Your version is plenty uncut and soggy as well. A significant amount of land buys involved evictions of peasants. There was plenty of violence in the arab revolts against British rule, when Jewish militia acted as British auxiliaries. Pogroms were very rare in pre-modern Arab lands, and usually related to factional politics, since jews often had significant political rights and power. The British suck. Most MENA Jews migrated voluntarily, and there's clear evidence that mossad had projects to heighten tensions in those countries, including even planning the bombing of synagogues.
This is silly... what mass migration happens "voluntarily" lol. MENA Jews weren't even Zionists until they force-became Zionists.
But yeah, good-faith debates should steer clear of the "legally purchased" bit, it's kind of absurd to ignore that buying land from absentee rich landlords and evicting the longstanding residents is not going to (rightfully, IMO) create a lot of animosity.
There's definitely more at play than just bad thoughts. Actions result from emotions and expectations that are conditioned by complex patterns of social behavior reinforced by material pressures and legal institutions providing complex feedback to behaviors and all of that is also part of the explanation why memes spread farther and faster in some places, like American schools, than in other places.
Um, have you been to America before, or read any of it's history? Of course we don't openly discuss the racialized class of cheap reserve peon labor that is maintained for everyone else's benefit, that would be super uncomfortable.
Having the global reserve currency is a pretty big difference too. The base economy of the Lebanese government is Lebanon, the base economy of the US government is the world.
Yeah, I hate when woke liberals and college administrators go on about their Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and subverting the bourgeois counter-revolution, good grief.
It certainly was annoying in my school days in the early 2000's. Though, oddly enough the one professor I had who was adamantly capital-S Socialist and anti-capitalist was less annoying than many of the students who played at it.
> Though, oddly enough the one professor I had who was adamantly capital-S Socialist and anti-capitalist was less annoying than many of the students who played at it.
It's easy to hate capitalism, but it's hard to be a legit leftist. Our ideas are morally correct, but need a lot of work and have been implemented poorly so many times--and, of course, if we grew up in the US, we were trained to be hypersensitive to the negatives of "socialism" and to exaggerate the failings of (in fact, not great) socialist experiments like the USSR.
One of the biggest problems with communism and socialism is not that our ideas are bad, because they're not, but that there's nothing in history or science that prevents a complete thug or scumbag from calling himself a socialist. In fact, lots of thugs and scumbags have: you've got Stalin (psychopath) and Ceausescu (rot in hell) and Chavez (fucking idiot) for evidence of this. There's no admission test to becoming "a socialist" in political theater; you just have to say you care about the poor.
At least in the US, the people like your professor tend to have a lot of experience defending their ideas, and therefore have a more nuanced understanding of their pitfalls and virtues--as well as the benefits of other systems (e.g., the computational power of markets vs. central planning) and the strategic need to replicate them somehow... whereas 19-year-olds in the 4.9% who believed in the system when they were getting top grades and told they had the world by the balls, but have gone socialist after losing an internship or a girlfriend to a Preston von Twattenberg VI and becoming redpilled about how our society actually works, are still arguing from emotion (and who can blame them?) and only time will tell whether they (a) build up intellectually consistent bases for their beliefs, and (b) continue to hold their (correct but, in the US, still unpopular) ideological convictions as they get older.
> the people like your professor tend to have a lot of experience defending their ideas
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. One class (it was a sociology and media course) he had us watch a movie that was basically a bad indie prior art for The Purge.
Rather appearing like finely honed his ideas, it looked more like a very superficial understanding of capitalism (specifically American capitalism, since it was topically focused on American media).
You're missing the point of the comment you're replying to: labor organization does not require government permission to exist. It existed long before any sort of government quasi-protection.
There are many examples of this including Solidarity [1] and the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 [2] following attempts to freeze wages following the Black Death where demand suddenly exceeded supply and pushed up wages.
And this isn't even counting the cases where peasant and worker uprisings that led to revolutions.
The concept of a general strike is a relatively modern one but an extremely powerful one regardless of any legalities.
I'm not sure this is true. I recall from listening to the Blowback podcast that Castro initially tried to align with the US, and there was disagreement among US leaders about whether he was friend or foe. But we had a bunch of people in Florida, among them the dictator he ousted, offering to try and kill him, so we just went with that.
Yeah, that's really not so different from being sold naked in irons at slave auctions for centuries. Also similar is the way everyone can identify jews by the star on their foreheads, and mormons by the bright glow of their genitals.
