Should I stay in America if it has become too corrupt and too undemocratic?

[Leo Gura]

44 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Neoliberal style capitalism is the biggest reason for why they are underdeveloped,

No.

They are underdeveloped because they never developed themselves in the first place.

If you take a parasite off a baby it will still be a baby. The parasite didn't make the baby, it's just exploiting the baby's weakness.

You can take the British Empire out of India, but Indians still wipe their ass with their bare hands.

Edited July 20 by Leo Gura

[Staples]

@Leo Gura Why did such cultures never develop? What factors can limit a cultures growth? Is it factors they have control over, or external factors they are subject to?

This line of thinking is sometimes used by racists, which I know you are not. I understand you have a commitment to truth and are working to speak truthfully, but I think many in your audience need to understand all the factors and dimensions at play here before they hear such arguments.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Staples said:

Why did such cultures never develop?

It's mostly complex geographic reasons.

You can only develop fast if you have perfect geography.

Edited July 20 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No.

They are underdeveloped because they never developed themselves in the first place.

If you take a parasite off a baby it will still be a baby. The parasite didn't make the baby, it's just exploiting the baby's weakness.

Lmao "never developed themselves"  The Indian subcontinent was literally the wealthiest part of the world before British colonisation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_world#:~:text=Up until the early 18th,largest economies by GDP output.

The British looted and stole half of the world's wealth with their armies, colonial crony capitalism & explicit slavery. 

US now follows the same path with neoliberal neocolonial implicit ( and sometimes explicit) slavery on the global South. 

You are invested to not understand this because

1) You are a direct beneficiary of it and

2) You have to uphold the same neoliberal values as if some sort of forward thinking vision even though it's dead clear that it's leading your own country to shit right infront of your eyes.

You can live off exploitation for so long until it starts to crumble in on itself.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You can take the British Empire out of India, but Indians still wipe their ass with their bare hands.

Still cleaner than walking with leftover shit in the ass. 

Edited July 20 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

53 minutes ago, Staples said:

Why did such cultures never develop?

Simply answer, US never allowed them to develop, with implicit (sanctions, coups, slavery) and explicit (bombings) means.

Imagine bombing the Scandinavian countries to fuck in the 1900s and saying "they never developed themselves in the first place" lmao.

Well, if you first agreed to stop bombing it to fuck, then maybe they could have developed.

Ask yourself why North Korea is so underdeveloped. Because they are under crippling sanctions by from the rest of the world. Same with Iran and now Russia.

There are also a few cases of geography being too harsh for development, but this isn't the norm.

Following the WW2 the US engaged in a systematic bombing campaign on all the allies of the USSR and infringed on their sovereignty  by overthrow their liberal democratic governments, bombing them, and sanctioning them.

These countries were far more developed until the US intervened in their domestic politics for exploitation of natural resources like oil, food and cheap labour.

For example this is women in Iran walked around. The USSR was also incredibly progressive in women's rights and education.

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/iran-before-revolution-photos/

But US overthrew their *democratically* elected leader which led to significant opposition from the general populace which led to the Islamic revolution of 1979. 

Notice that higher developed countries often do not have aggressive military to fend of the neocolonial capitalist machine of the US. So they were sitting ducks for CIA coups, bombings by the military and financial exploitations by Americans the and intentionally destabilizing entire continents in the name of Freedooomb and dumbocracy lmao.

[Leo Gura]

It is popular on the left to blame lack of development of 3rd world nations on capitalist exploitation, but like I said, a parasite on a baby still leaves a baby underneath, and no amount of West-blaming will change that.

Wealth is not development. You can loot a bunch gold like the Mongols or Romans and still be savages.

Edited July 20 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

a parasite on a baby still leaves a baby underneath,

I don't get what you mean by this, but if you referring to the interference of the west on the exploitation of the global South as merely parasitic, then you miss the point.

It's more like shackles put on the baby, not an annoying parasite. You literally employ kids in Africa to mine cobalt for your freaking solar panels. Parasites would have been far more preferable.

You are downplaying the capitalist exploitation in a blatantly hypocritical fashion, but you do care about capitalist exploitation when it happens in your own country on your own citizens.

