Utopia Talk / Politics / Socialism and tribalism

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 02 03:51:57 With some exceptions, Arab states that adopted socialist models—such as Iraq, Syria, and Libya—have experienced collapse or prolonged instability. In contrast, monarchies that maintained systems rooted in tribal structures and traditional authority—such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait—have tended to exhibit greater political stability over time. Discuss.
Paramount Member	Mon Jun 02 07:04:29 Could it be that it has nothing to do with whether it is a socialist country or not but because the US mafia has meddled in these particular countries, Iraq, Syria and Libya, and have wanted these countries to submit to the US rule. The other countries, Saudi, Jordan and Kuwait has accepted US supremacy and are basically vassals of the US. Would there not be instability in these countries too the moment they try to break free from the US mafia? There are examples where socialist countries has not experienced collapse or prolonged instability. Sweden is one such country. From the end of the WW2 to the end of the 80’s Sweden’s socialism was a success and Sweden served as a role model for the world. Much thank to Olof Palme, the PM of Sweden and Party Leader of the Social Democratic Party. But then the US mafia assassinated Sweden’s PM Olof Palme, and Sweden’s successful socialism pretty much died with Olof Palme. It was then that Sweden began to decline and Sweden is now just another vassal shithole of the US mafia where gangsta rap, drugs, guns, criminals and corruption have taken over.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 02 09:44:56 Too many variable that I can't account for, that is why I narrowed it down to Arab states. Sweden didn't go from a tribal state of affairs to the current state, many things had happened, critically the Church killed tribalism in most of Europe allowing broader identities to emerge. To cut to the chase, many things need to be in place for "socialism" to work and even then the deeper question remains, is socialism creating prosperity or does prosperity allow for socialism?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 02 09:50:53 It is a fact/risk of power games that you will struggle to prosper if you are constantly picking a fight with the most powerful player, without any effective way to dealing with them. In that light the leaders of Syria, Iraq and Libya were just not very good at the game. .
Pillz breaker of wtb	Mon Jun 02 12:58:31 "Could it be that it has nothing to do with whether it is a socialist country or not but because the US mafia has meddled in these particular countries, Iraq, Syria and Libya, and have wanted these countries to submit to the US rule." This. Socialism had nothing to do with it. It was being on the wrong side of US foreign policy as a result of that 'socialist' (re:soviet) alignment. " It is a fact/risk of power games that you will struggle to prosper if you are constantly picking a fight with the most powerful player, without any effective way to dealing with them. In that light the leaders of Syria, Iraq and Libya were just not very good at the game." Decades of individual rule and wealth aren't being 'not very good' at the game. And certainly no worse than selling our their countries wholesale like Jordan. Egypt is the only Arab nation that's actually effective at playing 'the game' but was decidedly not in the same camp as the examples you listed.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Mon Jun 02 13:01:20 Lebanon is a great example of the natural state of Arab nations without a strong leader, either a soviet era dictator or a monarch, and without a US invasion (or 'revolution')
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 02 14:04:09 ”Decades of individual rule and wealth aren't being 'not very good' at the game. And certainly no worse than selling our their countries wholesale like Jordan.” Well everything is fine and dandy, until there is a crisis, a stress test of the system. Decades of prosperity and the getting destroyed, that is showing up for every class and failing the exam. These catastrophic failures that led to demise of these regimes, is exactly what I am talking about. There isn’t just one failure. Practical all Arab nations picked a fight with the USA, either directly or through Israel. You don’t fault someone for trying. Only a handful continued in earnest after their benefactor the Soviets collapsed. Can’t blame a nation for their boldness. Etc and so on. There are three outcomes, you win, you pivot or DIE. The three that died have to be objectively worse at the game of power, as Biggy said ”dead niggaz don’t make no moves”. Those that jept ”Egypt is the only Arab nation that's actually effective at playing 'the game' but was decidedly not in the same camp as the examples you listed.” Egypt is Egypt. It has been Egypt for thousands of years Every year those countries could have pivoted, done an Egypt, a Jordan or taken a UAE type stance on Israel/Palestine that doesn’t involve scud missiles or a nuclear program. I just don’t know that being on the wrong end of US foreign policy in such catastrophic manner isn’t itself a product of the underlying problem.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Mon Jun 02 15:42:59 Your being overly narrow and undermining your own position. Egypt is Egypt. Iran is Iran. Syria (Assad) failed. Iraq (Saddam) failed. Lybia (Gaddahfi) failed. Lebanon is a failed state. Yemen was a failed state and is now lost for good. Which leaves with with what exactly? Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar? You want to make what sort of comparison between these nations and the above? And you want to ignore the impact of US foreign policy despite the fact these nations (Libya, Syria, and Iraq) you list failed specifically because of US led 'intervention' or direct invasion and overthrow. To say nothing of the underlying western involvement in the initial civil unrest in libya and Syria (amongst others). Your thesis is not wholly invalid, but everything you surround it with is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 03 02:58:05 Pillz I literally just said that choosing and sticking to a collision course with the US is, in my view, inseparable from the deeper structural problem. Getting bombed by the USA is not fate, it's a string of bad choices. It is objectively reckless to provoke the most powerful actor in the global system without a serious plan, if not to win, then atleast survive the inevitable blowback. Compare to China. At one point, China was poorer than many of these Arab states, they had zero leverage, cvarrying post war trauma. inflicting some of their own, inward facing. But they played their cards right. They didn not pick fights while weak. They did not challenge the US directly until they had built up both hard and soft power. Look at how they have managed Taiwan, quietly, steadily surrounding the board. That is power with a plan. What China did not do was to chant "death to America" as a matter of national policy decade after decade, threaten to wipe Japan off the map and shoot rockets into Taiwan every year. Unfazed, they have remained adversial to the USA. There is clearly a third option between the hangmans noose that Saddam got and bending of the knee of the House of Saud. I just don't find America bad, very interesting. I think most often when scrutinized there is something more fundamental at play. What I think I see in these examples is identity. Every country on the second list you made is a monarchy. Monarchies rest on old ethno tribal legitimacy. I don’t think you can build national identity and cohesion with Socialism. However, we know that feudal systems and those based on ethnotribalism can. Nations can fail for other reasons, but the pre-requisite for one is an identity. This is why I question the supposed prosperity that socialism has brought to where it has seemingly worked (Sweden et el). The circle comes complete as we are witnessing, largely leftist policies and ideologies trying to erase the very identities that made the system stable in the first place. I think Iran is actually a supplementary study case. Iran has civilizational depth and a strong national identity. The Islamic republic has actively been trying to erase and replace that. Shia Islam has a lot of synergies with western leftist ideology, glolbalist, moralizing, anti-national and *sacralizing the oppressed*. Iran is the cipher where I can see that (1)the policies of a super power, (2)how you react and deal with them and (3)supporting national identity are all different variables.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 03 03:40:14 I would add a 4th variable worth considering: slave morality, a core pathology embedded in both leftist and Shi’a ideologies. It moralizes weakness, elevates victimhood, and ultimately erodes older, national/ethnic identities by replacing them with narratives of perpetual grievance and moral superiority through suffering.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 04:59:55 Lol "All jooz is liers" vs. "Marxismist wos a satinister". You know theres got to be some classics in this thread :D
Seb Member	Tue Jun 03 06:45:46 Very much more about the foreign policy angle. When the European colonial powers left, they largely left monarchy/tribalists clients in place, by and large are those countries that benefited from Western largesse in the cold war and this stability. Those countries where the population wanted policies that our put them on a path of collision with the west and it's clients wound up with socialist movements instead, and thus on the wrong side of the cold war and facing a lot of economic headwinds.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 09:57:25 "Pillz I literally just said that choosing and sticking to a collision course with the US is, in my view, inseparable from the deeper structural problem. Getting bombed by the USA is not fate, it's a string of bad choices." I literally just said everything you said is wrong: " Your thesis is not wholly invalid, but everything you surround it with is. " And I stand by this statement. Doubling down to explain bad ideas that have no basis in fact doesn't make them less invalid.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 10:06:58 Nimatzo can straight faced talk about how wtb deserves to die and is beyond help, how progressivism is the enemy of his adopted Western civilization etc And then say the reason Syria, Iraq, and Libya fell is because their dubious socialist roots handicapped them and were the driving factor in not pivoting towards the US Meanwhile but... Where is the consideration that the decision was borne out of an unwillingness to sign their souls and their people's to an ostensibly evil global hegemony, especially while they had 'backing' against it(via the Soviets). Lines got drawn. None of them wer socialist dependent lines. Like how the colors you use don't change the image in a coloring book. The parallel you have drawn exists, but you're wrong in how you're extrapolating meaning or causation from it.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 10:24:12 "It is objectively reckless to provoke the most powerful actor in the global system without a serious plan, if not to win, then atleast survive the inevitable blowback." The plan was that its not reasonable to expect the US to cause the full blown mass collapse of the middle-East within a decade based entirely on false premises and a terror attack carried out by US allies (Saudi Arabia). " Compare to China. At one point, China was poorer than many of these Arab states, they had zero leverage, cvarrying post war trauma. inflicting some of their own, inward facing. But they played their cards right. " And when the fuck was that exactly? Before or after it armed two separate nations that resulted in costly prolonged wars with massive losses for America and arguably contributed to the socio-cultural revolution of the 1970s via Vietnam? Like this is next level ignorance and refusal to acknowledge history. "I just don't find America bad, very interesting. I think most often when scrutinized there is something more fundamental at play. What I think I see in these examples is identity.' Yes. Arab identity is inferior to other