The cold war: a 40 year competition between an anti-imperialist empire seeking to improve food and housing conditions...

>Imperialism: a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

Explain how conquest through coercive force is not mutually exclusive of voluntary association.

>Explain how conquest through coercive force is not mutually exclusive of voluntary association.

Explain how governments aren't kept alive by coercion. See here's your problem: you think that's a bad thing.

>anti-imperialist empire
>forced everyone into their empire through violent force and then proceeded to commit genocide, repressions and set up concentration camps to cleanse their empire of undesirables
>anti-imperialist
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>anti-imperialist empire

This name was already an oxymoron, implying your comment ffs.

Coercive force used in reaction to some wrong, such as the performance of a crime, preserves governments and, an extent, peace. Coercive force used proactively to conquer others destroys governments, peace, and human lives, and is a bad thing.

>Coercive force used in reaction to some wrong
>in reaction to something

I like how you put this caveat in there. Let's get something straight: revolutionaries are a reaction to the natural order. Traditionalism set us on an evolutionary path. Revolutionaries reacted to it and decided they wanted something against that natural order. There are a lot of reasons for that, but principle among them is that it can be turned into a weapon. Communism is one of those weapons. With that out of the way, I would destroy another peoples to secure my own. You would destroy other peoples to secure your ideology so don't even pretend you're a pacifist here. If you are a pacifist that's bad because it tells me you won't fight for your beliefs, but as a "revolutionary", that's the one thing you're trying to avoid. It's why commies call themselves agitators. Revolutionary force also seeks to topple governments, remove natural rights, and only speaks about peace when it's enemies break it but never when they do. Communism is a lie from beginning to end.

Exactly what are you ranting about? I never even implied that I was a communist.

>Coercive force used in reaction
>implying force used in revolution is ok

Irrelevant because I'm not a pacifist anyways. The primary problem with the empires was allowing our betas to breed and sending soldiers, aka better humans, to die in waves. There's literally nothing wrong with coercive force used to protect, or even expand, on my national identity and for the survival of my people.

>revolutionaries are a reaction to the natural order. Traditionalism set us on an evolutionary path.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>Let's get something straight: revolutionaries are a reaction to the natural order. Traditionalism set us on an evolutionary path.
There is no natural path. All technologies and the reactions societies have to them are unprecedented.

>Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Explain where you lost track and I'll help you. What are revolutionaries rebelling against?Protip: Don't repeat what your meme is saying

>There is no natural path. All technologies and the reactions societies
A reaction society is a society reacting to what exactly?

In addition to this:Consider where the revolutionary-reactionary frame comes from. Not neutral history. Sure isn't traditional history. Not conservative history. It's designed with a casus belli in mind.

I'm asking you to back up the assertion that these empires were the natural order. Also that traditionalism set us on "the natural path" as though there is such a thing. You cant have it both ways you fucking dipshit, either might makes right in which case the revolutions to bring about democratic republics were justified on those grounds, or it doesn't in which case you had better present a more sound moral argument than the various liberal theorists.

>A reaction society is a society reacting to what exactly?

The conditions of society. That doesn't make it "the natural order" which implies a teleological justification for that society.

Coercive force used in reaction isn't the same as revolution. That term is meant to refer to upholding law through coercion, which is how government exists.

Your post is mostly incoherent, but let me try to figure this all out.

>allowing our betas to breed
Please try to define 'beta' with as few ideological biases as possible so that I might understand what you mean.
>soldiers, aka better humans
Exactly how and why are soldiers better humans?
>nothing wrong with coercive used to protect
I agree with this; protection is a reactive coercive force, reacting against aggression.
>or even expand
This is morally wrong because it kills people and prevents voluntary association.
>national identity
Exactly how does imperialism, a specifically aggressive behavior, protect (protection being a reaction to aggression) national identity? Further, doesn't imperialism send soldiers (the 'better humans' whose deaths are, as you've called it, a problem) into more situations wherein they will fight and die?

>Also that traditionalism set us on "the natural path" as though there is such a thing.
Of course there is. Britain is a good example of evolving circumstances fit to their geographic and historic position

>I'm asking you to back up the assertion that these empires were the natural order.

Here's the problem: you faggots came on this board and started whining about reactionary societies.Here is what you came up with:
>"The conditions of society"
So according to you, and I want to get this straight before I move on, EVERY society is a reactionary society? Revolutionary societies are reactionary societies too, since they're reacting to the conditions of their society?