Okay so now don't blame capitalists for getting tax cuts, busting unions and scraping social programs.

"It's popular on the left to blame lack of development of workers on capitalists. No amount of capitalist blaming would stop that. If you don't like jobs then don't work. Remove that parasite. Secure the baby. The workers should get more developed on their own. Don't blame capitalists."

if I borrow your own words lmao.

You know very well how socio economic exploitation would lead to regression in development.

You can find capitalist exploitation leading to corruption and inequality in your country but fail to notice even more blatant abuse of capitalism by those same corporations abroad.

It's understandable because you are in the business of not getting it for obvious reasons.

Edited July 20 by Bobby_2021

[Rafael Thundercat]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You are invested to not understand this because

1) You are a direct beneficiary of it and

2) You have to uphold the same neoliberal values as if some sort of forward thinking vision even though it's dead clear that it's leading your own country to shit right infront of your eyes.

You can live off exploitation for so long until it starts to crumble in on itself.

The number 1 for Sure, No West No Gura, no Internet No actualized.org no 5meo awakenings. So unless Leo is blind to the benfits to his own life due to all the Neoliberal system brougth to him, he will forever sustain that The World South would not be in better conditions if colonoziers never came to extract,enslave and make the cultural destruction like Jesuits did in Brasil,Africa,Hawai etc. 

The thing is, we will never know what would be of History if the Colonies never happened, If the North American Tribes where left alone or if the Colonizers came with a Humble Spirit to Learn the wisdom of the Tribes intead of spreding their Dogmatic Christianity Views. 

And for Leo not seeing this, I rigth now question his integrity and knowledge around the topic. 

 

[Hatfort]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is popular on the left to blame lack of development of 3rd world nations on capitalist exploitation, but like I said, a parasite on a baby still leaves a baby underneath, and no amount of West-blaming will change that.

Wealth is not development. You can loot a bunch gold like the Mongols or Romans and still be savages.

It's popular and truthful.

Leaving the colonial times aside, the West has been directly involved in assassinating foreign leaders who wouldn't dance in their interest. Lumumba from Chad, or Allende from Chile, come to my mind. Of course, then horrible puppets were put in their place. They also intervened in many countries by putting weapons in the most mindless men they could find and giving them training. These practices have destroyed a lot of countries in Central America and Africa. The CIA hands in Honduras has been devastating, for example. It's impossible to develop as a country like that, they wouldn't be perfect, but they would be much better without those constant interventions. They aren't even allowed to achieve a blue stage, not because they can't on their own, but because external forces prevent it.

I wanted to believe that those practices were part of the past, and that the USA and the West would be a positive leading force in the world, I don't believe that anymore. Maybe at a lower level, but this is what is happening in Ukraine too, cue included at some point, and training the most Nazi guys they could find too. The motives in this case would also be to cause a threat to Russia, apart from extracting from Ukraine itself. Zelensky is a puppet, in this case at least he was chosen by them, but he's still a foreign agent. Ukrainians were fooled, I don't blame them, it happens.

The best that can happen to the world is that the USA and the West lose unequivocal hegemony, and a new balance is reached between different actors in the world. China without a doubt, and Russia quite too.

[Rafael Thundercat]

3 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I don't get what you mean by this, but if you referring to the interference of the west on the exploitation of the global South as merely parasitic, then you miss the point.

It's more like shackles put on the baby, not an annoying parasite. You literally employ kids in Africa to mine cobalt for your freaking solar panels. Parasites would have been far more preferable.

You are downplaying the capitalist exploitation in a blatantly hypocritical fashion, but you do care about capitalist exploitation when it happens in your own country on your own citizens.

Okay so now don't blame capitalists for getting tax cuts, busting unions and scraping social programs.

Based on this I would invite Leo personaly to a small trip to some Specific Places in Brasil and for him to see how some Local people are thriving even without so much contact with the West Exploitation, and of course for these people is impossible to no use systems like digital Bank and much other facilities that was a natural development of Capitalism. But if we follow the Extractivist lines we will see that the Developted Coutries are more dependent from the Abundance of the Underdeveloped. So lets imagine that USA need now to close boarders and live only with what they have inside their Geographic Perimeters. Food,Minerals,Energy, Work force (get hid of all imigrants) lets imagine let the Underdeveloped places by themselfs. How long would the USA resist till it would need to start exploring again?