identities. Hence none of them are actually successful or good places, and half are plunged in or border on anarchy, and the other half are US client states (even if they are only fake allies while they occupy this role). "Every country on the second list you made is a monarchy. Monarchies rest on old ethno tribal legitimacy. I don’t think you can build national identity and cohesion with Socialism. However, we know that feudal systems and those based on ethnotribalism can. " Lol. Just lol. You are comparing some of the most ethnically / 'tribally' diverse and storied places in the region and comparing them to the comparatively demographically flat Arab principalities. Lol. Iran is just the last in the line to crumble. You see nothing in Iran, because there is nothing to see there. It does nothing to support your thesis and if anything it detracts from it. I'd assumed you recognized this and so I gave it your Egyptian treatment (as that and geography are the only reasons it lasted this long anyways). You have offered up like a 2/10 political and social analysis in this thread and it's because you're Swedish, not strictly stupid.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jun 04 06:10:51 There are at least four overlapping but distinct issues here that you’ve collapsed into one big emotional outburst: Systemic resilience vs superpower foreign policy Agency vs victimhood Strategy vs moral framing Identity as the foundation of statehood Your position: American foreign policy is an unpredictable death sentence. If you end up on the wrong side, you either die or become a client state. Military resistance is morally superior because there are no nuances everything else is submission. You have to wonder, is Saddam's resistance more effective than the Saudi and Qatari oil fortunes lobbying American politicians, while supporting Hamas and cozying up to the Islamic republic? “And when the fuck was that exactly?” Exactly when the time was right, seizing the opportunity, pivoting away from detrimental internal policies, which if continued would have squandered the strategic opportunities. You are not getting what I am saying because you are emotionally invested in your position and constantly mixing up moral arguments with strategic choice: “Murica bad” vs “was it strategically wise of Saddam to play chicken with the USA?”. The judgment “sell out” is an interesting, made as it is by a Canadian with no family in the ME. Don’t take that as strategic advice for Jordan or anyone else. Just mockery where it is due: we should all admire "the resistance", but not see the costs of catastrophic darwin award winning failure. There are three kind of people who think like this, 1. ideologically motivated 2. Those far enough from the consequences to treat collapse as a vibe 3. Those with nothing to lose And the number of people dying to impress unemployed Canadians with their national geopolitical strategy, I think you can fit them in a thimble. “You are comparing some of the most ethnically / 'tribally' diverse and storied places in the region and comparing them to the comparatively demographically flat Arab principalities.” This in fact supports my initial assertion around identity. Demographic homogeneity makes identity building easier, it is a forgone conclusion in Scandinavia for instance. Erosion of that identity makes things less stable etc. But I don’t think the stability around the Saudi identity or Jordan was a forgone conclusion where in Libya it wasn’t. I mean you were arguing how stable these places were, right? Until one day they were not. If for example Western powers are able to get involved in civil unrest in your country, if that is a viable opening, many, many things have already gone catastrophically wrong internally. You have no coherent national identity thus opening up cracks large enough to be exploited. You have no soft power or diplomatic capacity *you have no powerful friends willing to do much for you*. “Iran is just the last in the line to crumble. You see nothing in Iran, because there is nothing to see there. It does nothing to support your thesis and if anything it detracts from it” Uhm…when I said Iran functions as a cipher, I meant exactly that: it reveals the dynamics I am been describing. In Iran, you can watch the ideological fusion of Shia political theology and leftist revolutionary framing play out: systematically eroding national identity. This is weakening not just Iranian unity but even the Islamic Republic itself. In a multiethnic state like Iran, that is a disaster waiting to happen like Iraq or Syria outcome. And we’re already seeing it. After the death of Mahsa Amini, the cracks became obvious: the regime has lost popular support outside its Shi’a core. They have responded not with reform but with demographic engineering, importing Shia Arabs and Afghanis to shore up loyalty. An active policy of population replacement in multiethnic country. On the foreign policy front, they have chosen endless confrontation: “Death to America!” “We will flatten Tel Aviv!” No nuance, no restraint, no diplomacy. Zero soft power. No major power is willing to support you even 10% as much as the US supports Israel. They have built nothing but cheap ballistic missiles and slogans. When one of their “intelligent” analysist, 40 year into the fight says “we need our own chip manufacturing” (for ballistic missiles because they got tainted ones), great idea, little too late. When one of them says “we should use the leftist in the USA as allies on Palestine”, great strategic idea, should have been 40 year in the making. You may not appreciate this, but that fatal inertia, the inability to draw the right lessons, plan timely reforms, and act decisively *is existential*. It wasn’t working in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and it is not working in Islamic Republic. That is a systemic disease, or the inevitable outcome of non-existent institutions. This is very simple Pillz, at the end of the day, you have goals and the question is, are you closer or further away from those goals, with a hangman’s noose around your neck, shot in the ass in the Libyan desert or in an apartment in Moscow?