>Coercive force used in reaction isn't the same as revolution. That term is meant to refer to upholding law through coercion, which is how government exists.

How is force in reaction different than revolution? Is one better than the other? On what basis? Since governments in the past who have called themselves revolutionary have been bloody(French revolutionary period, Bolsheviks, Cubans,Maoists, etc), how is that not a form of coercion used to uphold their systems?

>Please try to define 'beta' with as few ideological biases as possible so that I might understand what you mean.

If you don't know what a beta is by looking at one, you are one and don't bother worrying about it.

>Exactly how and why are soldiers better humans?

Discipline and order. The left, and it's hard not to assume the posters itt, think that the human is a tabula rasa at birth. As if they are the only animals in the kingdom without a predisposition.

>This is morally wrong because it kills people and prevents voluntary association.

How does it prevent voluntary association? The whole point is to circumvent voluntary association and prevent a break down in social cohesion. Is all killing wrong? You know I would disagree on the basis of what's best for a society. Not every death is a tragedy. No one is entitled to living under the sun regardless of who and what they are. My people come first, it would be a disservice to them to allow enemies to endanger that.

>Exactly how does imperialism, a specifically aggressive behavior, protect (protection being a reaction to aggression) national identity?

Do you want the spiritual or material argument? There's both.

>Further, doesn't imperialism send soldiers (the 'better humans' whose deaths are, as you've called it, a problem) into more situations wherein they will fight and die?

Could be, or simply use the people unwilling to fight to fight, and those willing to fight become a promoted class of peoples.

I work in finance so I have met quite a few legit Chads and I can quite safely say none of them would give the alpha beta meme more than a passing glance, assuming they ever came across it applied to humans over the internet.

I'm seeing zero justifications for your teleological claims, just a lot of incoherent ranting.

>I work in finance so I have met quite a few legit Chads and I can quite safely say none of them would give the alpha beta meme more than a passing glance, assuming they ever came across it applied to humans over the internet.

bahahaha oh fuck this board is too good

That's a nice way to back out of the definition you know you screwed up. You can't even tell me what a reactionary society is, but you keep mumbling something about teleological fundamentals, even though my "traditional evolutionary society" is the same thing as your "reactionary society" just posed in a different light. You were the one that came here making teleological claims and you have to worm out now because you can't even explain yourself. Amazing.

>3864677 (You) #
>>There is no natural path. All technologies and the reactions societies
>A reaction society is a society reacting to what exactly?
You misread my statement.

>The conditions of society. That doesn't make it "the natural order" which implies a teleological justification for that society.
The lack of a natural order neither provides nor denies justification for any given society.

>That's a nice way to back out of the definition you know you screwed up. You can't even tell me what a reactionary society is, but you keep mumbling something about teleological fundamentals, even though my "traditional evolutionary society" is the same thing as your "reactionary society" just posed in a different light. You were the one that came here making teleological claims and you have to worm out now because you can't even explain yourself. Amazing.

You've picked an irrelevant point. I never claimed to give one shit about the arbitrary divide between reactionary and revolutionary. I just wanted you to justify the claim that the old empires that people revolted against in the rise of nation-states and democratic republics are "the natural order." Or that they set us on an evolutionary path (you agree with Marx on this one, btw).

>you keep mumbling something about teleological fundamentals

Yes, you are an idiot that doesn't understand basic philosophy.

God are you fucking retarded?

(You) #
newfag?? ^ lol

>You misread my statement.

Explain how.
I said:
>A reaction society is a society reacting to what exactly?
Then you said:
>The conditions of society.
So if every society is reacting to it's own conditions,which it seems to me they would be in order to function,then they're all reactionary.

>The lack of a natural order neither provides nor denies justification for any given society.

Because there isn't a lack of a natural order. There are natural foundations of a society, laid down by it's predecessors,it's history, it's environment, condition, and neighbors. An example of deviation would be the Bolsheviks, who instead of fighting for increased social cohesion and winning the world war while improving conditions, which would be the natural course of action for anyone living in those borders, they did the complete opposite in every way possible.

>How is force in reaction different than revolution?
Revolution is specifically proactive. Violent revolution is performed to coercively end some dominant government or other power structure.

