Funkytom467

Destroying a system means there isn’t anything in place and also that you weaken the power of your own side because you had to go through all the violence needed.

That’s obvious but it also explains why worse system can rise, but also that it’s not always a doomed endeavor. I think the context has a lot to do with what will occurs next.

The best exemple i could give is the French Revolution. It was followed by the worst Napoleonic wars. But its philosophers founded the building block for the republic that’s still in place to this day.

The red revolution against tsarist has brought a lot of positive foundation from which Russian could arguably have builded upon after the war, if not for Gorbachev.

I’m not gonna go to much into any hypothetical but what Lenin created had a real and positive influence in the rest of Europe at least.

At the worst end of the spectrum Iran really had nothing left to build upon, the situation there is catastrophic on all front. So if not for the US the country isn’t gonna stand on its legs any time soon.

I think the evolution of the end of a system, even through those three exemple, can go into so many different path. It’s hard to really predict anything, especially without taking into account all the parameters and context.

I wanna see her slap!

Should have added the face of that baby in the sun

With the enshittification Bethesda has already started to go through, it’s a good bet.

The ideal solution you propose was often used when we used glass.

The only reason we could have started throwing our containers is because plastic is so much cheaper.

To be fair, when we used glass, fewer product were transported long distance.

Nowadays we can do like Germany who incentives to bring back bottles for recycling.

Or an even better alternative would be to use glass for individuals and another method for transportation.

Although i’ve seen some bio stores starting to refill plastic containers, wich isn’t perfect but a nice middle ground to start changing habits.

Yeah i get that reading the subs really helps with focus. It’s even the meta in shorts now to retain attention.

Ha you moved, gottem!

Yeah i get that reading the subs really helps with focus. It’s even the meta in shorts now to retain attention.

Are you looking for English or Spanish?

Sorry i’m harsh Cuba isn’t quite a dictatorship i give you that one (Although not quite democratic either), maybe that could be a good study.

But saying Stalin or Mao are not dictatorships is just delusional.

The CIA as a source is pretty funny though.

I get it Stalin didn’t quite have all powers, like that’s what it took to classify a government a dictatorship. As if one-party system couldn’t be complex.

(And yes socialist market economy, that really makes a world of difference from capitalist market)

Also to make things clear i wouldn’t have sided with tsar or anyone else than Lenin. I do believe in communism.

Now some improvements may be from communism, i hope so, but don’t pretend you can prove it more than i. It’s not like life expectancy, literacy rate or other factors alike couldn’t rise with another system. It’s not like you could eliminate the possibility of third factors in a time with so much change in all areas of life.

But i sure wouldn’t have followed Stalin in his totalitarian regime. I sure hope if communism was a solution today it would be democratic.

Have you read my comment?

I know capitalism don’t work, everybody does now.

That has nothing to do with the fact we didn’t manage to have one successful exemple of communism either…

So USSR was a dictatorship, the country was in ruin after WW2

The 3 factor i mentioned are there.

The data shows what everyone knows, capitalism increase inequality. But what it doesn’t show is how communism made the country improve, because it didn’t.

What i’m saying is, it couldn’t help because of the war and Stalin. We don’t know if it would’ve otherwise.

Cuba again is a dictatorship, and wasn’t rich.

The PRC is a dictatorship, China went on a horrible famine with Mao. Nowadays getting richer only because of how their economy is now fully capitalist.

So let’s say you had significant data that showed it improved some things socially. And let say you somehow managed to prove its causal and not coincidence.

I would still rather not say dictatorships like USSR or PRC are good to live under.

That’s my point, even if communism was good, dictatorship is a plague that makes any system a nightmare.

Most didn’t? Can you give a few exemples then?

You don’t start a war unintentionally… but i didn’t say start, just being in a war.

Also i don’t imply it was because of communism, my point is that, how can we judge communism if other devastating sociological factors are involved.

Now, i don’t have a point if you say most of them were better for it, but i don’t know any who did so i’d love to educate myself…

To be clear i agree.

I do feel for the Russian people that will suffer Putin’s decisions, but i personally wouldn’t concede one bit of Ukrainian soil to that fucker.

I wish my country was helping. That said, as a French without any skin in the game, let me tell you we don’t even have skin in our own games. (If you followed any news of us you know)

It’s not like any of us are ever being asked what to do. And I do genuinely fear our so called democracies are gonna implode. And when they do, diplomacy with Russia will get bad for everyone.

I don’t think anyone knows what it’s like, was there any communist country which wasn’t also both a dictatorship and poor?

Pretty hard seeing the good and bad of communism when it’s always alongside the two worse things that can happen to a country.

P.S. Wait, actually not the two worse things… there’s also war, and that applies to most of them too.

!

Western Europe getting involved could be so much worse.

Let’s remind ourselves you fight for your country, we on the other hand have nuclear weapons and rising fascism all over…

So in account of humanity thanks for keeping Russia’s shit out.

I use this numbering sequence for manga only, very satisfying to coincide the reading directions with it.

Maybe it’s not universal but in school literal equation basically meant there were letters instead of numbers.

It’s the term we use for instance when going from the equation of a line like y=3x+2 to lines in general y=ax+b (a and b in ℝ)

And i agree it’s a lot better to specify to solve for x (because you can solve for anything or have multiple variables).

Although x being a variable, and solving for it would be the most logical assumption.

Isn’t this one from alice in wonderland?