Pillz breaker of wtb	Wed Jun 04 14:03:55 "There are at least four overlapping but distinct issues here that you’ve collapsed into one big emotional outburst:" Just because you come from inferior cultural, linguistic, and eductional backgrounds that are rhetorically gimped doesnt mean everyone is being emotional. If you insist on pretending you speak english, its vital to be less obtusely semantic and learn not to conflat invective language with emotionality. "Your position: American foreign policy is an unpredictable death sentence. If you end up on the wrong side, you either die or become a client state. Military resistance is morally superior because there are no nuances everything else is submission." Nice try! It is a *predictable* death sentence and you either submit or you die. That is the point I'm making. It doesn't mean every transgression is punishable. And it's interesting you relate tribute to resistance... "You have to wonder, is Saddam's resistance more effective than the Saudi and Qatari oil fortunes lobbying American politicians, while supporting Hamas and cozying up to the Islamic republic?" But at the end of the day, the tributaries are still just tributaries, and politics are politics. "Exactly when the time was right, seizing the opportunity, pivoting away from detrimental internal policies, which if continued would have squandered the strategic opportunities." Id love to know what exactly Iraq and Syria and Libya had done to invoke such US wrath, and by what time frame we want to judge this by. These were 'brutal' dictatorships, sure. But the 'socialist' label here is just that because you're emotionally invested in targeting Socialism. "Nimatzo iChihuaha Mon Jun 02 03:51:57 With some exceptions, Arab states that adopted socialist models—such as Iraq, Syria, and Libya—have experienced collapse or prolonged instability. In contrast, monarchies that maintained systems rooted in tribal structures and traditional authority—such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait—have tended to exhibit greater political stability over time. Discuss. " [Nothing about anything else. Just Socialism. Now we're expanding the topic in an attempt to conflate issues with copium because somebody was too narrow minded to apply context to his little theory because semantic scandanavian thinking coupled with muh false superiority of the spawn of cowardly Persians.] Back on topic: Again, short of giving in to US demands in the manner of ever suffering eastern Europe, what did you expect any of these countries to do? Clearly Saddam and Assad and Gaddaffi were better for the world than not, given the absolute and utter chaos the region and Europe have been plunged into since they've been removed. So... Anti-imperialism = anti-American = soviet alignment = socialist experiment = us antagonism = dictatorship = continued American opposition = American caused collapse = anti Americanism (probably) It is a self fulfilling prophecy. Snake eating its tail. I'm also not collapsing anything into anything. I gave the nuance. You just can't contextualize it all. Arabian states = ethnically and religiously homogenous Thus a monarchy that respects the tribal structure is innately more secure as a form of government. The middle East (Libyan-Iranian corridor) is the opposite of homogeneous. It is religiously, ethnically, linguistically, tribally, and historically diverse and *hostile*. It also has a history of urbanism, which the Arab states lacked entirely until literally 20 years ago. So is the system of government the cause of failure, or is it us opposition? It is us opposition. Is the system of government a consequence of ideology, or anti Americanism / soviet alignment? The latter. Are the regions containing each respective style of government (socialist vs tribal) comparable in any way whatsoever historically or in a contemporary sense? No not at all. Is there a difference between being America bitchboi and being anti American and being in direct war with the US? Yes there is. But #2 and #3 are the same to the US if you're Muslim! Imagine the internal civil unrest from Iran letting the US build based across the country..... Or Iraq or Syria if they still existed. Is the public dissent or civil unrest because of Socialism......? If the countries government falls later because of it (Ukraine) is it because they were socialists? No, no it is not. On both counts. "And the number of people dying to impress unemployed Canadians with their national geopolitical strategy, I think you can fit them in a thimble." People don't like America. People don't realize that might mean their nation collapses any given day because of it. Mr. Fled Iran when he was 2 thinks he has some innate understanding of middle eastern politics, inspire of his Swedish intellectual handicap. "This in fact supports my initial assertion around identity. " You made no initial assertion pertaining to identity. I asserted the diverse demographic make up of the middle East vs the homogeneous make up of the Arabian peninsula makes monarchy less stable in one than the other - even impossible. The socialist dictator model was the only 'absolute ruler' model that could work given the demographics. Think of it like tyrants, not kings. Dictators and Princep, not kings. Emperor, not king. Framing matters. Application matters. The people you govern matter. And you, you might want to think in a top down way that doesn't account for this fact, but that thinking you're using isn't the thinking some one uses to become a dictator. You think big but don't apply enough layering to your models. You don't make all the necessary inferences. "You may not appreciate this, but that fatal inertia, the inability to draw the right lessons, plan timely reforms, and act decisively *is existential*. It wasn’t working