>If you don't know what a beta is by looking at one, you are one and don't bother worrying about it.
This isn't an argument. Being that the preservation of beta lives & the breeding of betas is such a problem that it's core to your critique of society, I think you should make at least some attempt to defend it.

>How does [imperialism] prevent voluntary association?
By violently coercing people into not doing things they'd otherwise do, and preventing them from peacefully interacting with people they otherwise could.

>No one is entitled to live under the sun regardless of who and what they are.
No one is 'entitled' to anything, but entitlement isn't the basis of ethics. You aren't entitled to your life, but it would still be wrong of me to murder you.

>it would be a disservice to [my people] to allow enemies to endanger [them].
Disservice to whom? Are your people entitled to life when others are not? Why?
Further, what defines 'your people'? Is it familial, ethnic, cultural, civic? Can a person reasonably claim all of humanity as his people, or are there boundaries on what people he is allowed to claim?
Finally, to get to the core of the topic at hand, how does imperialism prevent enemies from endangering your people? Historically, imperialism has only succeeded in making enemies. If no group ever collectively aggressed in 'war', war would never endanger anybody. Since some groups do, protection - a reaction - is necessary. However, war - a proaction - is unnecessary, and actually a bad thing.

>use the people unwilling to fight to fight, and those willing to fight become a promoted class of peoples.
Such a system would result in the loss of every war.

>(you agree with Marx on this one, btw).

Surprise, surprise- someone on a history board is viewing his philosophy in the context of historicity.

>"Yes, you are an idiot that doesn't understand basic philosophy."
>namedrops the word "teleological"
>doesn't realize the argument opposed to his enemy is also teleological
>can't give basic definitions to terms he's using
>just get fed up and call the other guy a retard

>Assuming that the Cold War really was all about ideology.

>be avoided but is in human evolutionary progress

It's funny how no one says that except for whoever happens to be on top at the time.

>Revolution is specifically proactive.
>proactive

You mean reactive. They're reacting to the dominant power structure, like you point out immediately after:
>"Violent revolution is performed to coercively end some dominant government or other power structure"

They're not trying to stop something they know will happen, because that would be proactive. They reacting to the forces in charge: reacting. It's pretty obvious that revolutionaries are reacting to those forces. They are equally reactionary. Now let me tell you why this language was adopted: to give a casus belli for revolutionaries against the forces they oppose and separate themselves. It was designed to give revolutionaries a sense of "impetus", as if they were doing something unprecedented and unique in contradiction to their enemies. What they were really doing is knocking their societies so far off course they couldn't justify it in terms of what they were arguing for or against their more reasonable opposition.

>This isn't an argument.

It is sweetie, it's just one you don't like.

>By violently coercing people into not doing things they'd otherwise do

So if a country is endangered in war, it shouldn't draft people to defend it?

> You aren't entitled to your life, but it would still be wrong of me to murder you.

For no reason on an individual basis. We're talking about civilizations, the contest and struggles between masses of hundreds of millions and the echoing of their achievements throughout all time.

>Are your people entitled to life when others are not? Why?

Yes, because of survival and achievement. The world is a staging ground for a contest of wills, and the weaker will dies out and is replaced. If you don't want a culture that survives, so be it, but don't expect the rest of everyone else to throw in the towel too just because you don't give a shit.

Arguments: 0

>Further, what defines 'your people'?

That's a good question. It's going to vary from person to person of course. I have an ethnic people, and an ethic association more broadly with people outside of the grouping.

>, how does imperialism prevent enemies from endangering your people?

By being proactive. By now you should have learned what that word meant, and how it relates to the traditional society.

>Historically, imperialism has only succeeded in making enemies.

Enemies come and go regardless. It's the only viable way to end them.

>If no group ever collectively aggressed in 'war', war would never endanger anybody

So you have to rely on every other individual not teaming up with other individuals, forming a group, and destroying the rest. See the flaw?

>Such a system would result in the loss of every war.

How? We can share cases where it worked, and where it didn't. Or dodge the entire question by saying that rules of war millennia ago no longer apply in the nuclear age.

>It's funny how no one says that except for whoever happens to be on top at the time.

It's a reality regardless of opinion. Why would you make the claim that people who lose out in the struggle are less likely to believe in it? I can think of a few bitter losers who learned that lesson and took it to heart.

>making a post about the lack of an opponents arguments isn't an argument

Ok

>Explain how. I said: "A reaction society is a society reacting to what exactly?"
That seems to only be tangentially related to which it was written in response to.

>Then you said: "The conditions of society."
I didn't post that.

>You mean reactive.
I simply don't, and here you're really only arguing semantics. You can always see the yin in the yang, or vice versa, but to have a productive discussion you have to make some decisions as to what words mean. Revolution is specifically proactive and aggressive - aggression is always the intent of revolutionaries. It is not included under my definition of protection as reactive coercive force.

>It is sweetie, it's just one you don't like.
Stating your refusal to define a term is not an argument.

>So if a country is engaged in war, it shouldn't draft people to defend it?
That's irrelevant. If there was no war in the first place (war requiring an aggressor) then drafts would never happen. You seem to be ignoring the fact that if no group ever proactively chose to collectively aggress, war would never happen. War is not just something that inexplicably happens, it's a direct result of purposeful human action.

>For no reason on an individual basis
Yes it would still be wrong. Killing you might hurt you (depending on how I killed you) and it would hurt all the people who care about you, as well as damaging all of the more superficial relationships you have (economic transactions between the people you serve at your job, for instance). All of these are important to people, emotionally, intellectually, and materially, and so if I purposefully destroyed them, I would be hurting those people and therefore be performing an immoral act. No gain I could get from killing you would justify that.

>We're talking about civilizations
Which are made up of individual people.

>Yes, because of survival and achievement.
How can you rank the 'achievement' of a group of people to figure out whether or not it is entitled to life? By seeing whether or not you can kill them? Doesn't that just prove that the winning group capable of winning at war? In what way is that an achievement? Isn't that only an achievement because of people choosing to make war in the first place? Also, even if that is SOMEHOW an achievement, why waste resources on killing people when you could cultivate your own land and form mutually beneficial relationships with the other people? The 'achievement' of killing people produces nothing, but trade at the very least improves everyone's material state.

>That's a good question.
So why don't you just claim everyone on Earth as 'your people'? Then you could share bonds freely without having to kill anyone.

>By being proactive.
>Enemies come and go regardless
It's as if you're purposefully ignoring the chronological order of things. People don't just war with each other for no reason, they war with each other because they want something they can't otherwise get. 'Enemies' are either constructed to produce an excuse for aggression or created out of a principle attack that creates fear in the attacked group of another attack. If nobody ever attacked, there would be no 'enemies' to defend against.

>So you have to rely on...
No, you could still create a purely defensive force. Also, you could form mutually beneficial bonds which make war unprofitable and less likely to happen.

>How?
A system in which those who don't want to fight are forced to but those who do want to are protected from having to do so wouldn't work because the fighters would have no incentive to continue fighting, which they, due to the system, don't want to do. They would, then, not ever fight, or if they do somehow choose to engage in war, stop fighting very quickly, and therefore lose.

I've been following this thread and your posts are an unintelligible mess. You are not as smart or perceptive as you posture as.

>you're really only arguing semantics

You said revolutionary societies are proactive, and then immediately describe their activities as reactive. Which they are. There is no room for relativity here: you got the definition wrong. Being aggressive doesn't make them proactive. It makes them aggressive.

>Stating your refusal to define a term is not an argument.
It's one of those things: if it has to be told to you,you're not going to get it or accept it either way.

>That's irrelevant
No, that's the entire point. You're arguing for atomization even in situations you know it's wrong. Like collective defense,identity, or ethics at all.

>Yes it would still be wrong.

Yes. On an individual basis. In wartime, it'd be necessary. If somebody killed my family member just because, and someone killed them in a war, that's two entirely different things and you're suggesting it's all the same. Would you treat the enemy soldier the same as a blood thirsty criminal?

>Which are made up of individual people.
Acting in a unified and ethical manner. That transcends the moral laws of independent people acting in their own self interest.

>How can you rank the 'achievement' of a group of people

Pretty easily actually. Everything we have in modern society is the product of Eurasian civilizations since the dawn of human history. Achievement has nothing to do with murder. I'm not sure why you set up this hypothetical that if someone doesn't achieve something they must be killed.

>So why don't you just claim everyone on Earth as 'your people'?
Because not everyone is the same. We're not all equal. We don't all have the same ethics, morals, or capabilities. We don't have the same desires or end goals- and the first group to become exclusive and war on the rest as individuals is at an advantage. If nothing else it's prudent.

>No, you could still create a purely defensive force. Also, you could form mutually beneficial bonds which make war unprofitable and less likely to happen.

None of that is advantageous as conquest against people of opposing interests and values, but if a neighboring society possesses those same values that I do, for instance Japan, then it would be beneficial in that case.

>If nobody ever attacked, there would be no 'enemies' to defend against.
So you outlined the desire and intent to attack and then pretend it's somehow not advantageous for a group to go on the offensive. If just everyone would hold hands and get along, when you pointed out the impracticality of that scenario. An enemy can be an enemy by virtue of possession of any material or intent without having previously attacked too.

>A system in which those who don't want to fight are forced to but those who do want to are protected from having to do so wouldn't work because the fighters would have no incentive to continue fighting

You acknowledged the role of coercion, and yet here you deny the incentive it creates in pushing peons to fight.

You're salty I've stopped responding to you because the other line of discussion is more interesting. Even on borechan you have trouble with charisma.

nah that was my first post in the thread i was just reading the argument and wanted to let you know you come off as an arrogant dumbfuck

The Cold War just proved that Brinkmanship is retarded and led to Americans rejecting the completely sensible concept of a Socialist government due to all those pieces of anti-USSR propaganda that conflated the two.

>wanted to let you know you come off as an arrogant

I work out and my dick is probably bigger than yours. Also doesn't invalidate what I say.

What was sensible about the ussr or maoism?

teenbro brag

No, he really is right. This entire time your posts have been mostly incoherent mess. You repeatedly ignore points I've made, appeal to values or terms without defining them, and generally seem to almost purposefully ignore any sense of reason or logic. I could continue to reply to your bullshit over and over, but at this point I don't really see any value in it. Imperialism doesn't protect, it only destroys or, at best, loots areas of productivity to transfer value to less productive people. National identity, especially as you've defined it ("it's relative") is a myth, and its relationship to the value of imperialism is as tenuous as your arguments for why imperialism is valuable. The best arguments you've made were on the tangential topic of revolutionary war and whether or not it is proactive or reactive, and even that very discussion was only brought about by your bizarre accusation of me that I am a communist. Your entire ideology, as you've expressed it, is a disaster, and I have no further interest in discussing it with you.

youtu.be/zCTJmXrgsFg?t=14s

reminder that the cold war was akin to a knife fight in the sense that the loser's death coincided with the resolution of the conflict, and the winner had the honor of slowly bleeding to death afterwards

>calls me a teen
>I'm probably older than him
>ex's are probably more alpha

>You repeatedly ignore points I've made
Yes, because your posts are a mess. You jump from point to point instead of concentrating on a few. Notice how I keep responding with two blocs of texts instead of one? That means you can't stay focused and it's forcing me to argue like a shotgun instead of a sniper rifle. It's incredibly irritating.

oog me am alpha

This is what amerimutts look like when they argue, everyone.

For people who like to point out of lack of arguments, my opponents sure do love putting out a lack of arguments. It appears my superiority has caused some controversy.

>inb4 "not an argument", that would be a self incriminating post

this isnt an argument its multiple posters laughing at your display of retardation

lmao this is too funny, you went for my own inb4 comment

I'm pretty sure it's two people in this thread. One person, who wants to sing kumbaya, thinks proactive means being aggressive, and doesn't understand the purpose of reactionary/revolution in postmodern and left wing philosophy as a patterning mechanic, and one other guy who got pissed he wasn't interesting enough to talk to.

I'm not even convinced it's more than one person, but I'm giving benefit of the doubt it's two. I feel like the average user wouldn't waste this much time on bait or jumping in between two fighting dogs.

nice delusionbro

Friendly reminder they also had a life expectancy and literacy on par with the developed world and made it into space despite being rather poor and losing 16% of their population and much of their infrastructure in WWII

>Friendly reminder they also had a life expectancy and literacy on par with the developed world

I would sure hope so given their size, resources, industrial levels they stole, etc. That's a very low bar to set for a nation with standard IQ within deviation.

>made it into space
I have bad news user. That tech wasn't originally Soviet....In fact...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim

>anti-colonial colony
>20th century america
>colony
??

Go back to the breadlines Ivan

How is that claim not true?