Akasazh

Tax by weight, because heavier cars mean more wear on the roads.

Joe cartoon!

may have been eaten with fruits such as pomegranates or dates, or dressed with spices and a type of pesto sauce

C/angryupvote

Leisure Suit Larry

Ken sent me

It takes leather balls to play rugby

Lubbers

Of the countries in discussion, I've only ever been to Cuba. Well it seems like a posterchild for succesful socialism and even a non-dynastic ruler. There are two currencies, one that you can use in basic shops and one for tourists (KUK). The thing is that everyone is trying their damdest to get their hands on the KUK's as you can only use that to buy luxury products. It's not even weird if you see what you can buy in the governement stores. It doesnt keep capitalism out, it fetishises it.

I did call European countries slightly more socialist, from an American pov, which is undeniable. There were and are 'socialist' regimes where they had trouble keeping their own people from leaving their country, just for w whiff of the sweet soma of capitalism. The priority, I think, is to first build a state where people are longing to live. And considering global migration the majority of economic refugees seeks capitalis countries. The power of money seems the driving problem, because it gets people what they want. You have to find a system that works better than money, that is the hard nut to crack, because it works harder the more of it you own.

Russia is actively helping break US domination over the world

Aha, that's the angle I missed, that makes sense in a way, thanks. I really woudn't underestimate the ability of unfettered captitalism and cronyism to break US domination on it's own. China seems to step up to the plate quite forcefully, not through arms, but through, quite literally, owning the means of production. I do only fear their power of surveillance, and I do not condone it, too orwellian for me.

--

Well I think it depends on your interpretation. I personally think the post Stalin brands of communism are doing the movement a disservice as in my view they misrepresent the communist ideology.

For instance i don't see much immigration from people in capitalist nations to any of the countries you mentioned, even not people who embrace that brand of socialism. If there's any talk about migrating from capitalist countries to more socialist ones, is usually people from the states to (slightly more) socialist places like Germany or Scandinavia.

Therefore my opinion is that communist ideas are better propagated through that manner. Armed uprisings tend to leave the most ruthless competitor in charge to get corrupted by the power and not actually following through with the communist plan and devise a brand of socialism in which them being in charge is also communist.

But i think we fundamentally disagree on that. That's not bad, though. I can see some reason to some of the brand of socialism that is general on lemmygrad. The only thing I fail to comprehend is the support of the current Russian leadership as they don't even pretend to have anything to do with socialist ideology.

That last sentence made me crack up

What are impossible sliders?

Thnx!

Doesn't north Korea's dynastic autocratic rule appear slightly monarchistic to you? Autocratic would be a better word than monarchistic in general.

But there isn't a single 'communist' state where the prolitariat do the ruling

Not really successes at all if you've read your Marx.

All of them followed in Stalins 'leninistic' (how ironic) approach. With a single ruler that reeks of old fashioned monarchism rather then the rule of the prolitariat. Some of them even renouncing communism and embracing blatant capitalism (some only embracing capitalism but staying communist in name only).

The only thing they do for pure marxism is accelerating the revolution to come, but actualy condoning repression in other places just for that sake is quite fin de siecle type of marxist thought.

Inglorious Bastards ain’t your average war flick or history lesson, it’s Tarantino doing his offbeat thing

I can understand that, I like his style ususally. But that's point of my disappointment. As a historian I cannot see it apart from the historical events. But the crowd reaction is what really freaked me out, it's scary if you think of it.

But remember, Tarantino’s all about pushing buttons and sparking chatter. If it got under your skin, maybe it hit the mark.

It may have. I think the true brilliance of the movie is how the audience, due to framing, can be induced to condone the killing of innocents. I sincerely hope that wasn't actually Tarantino's intention.

For instance the soldier killed by the bear jew refused to give up military secrets under threat of death. He chooses te respectfully refuse and is then killed. Framed differently in lots of war movies this is a heroic act.

But here people then cheer when te bear jew comes out and finishes him off.

All of this is an actual war crime.

That’s just folks enjoying seeing the Nazis get some comeuppance.

Indeed and I know, it's all a bit of good fun. I just can separate it from the very real and very deadly seriousness of this part of history. That was what the main question of this thread was about.