Well thats what I mean, it doesn't seem like the kind of problem that can be resolved within Capitalism.

Lenin should have given his book another title people really think that the Roman empire wasn't imperialist bc it wasn't capitalist

Forgot how dumb reddit socialists were

reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/w730x6/main_differences_between_expansionism_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

I’m reading this post rn

F***ing hilarious

Lenin even says that the Roman empire was imperialist but it’s essence wasn’t the same of capitalist imperalism

Lmao i'm itt guess who

The actions of the roman empire were not Imperialism...

Sorry to break this to you, but words can sound similar and yet have no relation.

Calling the Roman empire imperialist is liberalism

how did u get banned from reddit

Idk lmao shyt weird

Just made a new acct

Also I don't think Lenin was against "control of land" argument, but that it needs to be expanded upon

Because I was arguing with a guy who claimed the Russian Empire was not imperialist

Is this a joke post

It's copypasted from reddit

Knew you were too liberal to spit facts

I meant control of land and nothing more, as in just a border. There's an economic base to it.

Parenti's argument about Julius Ceasar misunderstood tho fr

It's like when people say JFK wasn't assassinated by deep state bc he was also ruling class

Yeah, people don't understand that part often. Same with people thinking Marx was entirely against Adam Smith and David Ricardo - just not true, he expanded upon them, he didn't reject every part of them. People have a hard time understanding what "dialectics" really means in terms of arguing. You negate things, but also preserve things and transcend things.

While I don't really care about Hegel et cetera, I can totally understand why "dialectical thinking" is important in many ways. You really need to think nuanced and accept contradictions to understand many concepts better. Liberals tend to like simplistic, mechanistic argumentation more, especially the debatelords. For example, my feelings towards Stalin and Mao are complex, and that's ok. Historical leaders aren't Disney heroes versus Disney villains, history is messy and leaders are just a cog in the wheel of history as anybody else.

Are you REEEEEE I know Fidel cash flow is relatively popular on twitter

Do you think Mr. Bandit has 365.000 Reddit karma points?

Wait Scratch is Fidel Cashflow

I read the description and thought he was tripping. Is the book any good?

Caesar wanted to appeal to the popules, the masses, not because he was a proto-communist or something but because he wanted their support. The other guys got mad at him for this and other shenanigans. It is an interesting read to understand class dynamics in another age