in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and it is not working in Islamic Republic. That is a systemic disease, or the inevitable outcome of non-existent institutions. This is very simple Pillz, at the end of the day, you have goals and the question is, are you closer or further away from those goals, with a hangman’s noose around your neck, shot in the ass in the Libyan desert or in an apartment in Moscow? " You may not appreciate this, but the differentiation is not an easy one between 'resist', 'comply', and 'be subsumed by'. Again, you are looking at this as an outsider arm chair geopolitical strategist. Not from the seat of someone managing a *nation* and his own vested interests in the complex system and the interests of the people (players) in it. I agree with you totally: arabs (and Persians) are existentially doomed to be failures and anti American policy just promises it'll be broadcast live on cnn. But it has nothing to do with Socialism, which was a cover and a mask, and for you now a phantom target.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Wed Jun 04 14:25:43 Lebanon for example: a complete and utter failure. Same ethnic, religious, etc issues as Syria for example (or Iraq or Iran if we want to put more time into it). No socialist government, no dictatorship. But broken because of the inherent divisions between groups based not just on 'tribal' lines. Now if you want to argue Lebanon is a success, you may. At least it hasn't been invaded, right? Your thesis was about Socialism. You can't infinitely expand it to ignore Socialism. But correlation =! Causation And there are a great many causes and factors that have nothing to do directly with Socialism. Thus your thesis in the OP is inadequate and flawed, even if the statement 'Arab socialist states all fail' is true.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 05 04:42:49 "learn not to conflat invective language with emotionality." You and I both know this is not true. You did the same thing in the LLM threads, got angry and let loose "invectives" because you were a misunderstood genius, did not read half the things I wrote or understood the other half. No questions just raging genius. You have some serious "hurdles" to overcome, which I explained back then. The reason you will not admit your emotional investment is because it would be a really retarded debate me bro reason. Like on a personal level we would understand you being emotional if you were from Iraq. Not correct, but I would totally get the emotional investment towards an explanatory "theory". But you are just trying to win an argument on the internet. ***** Pillzism in one sentence: The only true geopolitical virtue is to nobly perish, because survival implies compromise, and compromise is meaningless in a universe where even existence is a failed experiment. And there lies the real issue, Pillz. It’s not just that you argue poorly, it’s that you argue as someone tragically unable to escape their own psychology. This projection of despair bleeds into everything, not just your takes on me, but on the world and humanity. Like, you don't argue with a solopsist kind of deal. That is apart from the more mechanical stuff. "You made no initial assertion pertaining to identity." This too is a product of your personality. You are reading the OP in a vacuum when it was meant to act as a starting point. My fifth post in this thread goes into identity. You approached this like an autistic little debate me bro, you desperately want to be correct and win the argument. That is OK, but you are letting it get in the way of the flow of conversation. It becomes a boring chore for me to deal with you when I have expectation of good faith, curiousy, room to flesh out ideas etc. Instead I got autistic debate me bro. "Your thesis was about Socialism." "Lebanon, for example” *clears throat* "Nimatzo, iChihuaha Tue Jun 03 02:58:05 Nations can fail for other reasons, but the pre-requisite for one is an identity.” Take this as a parting gift, not a rebuttal, but feedback. You did not just fail to challenge the argument you failed to even understand what the thread was about. You jumped straight into "Debate me bro mode", swinging at ghosts. Arab socialist states failed in principle because socialism eroded or failed to build cohesive national identity the very glue that tribal monarchies managed to create. That absence of identity made them brittle, unable to pivot, and easy to shatter under stress. China is congruent with the idea. During the Cultural Revolution, it began corroding its own identity. It only stabilized when it turned back to tradition, nationalism, and continuity. Vietnam? Same trajectory. North Korea? A cultish dynasty. Iran? Same corrosion, Shia political theology fused with leftist grievance ideology, systematically dissolving Persian identity. Lebanon? A slow implosion from never having forged identity at all. So yes: socialism fails to build identity (Arab states). Nation building/Identity emergence can fail for other reasons (Lebanon). Socialism corrodes existing identities (Western countries, Iran even China pre-pivot). And it does not produce resilient institutions. Anywhere. It in fact tries to usurp those that exist. Honorable mention is Soviet-Russia. They tried very hard to erase national identities, heavy handedly and by moving populations. It completely failed. But I think the collection of Arab states I pointed to th OP are better comparisons, because of proximity, cultural similarities, geography and climate etc. We can remove many of the confounders. You still don not seem to grasp this: a lot has to go wrong before America invades your country, removes your leadership, and make that policy stick. It means not just institutional failure, but the total collapse of any identity capable of reasserting itself. It's gone. You have done nothing to show that you understand what actually happened in Iraq, Syria, or Libya, let alone wrestle with the implications. In your head, America invaded, and that is the whole story. Curtain falls. The end. But ironically, we can not say the same about Afghanistan, can we? The Taliban, grounded in a strong Pashtun identity, legendarily anti-socialist and culturally conservative, are back in control. In a multiethnic, historically complex country, pulverized not by one but two superpowers. And yet… there they are again. Those filthy little Talibans. Your input to all of this? “AMERICA BAD!" Noted.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jun 05 04:52:04 Does this mean no more episodes of the Twitchy and Incel Show? :(
