Well yeah that’s obvious

It does though because both of the biggest marxist countries who determined marxist theory were both imperialist. The soviet union was plundering the middle east the same as the west. My issue is socialism doesnt negate imperialism just based off of history

uh no I don't think so, guy

Research the soviet invasion of iran. They were plundering oil from that country

that's um, not what happened? Iranian oil at that time was not even controlled by Iranians, it was controlled by the British and was still controlled by the British after the Red Army left. idk what you think you know my friend but it ain't squat about Central Asian history.

how does one debunk the "socialism = no iphone" talking point

you don't, you just ignore it

This is my source
resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HIST351-10.2.4-Anglo-Soviet-invasion-of-Iraq.pdf

“Soviet troops did not withdraw from Iran proper until May, 1946 after receiving a promise of petroleum concessions.
The Soviet-backed republics in the north were soon overthrown and the oil concessions were revoked.”

Just tell them. "Exactly. Socialism is not about "i", it's about us. We're going to make the usPhone"

the source on this is literally the wikipedia article lmao

Whats your case for denying they pillaged iran for oil?

bc there's no evidence that that happened and also the USSR didn't have the economic basis to "pillage" anything, it was in the middle of a war with the nazis

Oh brother

He said "the world" man

This is universally achievable

The overwhelming majority of Marxist revolutions outside of Europe that ended up failing, failed due to a lack of support from the USSR. The collapse of the USSR precipitated a domino effect across the entire socialist world, because almost all of the socialist world materially depended on the USSR for survival

And no I don't think there is a genetic reason that socialism didn't work in Europe. However, Europe has millennia of skeletons in their closets that need to be unearthed and reconciled with before they can seriously pursue building socialism. They are just too backwards, idealistic, and violent to tackle it at the moment.

I like Traore

The ultimate contradiction is that a European conceived of the social theory that can liberate the developing world from European colonialism/imperialism, but couldn't appeal to most Europeans himself.

Nope. Every country is capable of achieving industrial modernity using their own labor power and most of their own resources. The "middle class" lifestyle is achievable globally, albeit in a somewhat modified form in order to accommodate the material construction of a socialist world. The reason the middle class lifestyle in the west is built on the backs of exploited slave labor from the global south is because of the creation of huge masses of surplus value via starvation wages and forced extreme labor. If that surplus value went back to the producers instead of the capitalists, there wouldn't be a problem in terms of wage compensation

Now, in terms of turning the global south into resource colonies/export economies, socialism can eliminate the former and develop a healthier balance between exporting, importing, and domestic production. The biggest problems afflicting the global south with regard to production is the hyperexploitation of labor and their dependency on western markets/capital, not the level of production they've achieved, and to an extent not even due to exporting the fruits of that labor.

The strippers, bouncers, and bartenders seize the means of production.

Under a socialist government, what happens during a January 6 type event

Yep, I was just referring to long-term development, explicitly an abstract argument as you said. In the immediate present, as I said earlier ITT, there would be an observable decline in standard of living for the American middle class. They can obviously afford it and if they are mad about it they can either contribute to the reindustrialization process of the USA, they can flee the country, or they can face the wall.

Protect the worker's state while minimizing casualties

Soviet social imperialism is contentious at best and a bad faith argument at worst.

China is imperialist but became so due to capitalist restoration.

The perpetrators are antirevolutionary combatants trying to seize the state by force. Aren't you afraid such deference will only embolden their movement?

Why does their movement exist in the first place?

Labor built the phone, engineers designed it, capitalism charged you an arm and a leg for it and forces you to upgrade your phone at exorbitant cost with minimal upgrades just so the a******s who paid to play wrt "owning" the company can buy yachts

Labor provides the fruits of capitalist society. Capital is the materialized manifestation of labor, it doesn't come out of thin air and isn't necessary for humans to build cool s***.