Migration complete - new scraper is in use and public backups will be made soon. RebeccaBlackTech merged into Desuarchive
Donations to the archive
would be appreciated to help fund our server hardware & storage drives. We are looking for developers to help build new software and archives,
Threads by latest replies - Page 4
Going by this book's (5 stars on Amazon, recommended reading by many American educational institutions) methodology, how many people has capitalism killed?
>inb4 capitalism is an abstract concept it can't kill anyone Going by this book's methodology, it can, as it talks about people communism has killed.
In a global scale, when most people are still poor and living under unstable states, yes. It's unprecedent.
Then you would have to track which states made the biggest contribution and which stagnated. If we compare the two demographical giants throughout 1950-1980, we have a clear winner.
You are merely comparing Maoist China with Nehru's socialist project in India. The difference is that only one of them was a marxist.
He is very much on topic. How the fuck are any of the points he raises not relevant to the discussion? Marxism is an ideology while capitalism has no holy book and varies wildly, from ordinary people who want the government to support their business to evil plutocrats bribing politicians. You would rather whine because someone from /his/ happens to post on /lit,/ which isn't exactly a coincidence, and outed you as a spammer,
Let's face it. You had 0 intentional of actually discussing this. This is le trollerino. You got your (you)s now fuck off.
By what tolken are Pol pot's anti-urbanism the same as Stalin's rapid industrialisation? Because they have both at some point in their career read the same book on economics?
>L-LIFE AS A FARMER BACK THEN WAS HORRIBLE! MY UNIVERSITY TEACHER TOLD ME SO!
I don't understand why people use this as a sleight against the 1950s. Some retarded bimbo housewives were hooked on drugs, and? Addiction has existed forever lol, and obviously many more of middle-aged women and children are on drugs now. Like half of males under 18 are on Ritalin against their will.
This actually shows why people were poor back then. Most families were large often having 4 or more children. When you put that in account you realize how poor people are today.
Most people can't afford to build a house today and they are "well educated" and have no children.
If condoms were a thing in the 1900's and people had 1-2 children instead of 4-8 they would be rolling in money
>>11613627 >Why do they all look so sad?
That's how normal people look. The always happy person with a big wide crazy smile is a modern invention
I'm a farmer on a small holding, small enough to not use the fancy modern equipment of industrial farming. My Dad is in his 50s and is yoked still, looks like your pic rel but with less elasticity in his skin due to age
Yea because im sure people were collecting the statistics on depression hundreds of years
what a retarded point to make
While some fawn over billionaires flying to space, I will always admire the true pioneers. Men who made their mark on history not because of the size of their pockets but because of their skill and courage.
What you made convert to Catholicism fellow brothers in faith?
And if you're not Catholic, why not?
Lmao thinking about that Pew survey of Catholic adults back in 2019 which found almost 70% of them believe the Eucharist are merely symbols of Jesus' body and blood.
>inb4 actually that only reflects how dumb Americans are, not most Catholics. If you did the survey in other countries the right numbers will be higher. No they probably won't, since the groups that performed the worst were Hispanics, the poor, those with the least education, those under the age of 60, and those who attend mass once a month or less. It should be said that even those over the age of 60 and those with college degrees less than 40% of Catholic believe in transubstantiation and even fewer know about it. The only group where a majority of Catholics believe/know about transubstantiation were those who went to mass weekly, and even in that group almost 40% still believed the Eucharist was merely a symbol.
I am not all that religious,i want to bealive in a god but I find it hard to do. I wanted to convert at a time to Catholicism for a time based purely on its aesthetics and history but I later realised that is not reason enough to change your religion. In my country the Catholics have a bad reputation as evil monsterous villains and it would go against my families traditions and will if I did convert. I too would feel as if I betrayed my own people if I did so. I often visit catholic churches and donate money to them or pick up trash,I even own a bible and a cross I keep in a drawer that a priest gave me. Idk if I will or wont convert
>>11612911 >Give us your money or go to hell
>And if you're not Catholic, why not? the global pedophile resettlement network, mostly
What I exactly would like to find out is what struggles differentiated these countries.(apart from Caudillismo which was a constant)
While these states had a hard time forging an identity (for example most Argentinians agree that the notion of Argentina wasn't set until the italian migrations in the 20th century) its far easier to see their differences in the conflicts that dominated their politics, for example hte unitarian v federal debate was big in Colombia while nobody gave a damn about it in Peru, which was busy having coups to determine if the constitution would be liberal or protectionist. What do you guys think
Well, there's the third volume of the Cambridge History of Latin America.
Literally the only good History youtuber.
History Matters or Neidell?
He lists his sources, that's good
Ironic name, since he intentionally shortened his videos to an absurdly brief runtime solely so he could make more, and thus earn more money. There's practically no detail or depth in his videos, they're not even on the level of like, short Wikipedia summaries.
He's a sell-out. He stopped making his actually interesting history of Britain series because it wasn't earning him enough money. Faggot.