Pillz breaker of wtb	Thu Jun 05 05:11:47 "You and I both know this is not true. You did the same thing in the LLM threads, got angry and let loose "invectives" because you were a misunderstood genius, did not read half the things I wrote or understood the other half. No questions just raging genius. You have some serious "hurdles" to overcome, which I explained back then." Will address the rest after bed but no, you can't into English - and lost the meta cognition discussion because you can't into words due to being Swedish. I understood everything you said and responded and demonstrated you failed to 1) engage with the ideas I proposed due to vocabulary related semantics and 2) didn't have an adequate enough grasp on English to continue anyways You love to think mean means emotional, but all it means is mean. This is, again, a nuance you can't / won't grasp because you suffer from swedardation. You have already lost this but I'll go over it in detail for you again.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Thu Jun 05 05:13:41 "Your input to all of this? “AMERICA BAD!" " This is the most retarded intentionally over compressed summary of my argument possible and again, demonstrates your inability to expand your horizons when engaged or invested. This is very typical of Rogan viewers.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 05 06:49:30 I’m just seeing through the act. “Mean is just mean” is a flimsy rewrite. What happened is simple: you flinched into aggression because you couldn’t handle disagreement. That is not autistic clarity, that is frustration and anger, textbook emotional reactivity. Do better next time.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Thu Jun 05 10:29:22 You can't just make things up like wtb and then pretend they're true. I mean, you can, because you're not that bright, but let's maintain a standard and learn English while you're at it
Pillz breaker of wtb	Thu Jun 05 11:51:04 "The reason you will not admit your emotional investment is because it would be a really retarded debate me bro reason. Like on a personal level we would understand you being emotional if you were from Iraq. Not correct, but I would totally get the emotional investment towards an explanatory "theory". But you are just trying to win an argument on the internet." Saying this merely proves you haven't understood a thing I said (as I called you out on before at Thu Jun 05 05:13:41. " Pillzism in one sentence: The only true geopolitical virtue is to nobly perish, because survival implies compromise, and compromise is meaningless in a universe where even existence is a failed experiment. And there lies the real issue, Pillz. It’s not just that you argue poorly, it’s that you argue as someone tragically unable to escape their own psychology. This projection of despair bleeds into everything, not just your takes on me, but on the world and humanity. Like, you don't argue with a solopsist kind of deal." Imaginery nonsense. Try harder to act smart, though. It might get interesting if you push yourself. ""Your thesis was about Socialism." "Lebanon, for example” *clears throat* "Nimatzo, iChihuaha Tue Jun 03 02:58:05 Nations can fail for other reasons, but the pre-requisite for one is an identity." " Your thesis *was* about Socialism. I brought up Lebanon. Then you decided to change your thesis to become 'nations fail after adoption of Socialism because if failure to achieve national identity', or something. But this is mostly bullshit and cope on your part, as you ignore the nuance and intricacy of internal national identities in the region and continue to ascribe Arab failures to Socialism (but not with a broad frame work that dilutes your original thesis rather than proves it). "Take this as a parting gift, not a rebuttal, but feedback. You did not just fail to challenge the argument you failed to even understand what the thread was about. You jumped straight into "Debate me bro mode", swinging at ghosts. " Wrong. You did that because you were embarrassed that you failed to account properly for basic variables like external (US or other) intervention, internal demographic chaos, and examples that run contrary to your original idea. " Arab socialist states failed in principle because socialism eroded or failed to build cohesive national identity the very glue that tribal monarchies managed to create. That absence of identity made them brittle, unable to pivot, and easy to shatter under stress. " No such feat was ever possible. You just want to pretend it was, and that it failed because of Socialism, but you have no examples to support that idea. Your apples to oranges comparison between the middle eastern and Arab States doesn't hold weight because you failed to account for internal makeups (ie: overly narrow, lacked context, demonstrated only most basic ability to think) "China is congruent with the idea. During the Cultural Revolution, it began corroding its own identity. It only stabilized when it turned back to tradition, nationalism, and continuity." My dude. China is socialist and didn't fail. But this supports your initial claim it was Socialism that caused the Arab failures?? You have said Socialism prevents the very acts you claim 'saved' China - but China accomplished them, why not arabs? 