[Bobby_2021]

"It's popular on the left to blame capitalists."

My dude, entirety of Leftism is grounded on blaming the capitalists. 

Please make it clear which side you are on. If you defending the capitalists abroad make sure to do it at home as well, because it's literally the exact same corporations. You may even get paid by the orange guy.

If these mega corporations can corrupt the US govt, imagine what they can do to a small African govt.

16 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

It's popular and truthful.

Exactly. There is no point to leftism without it. Even liberalism isn't proper leftism which is why Marx hated it and warned against it. 

Liberalism is a twisted inversion of nature. It claims to be against inequality, but it needs inequality to survive. It claims to be against racism, but has their own prefered races. It says it's pro freedom but fucks anyone who disagree with them with shitload of sanctions, coups, invasions and bombing campaigns. Liberalism is a byproduct of capitalism riddled with the same contradiction that it would crumble on itself.

The only good thing coming from the left is defending against wretched capitalist exploitation.

23 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Based on this I would invite Leo personaly to a small trip to some Specific Places in Brasil and for him to see how some Local people are thriving even without so much contact with the West Exploitation, and of course for these people is impossible to no use systems like digital Bank and much other facilities that was a natural development of Capitalism

Yes it's true. Eastern Europe was like this during USSR. Even though they weren't bloody rich, everyone had a nice country life. 

After the collapse of the USSR they were promised integration into the western neocolonial economy and they are now being ghost towns.

Protect those places from these corporations. Once these corporations come with their "development" they would fuck you over.

[Rafael Thundercat]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You can live off exploitation for so long until it starts to crumble in on itself.

https://consilienceproject.org/development-in-progress/

This may fit this ideia. A parasite can only survive as far as the host weath is surviving. The host in this Case is not a baby, is the planet itself, all of it, North,South all, what this Fuckups dont understand is that the system have a velocity of Regeneration and If we are exploring to much to fast the Earthsystem can cope. Is like trying to give your best in a Marathon while not having the proper nutrition and Hydatation. You will not go to far.

[eleanor]

Am afraid Europe is in a bad way as well. I live in the UK and unfortunately, if you are trying to get away from US, not a good idea to come here as we follow the US 'shoulder to shoulder' even against our own best interest. 

I left the US thirty years ago so don't think that was the best solution as inevitably same/similar issues are now here. 

Perhaps creating an online community, (what I'm thinking now) as there really will be nowhere to run. Take a stand wherever you are with an online community to support well-being. 

[Hardkill]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

There is no incumbency advantage now. Dems are best off with a clean slate to wash out the bad taste of inflation and Gaza.

That's absolutely not true at all.

Biden's Incumbency still is a major electoral advantage for him even in this day and age because: 

 

On 6/29/2024 at 0:28 PM, Hardkill said:

 

• Bully pulpit: has a unique platform to shape the narrative, set the agenda, and dominate the media cycle like an incumbent president can.
• Executive experience: Able to claim exceptional executive experience and credibility by already having been the POTUS.
• Natural constituency: Incumbent presidents have a natural constituency within their own party, which can provide a base of support
• Top name recognition: The incumbent POTUS automatically has such exceptional name recognition throughout ALL of the country that is impossible for any non-incumbent presidential candidate to match.
• Momentum and aura of inevitability: Incumbent presidents get to claim credit for all of their accomplishments and momentum, which can be very, very difficult for a non-incumbent to match.
• Ownership of the incumbent's legacy: While Trump has at times successfully leveraged his outsider status and has had a certain kind of anti-establishment appeal, voters even still in this day and age prefer the familiarity and stability of an incumbent over the uncertainty of an outsider.
• Unrivaled fundraising ability: Incumbents can tap into established PACs, which provide significant funding and support. The incumbent's party provides established financial support, infrastructure, and donor networks. Incumbents have established relationships with high-dollar donors and bundlers, who can collect and bundle contributions from multiple sources. Incumbents receive contributions from companies and individuals with government contracts or seeking favorable treatment.

