Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 2116. page

>>2145751
Yes.

>>2145751
Yeah, to be honest my family

>>2145930
Glad we can all agree.

>>2145320
Marriage is a mistake.

>>2145320
>around love
yes
>>2145334
Wrong if basically happens for the wrong reasons.

By loving someone you inherently invest in them unconditionally. Just because you like to be around that other persona and vise versa.

That being said, you should also be careful and don't go straight ahead charging in. Some people are manipulative and might use that against you.

And If it happens you should move on. you will eventually find some group of people or at least someone.

don't see why not

it's really the only reason we still have the practice nowadays

Because Jews

>>2145215

Which ones are those?

>>2145229
Historical materialism

Literally this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education

>>2144946
it straight goes to /lit/, but it's lit!

You better have money. Private academies from the day he starts reading to the day he graduates university.

Rewards of the atheist are all the shit he can buy for himself that he isnt wasting on church tithes. And also he meant that communists havent read Capital and just take what other people say about it on faith, little bit of reading comprehension and we wouldn have this shitty meme

>>2144857
he is just saying das kapital is flawed and is only popular because it attacks capitalism

>>2143666
>Commie
>Those digits

To the surprise of absolutely no one.

File: napoleon.jpg (100KB, 450x519px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 450x519px

duh

>>2143666
Washington

capitalism or no humanity is never going to leave planet Earth

Deal with it

A human society with no capitalism probably wouldn't have made it to electricity, let alone space travel.

If you mean "nobody wants to fund that shit" you would be correct, but this is inherent in every economic system, not just capitalism. It's capitalism that's given the US government a three trillion dollar a year budget to spend.

>>2143567
OP here, not totally against capitalism but i notice a trend of current capitalists not wanting to take risks like they did before.
In the early industrial days and before that when explorers were discovering the world there was huge risk.
no ones willing to risk it all anymore in the name of progress.
Clean and Solar energies would benefit a lot of things and even make profits for investors but since it wouldnt happen in the holders life time "its not worth it"

Its sad really.

I guess you could call it crony capitalism or something.

I suppose they will just come up with another buzzword

The only word I've seen to describe it is metamodernism. It describes a useful model that does seem to exist, but is a ridiculously stupid name.

>>2143072
What are its defining characteristics?

>>2141429
Get stronger allies

Better protection around Charles XII

File: black-burqa.jpg (33KB, 596x472px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 596x472px

>>2141429
This pic is missing modern Sweden.

>>2141429
Not letting Russia rebuild after the battle of narva 1700.
>>2141429
Knocked them out before heading south to deal with Poland-Lithuania.

File: Gyöngyös,_toronyház.jpg (51KB, 432x576px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 432x576px

For the people to have money, already in 1956 Hungary aquired large loans from the USSR and spent it on raising wages mainly. In 1957 the first larger reform attempt was sketched up. What it included was pretty much introducing elements of market economy, less direct orders, creating economic agents (companies managed by workers councils). However most of these were quickly redacted ue to general economic stabilisation.

The early 60s showed a strong growth but by 1965 lack of national capital begin to slow down investments, necessiting borrowing from international credit. The hoped source of new indogenous capital was agriculture. Collectivisation was sped up, both through concessions and force. Compulsory delivery for private farmers was suspended, small scale private agriculture fully legalised and regulated, the welfare state was extended to these peasents too. This worked and agriocultural production increased by ever year.

The 1961 5-year plan laid the goal of surpassing capitalist countries by the 1980s. In 1962-ben the Party's 7th congress declared "we have laid down the foundations of socialism and can begin building a modern socialist society".

File: miskolc_18em_22szintmagas.jpg (163KB, 589x693px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 589x693px

cont. of last post

A note on intra-block trade at the time, and how it related to Hungary. Due to the 1956 revolution, Hungary's situation in the Comecon gained new freedom of space. As Hungarian production simply couldn't keep up and frankly just couldn't produce all the populace needed, the Comecon supplied the rest in exchange for Hungarian goods, notably agricultural items, but also (low quality) industrial products. The most famous were the Ikarus buses, as Hungary was assigned to be bus producers of the Eastern block. The other great benefit of Comecon was bountiful cheap energy, mainly in the form of oil and gas from the USSR, supplied way under global market prices, enabling upkeep of wasteful, inefficient production practices.

The successes of the 60s encouraged the party leadership to redesign the whole economy, marking the start of the so-called New Economic Mechanism.

File: Veszprém_-_20emeletes.jpg (815KB, 1511x2031px) Image search: [Google]

815KB, 1511x2031px

The reform started on January 1, 1968.

The central invention of the reform was redesigning the whole plan-driven economy. It gave more autonomy to companies, limited markets replaced orders as the main mechanism. Collectivised busineses got a degree in freedom in choosing what exactly they produced, prices of global and internal markets started to converge. The totally centraslied distribution of resources was no more, and depending on company perfomance interests of leaders and workers were recognized.

The reforms were in effect until 1972, despite the Prague spring. However in 1972 the largest 50 industrial and food companies were put under central orders again, pretty much killing off the reform.

This step is begging questioning, One element was the fact that now that company perfomance was taken more into account, naturally some workers and leaders (but especially leaders and managers) started to receive greater payments thus income inequality grew, much to the disdain of labourers elsewhere. Unions spoke out loudly.

Two, due to limited freedom in production, certain kolhozes and companies started working for existing market holes, yet again creating additional income for themselves. This was of course not allowed for large corporations at all to maintain economic integrity.
As such payments again become heavily regulated, but all this did was giving rise to grey incomes. For example many workers simply stayed inside plants using the machines to produce then sell it for their own pockets.

Finally these the practices of the NEM did not increase export, partially because agriculture was still just too dominant in this area, partially because foreign policy did not accodomate to the NEM. In fact the choice of said 50 companies was very much due to trade worries and to boost export.

File: byzantine-large.jpg (328KB, 1600x1204px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1600x1204px

>>2135106

File: friedrich-august-hayek.jpg (40KB, 520x510px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 520x510px

Does this guy count or is it cheating? If yes then maybe Jefferson when he wasn't the president.

>>2135106
This test is rigged, you get put in the green square every time unless you purposely make an effort to be a contrarian.

Churchill looks like BabyRage.

fucking anti-Semitic trash, who the fuck is this guy anyways.

so what?

>>2151624
Neoliberalism

Nuking Japan

>>2151624
Nuking japan.

Followed in a far second by fire bombings

>>2151610
It's deliberately ambiguous.

>What does a "jewish state" mean?

what does a german state mean?

>if you're defining yourself as a jewish state, doesn't that mean you're creating a second class of non-jews?

yes

>if an ethnic arab converted to Judaism--would that make him a jew?

yes. not only that, they'd qualify for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return (don't ask how someone who's ancestry was never even hypothetically related to the Levant can "return" to it)

>are you looking to create an homogeneous state with only jews? how is that not dramatically undemocratic.

israel is 20% arab even discounting palestinians lol

>>2151610
>if you're defining yourself as a jewish state, doesn't that mean you're creating a second class of non-jews?
No.
>if an ethnic arab converted to Judaism--would that make him a jew?
I think that'd make him sephardi.
>or am i conflating being jewish as being like presbyterian and it's more of an ethnic group?
It's an ethno-national group.
>still though a modern country shouldn't be a home for just one ethnic group or another.
It doesn't imply that(though arabs are a long-term ethnic nightmare).
And it's not unheard of in modern times, as well.
Romania, for example, defines itself as a national state in the first article of it's constitution, and the elected president is a saxon, while the hungarian party has always been a part of the ruling government.