>uhm sweaty you are actually supposed to just let terrorists of small countries shoot your political leaders and their family and not invade them afterward or else you are clearly a warmonger
notice the URL, it's a "corporations bad" joke
> A Cut-Off Penis Caused World War I In 1889, Crown Prince Rudolph of Austria was the only son of Franz Joseph, Emperor of Austria-Hungary. They got along well, and Rudolph was destined to take the throne. But everything changed when the 30-year-old prince met the 17-year-old Baroness Maria Vetsera. Like all classic novels, my father disapproved. Franz Joseph demanded that the couple break off relations, and the crown prince did so - as part of a suicide pact. But Mary was afraid that they would disperse. So after a night of lovemaking, she decided to stop it. “It” refers to the relationship and his penis. While he was sleeping, she took a razor and chopped off his cock. Unable to cope with the loss of his relationship and his penis, he shot her in the head. Consumed with guilt, he then pointed the gun at himself. Austria had to rely on Rudolf's cousin Franz Ferdinand, who fought Emperor Franz Joseph in almost everything. Most importantly, Franz Ferdinand wanted to give the Slavs equal rights with the Austrians and Hungarians in the empire. Many historians believe that this is why Serbian nationalists decided to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand. It all started from that moment, and the result was the First World War.
So what? Wouldn't you put your troops in your frontier when an openly hostile neighbor starts saber rattling again?
>>11613845 >No one forced them to protect this terrorist funding bandit state
No one except the alliance they had with Serbia and the common sense that told them to man their borders when their hostile neighbors were chimping again like they had chimped during the moroccan crisis.
Why doesn't Christianity condemn alcohol? Is it because it was influenced by the cults of Bacchus? Does this degeneration support? Alcohol destroys families, makes people dangerous to self-confidence, and makes themselves and life miserable. This cannot be denied. But why does religion rate this as the blood of Christ? What. Alcohol advocates have no moral superiority. Islam got it right.
Why should I feel bad for not having encyclopedic knowledge of nigger "music"?
Dude all of Europe got bombed so fucking much they went from 1000% Catholic to 95% atheist since by the end of the war they could plainly tell there was no God.
Ready for school to start again champ? I know 8th grade can be a real turning point, you play your cards right and your cousin might even let you touch her butt at that dance!
Absinthe is delicious
Chartreuse is better though
Not an answer. Nothing wrong with fucking your cousin by the way. Ask great men like Muhammad or Albert Einstein
And the Spanish, specially castilian merchants the largest group of immigrants to the country. That's right, Castile was England's gateway to the Mediterranean, and in the 13th century trade between the two kingdoms flourished like no other. Below I will attach some quotes from some books that deal with this subject, curious to say the least. From pelts to dried fruit to wheat were the types of products that the Castilians sold throughout England.
You re pathetic, a liar and a piece of crap. It was you who started all this bullshit. Fucking beaner, no wonder why americans hate brownoids.
The trade in Castile as the reconquista advanced was tremendous an because its situation at the south in the divission between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean attracted merchants from all over the world, including asians. Here is a representation of two asiatic males platying chess in an illustration of a castilian book of the 1280s.
Fun fact Castile was the only European country with an embassy from Timur in all of Europe as Timur was fond of Henry and they exchanged letters regularly
Why did Britain never fall prey to communism during its history? Marx himself thought Britain was the ideal country for a communist revolution, and yet it never happened. This was despite Britain being one of the more left-wing countries in Europe, having massive workers movements both before WW1, before WW2 and post-WW2, having large support for nominally socialist parties (Labour) and even the Communist Party itself having some support. And yet British leftism always seemed to tend towards moderate social democracy rather than communism of any kind. Hell, British leftists don't even bother to oppose the monarchy or the House of Lords. What gives?
Because it already had a jewish ruling class.
>>11614423 >the party lost a lot of traction after the 1956 Hungarian events
Even earlier, in 1939, when the USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Stalin told all the international communists to stop antagonising Nazi Germany, and to justify the invasions of a bunch of Eastern European countries (e.g. Baltic States, Finland, Romania). The Winter War was an especially severe blow to the image of communism and the USSR (which until that point was looked on fairly positively by lower class people).
The USSR revealed itself to be just as imperialistic and hypocritical as the countries it claimed to oppose, and membership of the Communist Party dwindled, and its reputation hit rock bottom. Only the victory on the Eastern Front partly redeemed this.
You mean because the free market improved the quality of life for the working classes so rapidly and to such a great extent that it would have been beyond the wildest imaginings of the ruling classes alive during Marx's time, completely precluding any need for any form of 'worker's revolt'? Yeah.
>using 'bourgeoise' unironically
It's funny because his argument basically boils down to "working class people are too stupid to understand their situation".
>>11616578 >quality of life for the working classes
No one gives a shit about that.
The Bolshevik revolution happened due to Jews bankrolling it.