Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 2629. page

they're a big country

>>1827865

For you.

>>1827865
But why? In Europe for example there are loads of different ethnic groups what allowed the Han to take over such a large area?

>>1824765
good parenting goes a long way.

>>1824765
He made a popular meme called the Swasktika. That coupled with his moustache made him more powerful in Meme Magic that anyone single person in the world at that time or since.

>>1824765
Superb oratory skills, inhuman will and drive, charisma, right place at the right time. Oh and silencing the opposition by any means necessary goes a long way too.

>winter
>typical russian incompetence
>finns don't enjoying the food supplies the russians dropped on their cities

File: mämmi sauna soumi.jpg (7KB, 250x195px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x195px

>>1824167
Superior mongol heirtage, which helped them conquer Rus and Volga Bulgaria in the past.

>>1824167
Soviets fighting modern mechanized warfare by invading a country that is 95% forests, swamps and lakes though very few gravel roads. They also lack proper winter gear and camouflage, skis and overall are total retards when it comes to moving off roads. Finns only managed to keep it real thanks to all the shit they looted from dead soviets, they didn't even have enough uniforms. All in all it was a complete shit show that could have been avoided by waiting until spring before declaring war.

i dunno but imagine how rank the smegma must have smelled to have some dude think to himself "yeah I think I'm just gonna cut my foreskin off"

who was the first man to decided that drinking cow's milk was a good idea and how did it catch on after that?

>>1823433
I asked the same for eating chicken eggs

>>1819469
How can it work when capitalism isn't even developed enough to transition to socialism?

In small groups, yes.

In what way?

China is communist and America owes them money

Nordic peoples are germanic.

>>1825986
So Viking conquests into England were Germanics fighting Germanics?

>>1825994
>people in medieval age fought based on broad strokes of 20th century racialism

Were you always this retarded?

Rate my vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHBOo-ptCTg

>>1823851
delete this

Why isn't there a shitshow among Celts about the FUCKING NORMAN CONQUERORS like there is for anyone with a drop of indigenous blood against Columbus?

>>1817591
Everyone commits warcrimes. But the geneva convention wasn't a thing until 49 so.

>>1817591
>Reds have more Jews leading them then there should be, given Jews as a percentage of the population
>Therefore the Reds were under Jewish influence

>White faction had nearly as many Jews percentage-wise as the Reds, again way above what percentage they are of the national population
>Uhhhhhhhh

>>1817714
>But the geneva convention wasn't a thing until 49 so
You mean 1899?

Yep, but luckily, Yahweh call him a currynigger and Jesus responded with a confident *tips crown of thorns*

File: kuffir.jpg (22KB, 250x201px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x201px

How do you teach a Tengri?

>>1825145
How do you teach a Turk?

Equality is a communist meme

>>1820959
Real equality is about providing a legal base for meritocratic advancement. It's not about quotas for how many women you need to employ.
Sure, a richer person can pay a very expensive college for his kids, but generally people who aren't brought up in a way that gives them incentive to try hard lose a lot of their inherited wealth eventually. Generally by the 3rd generation.

Real equality is about combating nepotism and corruption.

>>1820959
>In the grand scheme of things, are all humans really equal?
Nothing distinguishable can be equal.

>>1818553
You forgot to put ML between apostles and scripture.

>>1818553
Nah. The Orthodox Church is. Catholics were the first in a long line of heresies. Just because they have their own heresies (protestants) doesn't make them not a heresy.

File: Deuterocanonical.png (174KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 499x499px

>>1818557

File: image.jpg (213KB, 800x474px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 800x474px

>>1825919
I know that feeling OP.

He was just too based for this world. We'll probably never see anyone like him again.

>>1825919
>napoleon
>incel

>>1825936
Good lol

Posting this on my phone while I poop

I have two ancestors who existed at the same time which interest me;

Thomas Clarke, big player in the 1916 Irish Uprising, and William Shearer, an Ulster soldier fighting for Britain in the trenches.

Both died, one by executed and the other by being sent on what was essentially a suicide mission to deliver a message.

I'm descended from royalty in every nation.

>>1825788
U WUZ KANG??

>>1824589
His military strategy was mostly filled with moronic decisions. Not too much unlike his life story.

If only he kept up with the times in art and stopped painting landscapes of trees.

>>1824589
That's what happens when you let kids who couldn't even finish high school take over the government


he was also a suicidal r9kbot before he even joined the Army of Bavaria

USA even in its "neutral" state provided France and UK with supplies before the war was declared.
But I know almost nothing about anything else.

What is "a fair distribution"?

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?

To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."

"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?

But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion - namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.