 

To be clear, being the incumbent presidential candidate does not guarantee re-election. If his performance and luck are lacking, then he will lose re-election, exactly like how Trump lost re-election to Biden in 2020. Biden's performance and luck this time around are still looking good now for his electoral prospects and incumbency in his case would help turn his supposed "bleak" prospects into victory for him and his party in power. Look at Truman in 1948, when almost everyone thought back then that he would lose to the non-incumbent GOP candidate, Dewey. Yet, Truman won another presidential term handily because he was the incumbent president and his performance and luck during his first term as president were good.

 

Biden really is the only one (or Harris if Biden resigns the presidency to her) who run on all of the historic accomplishments he has achieved for the whole country. Someone like Newsom can't claim any credit for any of those accomplishments:

He has presided over very high real GDP growth during his presidency:

Economic well-being: Real GDP growth indicates an increase in the production of goods and services, which leads to:
+ Job creation and lower unemployment
+ Higher incomes and purchasing power
+ Improved standard of living
Economic stability: A growing economy is often associated with:
+ Low inflation or stable prices
+ Increased investment and innovation
+ Reduced risk of economic downturns or recessions
Government revenue: A growing economy generates more tax revenue, enabling the government to:
+ Invest in public services and infrastructure
+ Reduce debt and deficits
+ Implement policies and programs that benefit citizens
International competitiveness: A country with strong real GDP growth may:
+ Attract foreign investment and trade
+ Increase its global influence and competitiveness
+ Enhance its reputation as a stable and prosperous nation the most amount of jobs created compared to any other president in US History and real incomes have grown a lot for most americans.

Plus, don't forget that he has become the most pro union president since FDR or Truman in the 40s.

The Federal Reserve, most economist, and business leaders have said that this has been a really good economy. Btw, we are headed for a soft landing! Hardly any economist out there thought that was going to be impossible to achieve!

Our economy has been in the best shape in the world!

According to WSJ article:

According to Paul Krugman in one of his latest articles, "Americans are much more positive about their state or local economy than they are about the national economy. You see this in the Federal Reserve’s survey of household well-being and also in a Wall Street Journal poll of swing states:

Plus, Biden has been the only one who has proven to the public that he defeated Trump. He even has mentioned a number of times how much of a loser Trump is. That projects to the public Biden's aura of being the reigning champion of the country.

Edited July 20 by Hardkill

[Nivsch]

44 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

The best that can happen to the world is that the USA and the West lose unequivocal hegemony, and a new balance is reached between different actors in the world. China without a doubt, and Russia quite too.

But this will make things much worse.

Edited July 20 by Nivsch

[Bobby_2021]

10 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

A parasite can only survive as far as the host weath is surviving

Sometimes that baby grows a pair of balls and rips that parasite off. Which is what Russia did.

Countries will no longer allow themselves to be subjugated with the "Rules based international order".

---

@eleanor In my opinion you did the right thing 30 years ago. Although now it's pretty bad everywhere so no qualms. 

Uk is essentially a giant bank that holds the money from all the exploitation they did from the rest of the world. It's locked up in the hands of the monarchy and financial institutions. It's works as long as there are things in the world to buy up. But that pile of cash could be very quickly rendered useless if you lose that buying power. Dangerous position to be in. 

[Bobby_2021]

3 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

But this will make things much worse.

Worse for US since they no longer can exploit everyone to death. But better for the world as a whole.

Notice how many bombings and war the US had to engage in to be the superpower of the world.

Now check the GDP(PPP) of China. They are already the bigger superpower. How many wars did they fight? 

Almost none.

The west is inherently more violent than the east. Sharing power with the east is better for the world as a whole.

[Nivsch]

@Bobby_2021 China is far worse just because the way it treated its own people and the limited amount of freedom they have comparing to the citizens of the west. The west actions although causes many problems, still the best way humanity knows at this point to what it sees as maintain the democratic world order if to put it this way. You can suggest another more humane way but this is far easier to talk from outside. No doubt it will need to improve.

Edited July 20 by Nivsch

[Bobby_2021]

8 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

China is far worse just because the way it treated its own people

Nah bombing kids is far worse. 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

I've done my research on this topic of Western exploitation, I could not recommend this book more.