'slave morality'? Lol Again, socialism didn't cause anything to fail. It was a symptom of anti imperialism and chaotic internal demographics. The collapses were results of anti-imperialism and sometimes internal factors (those opposition fights didn't all get imported). There is nothing inherently socialist about Arab dictatorships, minus the dictatorship part, and very little that differentiates Egypt from any of the nations you listed in terms of government except that: 1) Egypt was not hardline anti American 2) Egypt is not nearly at demographically varied (or not in the same ways) Lebanon 1) 'pro' American government 2) no ubfied leadership at all 3) demographic nightmare 4) total failure And again, 'socialism' is just your chosen word for 'brutal dictatorship' and some weird scape goat for you to target as the cause of all ills. National identity didn't form because you can't take people who share nothing but sand and 1500~ years of mutual violence and displacement and turn them into a coherent national identity. Arab kingdoms had none of those factors. You can not legitimately compare them without accounting for these facts. So again, anti-Americanism led to socialist stance Socialist dictatorship only particle system of government in those situations Anti Americanism a result of poor strategy, perhaps But the idea that not pivoting to be americas bitch is the result of Socialism is retarded. Anti american/imperial values came first. They were there after the Socialism was stripped away. "So yes: socialism fails to build identity (Arab states). Nation building/Identity emergence can fail for other reasons (Lebanon). Socialism corrodes existing identities (Western countries, Iran even China pre-pivot). And it does not produce resilient institutions. Anywhere. It in fact tries to usurp those that exist. Honorable mention is Soviet-Russia. They tried very hard to erase national identities, heavy handedly and by moving populations. It completely failed. But I think the collection of Arab states I pointed to th OP are better comparisons, because of proximity, cultural similarities, geography and climate etc. We can remove many of the confounders. You still don not seem to grasp this: a lot has to go wrong before America invades your country, removes your leadership, and make that policy stick. It means not just institutional failure, but the total collapse of any identity capable of reasserting itself. It's gone. " You haven't proven anything. Your posts in this thread are all over the place while you try to save face. "You have done nothing to show that you understand what actually happened in Iraq, Syria, or Libya, let alone wrestle with the implications. In your head, America invaded, and that is the whole story. Curtain falls. The end." Says the retard who blames Socialism. You're outside your wheel house. Color of your skin not only makes you inferior to me, but too stupid to level up and engage with material in a comprehensive way. Re: your inability to reconcile the difference between.'beside' and 'transcendant'. Overly semantic, narrow Swedish mind, that is also just frozen in place by harsh language. "But ironically, we can not say the same about Afghanistan, can we? The Taliban, grounded in a strong Pashtun identity, legendarily anti-socialist and culturally conservative, are back in control. In a multiethnic, historically complex country, pulverized not by one but two superpowers. And yet… there they are again. Those filthy little Talibans. " My dude out here using Afghanistan as an example. Ty for proving you don't understand how to apply multiple lenses to a topic. Afghanistan is historically and demographically distinct from any of the other nations we mentioned (this is like bringing up Sweden or China, serves no direct purpose). Afghanistan has a lot more in common with your Arab monarchies, than with of the collapsed states, and 'pashtun' identity isn't something enforced top-down (like a national identity needs to be, according to you). Homogeneous demographic map = identity balkan-esque demographic chaos = no identity In fact, you could argue that the reason the arabs failed was due to the fact they weren't socialist or brutal enough, since you wanna bring up Russia and China, which are 'success' stories that employed far more comprehensive techniques to create national identity (like murdering everyone or the cultural revolution). But, still, apples to oranges, as you can't compare the internal frictions or disparities between china/russia/middle East effectively. Nimatzo will next blame Socialism for the fall of Yugoslavia ==== Tldr; America bad. Identity in these nations impossible. Socialism a cheap label. Cheap label easy target for very dumb nimatzo
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jun 05 12:09:34 ”Color of your skin not only makes you inferior to me,” Oh dear, Alpha Boi gets a lesson in how his beloved neofascist white supremacists will never accept him :(
