmao. You don’t know what a word means so you just guess wildly and immediately start drawing inferences from your (incorrect) guess work? You must be real cool at parties. So sorry that there’s more communists than you thought and we’re an active instance

Hey man, we’re all on this thread doing our best, but you are exhibit A for whom pig poop balls is intended for: aggressively uninquisitive, proud of it, and deserving of less than half the grace you’ll ever receive.

Do me a solid and imagine a hog with it’s own shit on its testicle, resting there like there’s no where else in universe it belongs more.

Then read theory and grow the fuck up, Jesus christ. Insufferable.

Well good news for you and your infinitely inquisitive mind, it’s less obtuse than “read the Bible.” Parenti is a scholar with a specific specialty and body of work much more relevant to your directly quoted word choice. If you had said some other kind of drivel he might have recommended Antonio Gramsci or Michael Hudson or Naomi Klein or Jason Hickel or so on and so forth. Michael Parenti’s work and specialty area just so happen to debunk your moronic claim of “redfash.” I specifically recommend the book “black shirts and reds,” If you need to be walked right up to it.

Also, LOL. LMAO even. Over here complaining about thought terminating cliches while uttering that fucking nonsense.

I don’t know, I tried to get blocked and all I got was a pathetic comment. I’ll let you know if the service around here improves.

We support dunking. We thrive on it. We’re used to libs saying the dumbest shit we’ve ever heard, but at least put a modicum of effort into your blatant lies please. Raise the hoop above our ankles, we yearn for a challenge.

If you’d actually like an in depth and informed history on the use of nuclear weapons in Japan and soviet intervention in the pacific theater of WWII, this video is an unparalleled resource in its thoroughness and conciseness.

https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go

I know there’s irony in calling a 2hour video concise, but hey, history unfolds over months and years, so cutting it down to 2 hours is in fact relatively concise.

No, you’re talking about blocking my entire comm or all it’s users one by one. That’s why I called you an insufferable lib. You are indeed quacking like a duck over here. I’m not going trip over my dick trying to get your approval when you’ve already come to such a carefully informed opinion.

Ooooohhhh do me first. I won’t even hit you with the hog, I just want one less insufferable lib to stumble upon down the road.

Non-aggression pact =/= alliance. It was signed after 7 years of hostilities along the border and in the context of existential threats to both powers being prioritized.

This is literally just shit you can read on Wikipedia, a notoriously anti-communist source. Libs do be wildin’ out here with easily dunked claims.

Which, to the outside and reasonable observer reading this thread, is why we post ppb. Just look at the word counts - how much more effort does it take for us to bend over backwards and try to coddle someone obstinate and obviously wrong? If they’re at least trying and in good faith we can put up with bad ideas, but if they’re going to be petulant from the get go, we treat them with equal respect. You mess with the bear, you get the hog.

Commanding me to read something is just a classic thought-terminating cliche.

It’s exactly the opposite actually. It’s suggesting a scholar who’s body of work directly engages with what you’re saying. It’s indicating where one might indeed do some thinking and learn more about the matter, instead of terminating all thinking with a pithy sounding nonsense statement. “It is what it is,” or, “That’s just human nature,” are thought terminating cliches. They sound informative or even profound, but if you think about them for more than 10 seconds they’re literally meaningless in contexts where they’re uttered or begging the question and terminating discussion.

I’m not trying to just do an “aha gotcha, you used a phrase wrong here!”, but thought terminating cliches are legitimately rampant in hegemonic media and liberal thought. It’s important to know what they are, and it’s more than a little painful to watch what should be a useful concept so thoroughly abused.

I want to keep on insulting the man good cop bad cop style, but now I’m learning, and I’m content to let him keep saying vapid bullshit if it means you keep posting bangers.

Thanks for your contributions.

You see, the Political Scientist major brainpan is maladapted to reflection, and quite simply incapable of grasping such remarkable and sophisticated concepts like “Hegemony.”

He’s got a MINOR in economics! And he’s here to tell us all about how beautiful and elegant the math is. You can’t really appreciate it unless you step into the rarified air surrounding an econometrics professor, you would understand if you ever tried it.

He’s pretty clearly misunderstood entirely or at least the point of 80% of what I said alone. This man is a weenie and the absolute epitome of someone who took Econ 101 and now thinks they know the secrets of the universe. It’s incredible how much air economics departments blow up their students ass. That just can’t be safe for the human body.

I STILL WANT MY MAN’S THOUGHTS ON THE CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL DEBATE.

"It is important, for the record, to recognize that key participants in the debate openly admitted their mistakes. Samuelson’s seventh edition of Economics was purged of errors. Levhari and Samuelson published a paper which began, ‘We wish to make it clear for the record that the nonreswitching theorem associated with us is definitely false. We are grateful to Dr. Pasinetti…’ (Levhari and Samuelson 1966). Leland Yeager and I jointly published a note acknowledging his earlier error and attempting to resolve the conflict between our theoretical perspectives. (Burmeister and Yeager, 1978).

However, the damage had been done, and Cambridge, UK, ‘declared victory’: Levhari was wrong, Samuelson was wrong, Solow was wrong, MIT was wrong and therefore neoclassical economics was wrong. As a result there are some groups of economists who have abandoned neoclassical economics for their own refinements of classical economics. In the United States, on the other hand, mainstream economics goes on as if the controversy had never occurred. Macroeconomics textbooks discuss ‘capital’ as if it were a well-defined concept — which it is not, except in a very special one-capital-good world (or under other unrealistically restrictive conditions). The problems of heterogeneous capital goods have also been ignored in the ‘rational expectations revolution’ and in virtually all econometric work."

(Burmeister 2000)

Awh gee, I wonder where our Poli-sci wonderboy got his degree