Anglo-Socialism

Just a general thread for discussing a union of English speaking peoples under socialism. The topic is open, just post your thoughts.

The Anglosphere ought to be united in one confederation under socialism. A common socialist historiography for the English speaking peoples should be made, starting with Oliver Cromwell and the puritans as protosocialists in the same way East Germany mythologised the German Peasant War. Marx as English resident should be highlighted. Cecil Rhode's vision ought to be raised under the red banner.

It might never happen soon, but it's a beautiful dream. It's a dream worth holding.

Attached: images (7).jpeg (833x368, 18.45K)

Other urls found in this thread:

full-stop.net/2017/02/02/features/matt-broomfield/1984-is-a-utopia-and-trump-is-not-big-brother/

What, Oceania?

Unironically. 1984 is actually a utopia and Winston Smith is a Goldsteinist terrorist willing to drop acid into the eyes of babies. O'Brien did nothing wrong, airstrip 1 was at war.

full-stop.net/2017/02/02/features/matt-broomfield/1984-is-a-utopia-and-trump-is-not-big-brother/

You can interpret any work of fiction any way you want if you just say the magic words: "Unreliable Narrator."

That article is unironically correct. It was always a utopian novel

'Jungian psychoanalysis' also works

Burgers have more in common with Latin America than with the rest of the Anglo sphere
t Burger

Cromwell wasn't /ourguy/, the Diggers (and going back further, John Ball) were /ourguys/

Also I don't want an anglo federation, I want a global one.

California, Texas, and Florida do anyway.

Cromwell was the founder of the Green Pill.

Not just them but all of America. Both the US and Latin America broke broke away from their mother countries in violent revolutions. Canada didn’t. Both the US and Latin America are all Republics. Canada is still cucked to the queen. Also Canada is incredibly pacifist and polite and the US and Latin America have militaristic and vulgar cultures.

Canada is not polite and pacifist so much as it is content to enjoy being a part of two othe empires without having to do anything. It wasn't a polite, pacifist people who invented ice hockey.

It’s what they have become. The Canadian Military is a meme, and they have nothing like the militia culture America has.

That's a fun website. Here's mine.

Attached: m6z6qs3pmo-b5fqxk42z4-gn1sx2qe4g-b33r64zekg-2rrvtk66tc.gif (900x450, 34.14K)

Travel thread? Travel thread.

Attached: DD6789E6-EDED-47E5-B469-E8B50FA3A3EE.gif (900x450, 31.99K)

I do not know that Americans have a "militia culture," whatever that is.

Attached: m674iyfklc-b3vmhw40lc-b3ajtx5la8-b33r639lhc-2rrvtmnqio.gif (900x450, 28.66K)

Attached: mv5jbv5nnk-b5j9tzqvb6-gtuvggwsi8-b683zhf5ts-4ckvwfo5fk.gif (900x450, 32.47K)

wait wtf this doesn't count t*rkey as European? hot take
but yea add that to the list

Turkey is kind of an inbetween case in my view

sure, but if you count Russia as European you should prob count t*rkey as well
it did some weird divide with South Caucasus as well, I think Georgia and Armenia was counted as Europe and Azerbaijan as Asia?

Europe as a concept is almost kind of silly, especially since the further East you go the vaguer and less-defined it is, leading to weird seeminlgy-arbitrary splits like you described above with the Caucasus, stuff like a European versus non-European Russia. I’ve even seen parts of Kazakhstan classified as European in some maps.

I love the fact that the primitivist has visited this many tribes and hasn’t traded dozens of diseases or has is head split by a large stick

pretty sure that poster is the reasonable ecosocialist rather than the psychotic primmie

oh come on now. Europe is obviously a distinct cultural and political region in the same way india is. Yeah, the lines between whats indian and whats middle eastern blur as you go west, east, or north, but its still a distinct region overall, you can even see it sticking out into the sea. europe is even more of a peninsula.
And this isn't eternal, Mediterranean parts of europe were better thought of as part of a mediterranean world shared by north africa and parts of the near east in the ancient world, but it doesn't make it less relevant for a long time during and after the roman empire up to this day.
Political regions like this getting blurry and more poorly defined is true for any such region and it doesnt make the concept of there being regions like this worth describing useful. Its no more real than any other abstraction, but its a useful abstraction.

Exactly, thank you

Have any actual arguments?

What are the specific distinctions?

So where does Europe end and why there?

There is no hard border and the fact that its still a valid distinctin despite that is my entire post.

Does your brain explode when you see a color gradient?
"Dude theres not really a red region and a blue region, look at it, where does the red end and the blue begin? Checkmate athiests."

...

the color gradient metaphor is mostly accurate for a description of regions you mong.
Trying to define a region like europe with hard lines is retarded but that doesn't mean the notion of the region isn't valid.
Dumbass.

Europe doesn't exist. It's an invention. It's all a part of Afro-Eurasia

Afro-Eurasia doesn't fucking exist either. Theres no objective reason to give a shit about continuous landmasses. And afro-eurasia is split up by a canal anyways.
Europe exists just as much as afro-eurasia does, its all abstractions. None of them /actually/ exist, but afrasia and europe are both useful ones.

Continuous landmasses have clear definitions and quantifiable physical properties. Europe and India are just made up.

How is a concept valid without a clear definition?

Brainlet.

Afro-eurasia is not continuous. Its divided by the suez canal.
Enormous portions of the concepts you use to think about the world are made up, but they're still useful.
Calling regional names silly because the distinctions they're based on fade into each other instead of having clear cut lines is fucking retarded.

hurr durr

Why?
Exactly how many centimeters of water at how many centimeters of depth are required before landmasses are considered "separated", to you?
Right, the real answer is "stop being autistic", because this is not an empirical fact of nature, just a useful category.

What is the supposed substance that is shifting?


Because the Suez Canal is a man-made shipping lane. Goddamn, you're dumb.

It's a man-made canal. They still connect below it. You're just a giant retard

Political influences.
language families.
religious influences.
etc.

totally arbitrary distinction to make your unreal abstractions look more "objective" than other unreal abstractions.

None of that feelz shit is a substance. It is entirely unquantifiable. Hell, you can't even call it a qualitative state beyond any given individual.


So man made Asia and Africa in 1869. Never mind the continental shelf–you know, that thing that defines a continent.

History and anthropology are not hard sciences. Stop being autistic.
Do you just want 'europe' to be an invalid category because its one that nazis fetishize and treat as more than an abstraction?

It has nothing to do with Nazis, though I’m sure they’d call me a Jew for arguing this. It is an abstraction, it’s a part of a larger landmass that is arbitrarily called its own full-fledged continent. India should counted as a continent (not just a sub-continent) by this logic. It’s stupid

I never said 'continent' you dumb fuck

Yes, that is exactly what they are. If you want to argue otherwise, show us the material reality that defines them.

So what? That has fuck-all to do with anything.

Europe is invalid as a concept, because it has no practical definition, unless you are willing to concede that it is just lines on a map. That is what an argument based on reason looks like. Now, why do you want it to be valid? Where is the reason that underpins your claim?

Attached: PaineReason.jpg (1500x557, 102.95K)

See your own picture. I'm done here, your argument is too retarded to bother with.

They have material causes but no material reality in themselves.

Europe is not a peninsula, which should by obvious given that it is mostly composed of other peninsulas. Even if you did want to call it a "peninsula" what would be the significance of such a distinction?

You have nothing but your own inability to recognize spooks to blame for your frustration.

A spook is something you place above your own self interest. Using abstractions to make sense of history is subordinating them to your self interest.

History? What is the historical model that requires abstractions in the form of Europe and India to make sense? What do these ill-defined, immaterial, and inconsistent abstractions offer? How can such a thing even be employed analytically, given that analysis only works within a rigid framework?

India is a subcontinent surrounded by mountain ranges though. India is as real as the Appalachian mountain range or the North European plain is.