Pillz breaker of wtb	Thu Jun 05 14:03:21 I bring up again the difference between a monarchy and a sole dictatorship: There is none. Like a Tyrant, Dictator, Prince, or Emperor vs a King. It is semantic, and symbolic, more than it is functional (see: succession in European monarchies) So if we consider that democracy or parliamentary democracy is going to fail (Lebanon), and monarchy is impractical because of the internal demographic differences between the middle eastern and Arab States... That leaves the dictator model. So for temporal context, this is the mid 20th century. We have basically got 2 examples internationally for dictatorships. Fascist or socialist. We can probably all agree, fascism was not an option, because of this thing called WWII. Given the innate anti-imperialist (re: anti American) ideological stance of the nations, socialism and soviet alignment was obvious. Egypt is very similar in its trajectory, but was far more vital geopolitically far earlier in the timeline due to the Suez. Egypt is also an outlier in the dictatorship line up, as it is, like you said, Egypt. It has an identity. It has the original 'national identity'. It's history, identity, and internal make up are all unique - even compared to Iran. You wanted to say China was poor (it was not), but you could make the argument Egypt was less poor than Syria or Iraq during the formative years of the the mid-ish 20th century - and that that also helped its positioning later on. Egypt is Egypt. So back on point: we need a dictatorship. We want to be anti-imperialist. We join the Soviets. We socialist now. Did socialism lead to a lack of identity formation? No not really. No evidence to support this fact. All the arabs call themselves whatever they are and speak their special dialect of Arabic. Is it cohesive? No. Ofc not. Kurds from Iraq are Kurdish before they're Iraqi. Christians in Lebanon are gonna avoid Sunni towns when shit is spicy. The government is not the nation - and thus lacks support of the people. This is closer to what your argument boils down to. And it's valid. But it's also valid that all the different groups in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon and Libya are all more interested in kicking their country-men than they are with their country. See: Roman conquest of Greece, Greco-Persian relations You're taking places with groups of people that haven't been unified under a single (non imperial) banner for thousands of years.... With thousands of years of violent history, mutual or shared oppression, wealth, culture, religions, languages older than Islam itself..... And accusing Socialism of being the reason they didn't achieve the same stability as goat herders living on oceans of oil who pay all of that back to their imperial masters as tribute one way or another - the internal differences within the countries boiling down to (comparatively simple) traditional tribal lines. They were socialist because they had to be. They never pivoted to a more neutral or tributary stance because they thought (as many do) that they're too far and have too many conscripts for a war with the US. Is McDonald's worth the fate of western systems (ie: death cultic leftism)? Not to the men in charge. Apparently not to most of the people there either of there might be fewer dead Americans! It's amazing, but people don't learn, and it doesn't have to do with socialism. Also to double back on that... The idea that Iran can be lumped in with the socialists is fine given the rest of it all, but also just makes the eternal irony of politics more obvious. Keep in mind, when the USSR fell, these countries could have gone the route of eastern Europe or remained independent. They remained independent. The story of Iraq is a sad one, how quickly it fell. Syria is clearly an informed lesson on that, and we see that Russia was now able and willing to be the benefactor again. They lost. But they were always gonna lose - probably. The same way Cuba & North Korea lost. I don't however think we can make socialistic comparisons between Libya etc and Cuba and North Korea. But we can ofc try if need be. And yes, in many ways this was inevitable, and oil related, unless they just gave in and let America plant based across their nations. Egypt, btw, only one without a US base. As soon as the USSR collapsed, we get Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq 1... A decade later we get Afghanistan, Iraq, a decade later we get libya/syria/almost got Egypt. In short, socialism isn't the cause of failure to manifest national identity - as it worked in China, Russia, and socialism applied to homogenous populations holds (NK, Cuba, Europe, Central Asia) and when applied more 'soviet style' in middle-east or Balkan style states.... Well we get Yugoslavia -> Balkans -> national identities out the ass And the overall cause for collapse was external (American) and usually facilited by the innate sectarianism of each nation (historical, not comparable to Arab principalities or Egypt) Your argument about failure to pivot and wanting to straw man over some romantic fantasy you're pushing on me, is valid, but comes down to other factors than just 'muh socialism'. And 'muh socialism' as you see, is far more complex to describe or capture than you managed in your OP. You touch on various points, some valid, but the underlying idea socialism is the root cause of any of this is just overly reductive and ultimately false. 'all socialist Arab states fail' is true 'all socialist Arab states fail because of socialism' is not true 'Arab socialist states didn't manifest stable governments' is true 'Arab socialist states didn't manifest stable governments because of socialism' is effectively impossible to prove = I am arguing that you're failing to prove it = you whine I am emotional for calling you stupid Are you learning yet?
Pillz breaker of wtb	Thu Jun 05 14:11:16 Canada France Spain Romania Russia China UK Italy (kinda) All have strong independence movements. Quebec largely refused to participate in the draft in world war two and the mayor of Montreal was interred in a camp for his own refusal. The French actually have a long history of refusing to fight for the Crown. So, are all those countries failing to form a cohesive and strong national identity because of socialism??? Socialism wasn't even invented when the British made the wrong choice in Canada fwiw.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: