Domino's Pizza to handle US infrastructure repairs

kek

Filling potholes? I guess they finally have found a use for their subpar pizza dough.

i give in, the ☭TANKIE☭s are right and these people need bullets

Attached: smash that mf trigger fam.png (246x200, 12.01K)

America made it’s wealth by being the only major country to survive WW2 intact. It kept it’s wealth through imperialism.

Government comrade here. Stuff like this honestly happens all the time. Whether it's adopting off-the-shelf software or hiring contractors to pave and fix your roads, the gov't essentially runs like a corporation with no profit motive and laxer deadlines.

That said, this is obviously a publicity stunt. A rather novel and well-conceived one, but still. What's really gonna get my goat is when liberals will parade this around as an example of corporate superiority over the government.

I honestly liked Domino's till I found out I was allergic to it. It was good comfort food.

Attached: kobayashi.jpg (900x825, 137.58K)

America has been imperialist (in the classical sense) since the 1800s. You don't become wealthy under capitalism without exploitation.

Attached: mmm grayons.png (732x832, 348.71K)

I know all this. It's what we pride ourselves on as Americans. Even are military gear is all designed and built by third party companies.

To make my point more clear with a more egregious hypothetical example:

Let's say it was the local chapter of The Aryan Brotherhood fixing potholes, and the local city government was completely cool with them spraying their logos on the roads in exchange for this complimentary service. If ANY federal or state taxes EVER went into the production or maintenance of said road I think they could and probably would put their foot down without the need to even pass any additional laws.

Attached: OhYesWeDid!.jpg (1108x900, 202.41K)

(You) have a lot of shit takes, you know that, right?

Tbh I'm glad the age of the deficit hawk in America is over. It's always the same formula:

gtfo

People don't want to pay taxes in part because the problems have grown so large that the costs to fix them are astronomical and also because their wages are so substantially depressed that paying more taxes would significantly impact their purchasing power. Food prices go up every month, but you'll be lucky if you get a 2% increase a year.

The US wasn't even a net-capital exporter until WWI happened. The 1800s is a pretty broad period too, no? If someone says that America was imperialist in 1815 I'd say that's pretty fucking retarded; if they said it was imperialist in the 1890s I'd say that's plausible.

Here's a fact: the US has always had higher average wages than Britain even when the US had semi-colonial relationship to Britain prior to the Civil War. The same thing is true of Australia for the entirety of its history. If the US had failed to become imperialist it likely would have become Argentina but simplistic analysis like this could not explain why Argentina was once of the wealthiest countries in the world but failed to keep its position.

It's almost like labor scarcity effects and expected standard of living effects what wage-rates are going to be. Looking at pure productivity gains alone, the life of the working class can improve under capitalism–even in developing countries especially when you consider class struggle.

So, no, it actually doesn't make sense to argue you can't become wealthier as a nation without exploiting other countries. Even certain developing countries have improved but it still doesn't alter the fact of neo-colonial domination, nor put them on a level with the West.

Imo South Korea didn't exploit other countries financially to industrialize and become wealthy but it maintains itself by the same imperialist schemes as everyone else. This isn't to say that the West didn't exploit other countries to help itself develop.

Sadly enough, this is intentional, and an important factor in how conservative and lolbert politics work in the US.

I remember an ancom-ish commune doing something like this, but instead of filling in a pothole they resurfaced the entire road

Also, as a Canadian I can tell that's a piss-poor repair job. It's going to get ripped up by frost and ford f-150s in the fall. You need to tear up the surrounding pavement and pave the resulting whole to avoid this

When are mouth breathing retards going to realize that you cannot fix potholes like that.

Water still seeps under the top and erodes the foundation.
That means more cracks and more potholes.

The lack of understanding how infrastructure is maintained, and the consequences of shutting down infrastructure for maintenance is concerning.

yeah i guess the conquest and colonization of one third of the north american continent was just a land exchange with the natives, retard

Colonialism=/=Imperialism

Literally read Lenin, imperialism is an economic phase in the history of capitalism, not merely le wypipo being mean :(

While you're at it, why don't you explain why Europe was already wealthier in per capita terms to comparable civilizations before the industrial revolution even happened.

The "little divergence" as its known among economic historians had already occurred in medieval times before the Columbus discovered the New World. The attempt by Blaut, Maddison, and many other "anti-Eurocentrists" to explain away Europe's economic divergence as the result of New World conquests fails to convince. It's pretty logical too if you think about it that European world dominance would follow previous economic-technological breakthroughs rather than economic supremacy following from military supremacy. This type of ideology is literally Duhring's "theory of force" in a post-colonial form.
pseudoerasmus.com/2014/06/12/the-little-divergence/

Read Lenin again, Lenin explicitly states that there were forms of imperialism that existed prior to monopoly capital imperialism.

The entire point he was making is that the existence of colonialism/imperialism prior to monopoly-capitalism and capitalism itself does not negate the significance of the change to monopoly-capitalism. Imperialism in his sense of the word is a new economic phenomena.

He even points out that the capitalist-imperialism of early-to-mid 19th century Britain was based on Britain's industrial domination of world commodity markets (via free trade) rather than through finance and corporate-monopolies. He explicitly says that this is a different phenomena than what he is describing and argues that this was a period of time when capitalism was actually progressive.

It must be pretty embarrassing for vulgar post-colonialists that Lenin literally refers to the out-migration of Europeans to less-developed nations prior to 1900 (aka "settler-colonialism") as being progressive and criticizes certain Western for living off the immigrant labor of less-developed countries. Wonder why they always overlook that part of the text. Makes you think, huh?

Attached: thinkingmarx.jpg (682x960, 55.87K)

*certain Western countries

Lenin:
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch06.htm

Wew, just the kind of revisionist obscurantism one can expect on this shithole.

...

Here's what I said:
The excerpt from Imperialism that I posted supports what I said.
You are a shitposter.

Right, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that that's not what the book is about and that's not what he means by the term imperialism. The Ancient Romans had imperialist policies, the Ottoman Empire had imperialist/colonialist policies, the Qing Empire had imperialist/colonialist policies, he is not talking about these things when he refers to modern imperialism. The Qing and Ottoman Empires still existed while Lenin was alive btw he isn't talking about their imperialist policies when he's talking about imperialism–he opposed Western/Russian imperialism against these states.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when MLs talk about imperialism they are referring to modern monopoly-finance capitalism and not some terrible shit that the Conquistadors did 500 years ago. America wasn't imperialist in the sense that Lenin meant the term in the first half of the 19th century.

You can say it was colonialist, you can say it was genocidal but it was not imperialist in Lenin's sense of the term. It wasn't really even imperialist in the colloquial sense that it was hegemonic in the region, Britain was hegemonic in North America prior to the Civil War. The US in many respects was not very unlike a developing Latin American economy in that time frame. The reason that Britain covertly supported the Confederacy was to prevent the US from becoming hegemonic power in the region.

You might as well be talking about "imperialist" Argentina and Brazil in the same time-frame. I don't know what it is about the context of words and events that is so difficult for middle-brows to understand. If anything you're the shitposter because you're understanding of Leninist theory and American history is "read settlers"-tier

Yes, and? You said:
Which is flat wrong, colonialism was part of the previous form of imperialism.

Raise wages, abolish private property completely, raise taxes. People paying taxes goes into paying for national debts, military spending, meanwhile utilities and necessities become free because people pay the government taxes in place of paying private companies in order to get their needs met. Meanwhile the increase in taxes pays for fixing the roads, advancing technology, government intervention, stronger military policy etc.
Only part of this plan that people have a problem with is paying more taxes, but if the gov extracts surplus value instead of private companies, what's even the difference in the paycheck? People will still pay the same to have their needs met, possibly less because the government is required to be more honest to the people it serves.

Yeah cumstain, guess all those empires werent imperialist because their method of economy wasnt through capitalist means, how fucking brain deficient are you kid?

China was the leading civilization in terms of production, consumption and exchange untill the various european crowns conquered the world, how fucking ignorant are you retard?

Gee I never guessed that image was gonna be one of the first replies

the comments are all devoid of critical thought but its easy to forget america is an idiocracy. they're all acting like domino's pizza is a sports team to cheer for

...

To sum up my argument: I would also point out that if Europe wasn't economically superior to China than it would have been China that would have discovered and conquered or imposed imperial tributes on the Americas first. Likewise, if the Europeans weren't at a greater level of development than the Aztecs and Incans in technological/economic than they wouldn't have conquered those societies.

The Arab slave-trade offers an interesting parallel, they used up as many African slaves as the Europeans did, but they never actually managed to turn it to substantial economic benefit. Slavery helped Europeans create profitable colonies that would morph into powerful nations but no such process occurred in the Arab world, its doubtful that it even had much effect on capital accumulation. The Arabs failed to overtake late medieval Europe in per capita terms, much less sustain production anything near what Europeans were capable of by the time of the industrial revolution. Capitalism emerged first in Europe,(and not in the Middle East) for a reason.

The logic of the post-colonialist Duhring's only goes so far. The modern "theory of force" as expounded by the post-colonialists falls flat on its face when wide-ranging historical-economic comparisons are made and conclusions are drawn.

America had a 50% tariff and had little trade with the rest of the world in the 1800’s. Read history.

The land was almost empty, that natives died of disease.

I love the nice
YOUR TOWN COULD BE NEXT
That shit is absolutely priceless.

>

Read The Triumph of Evil by Austin Murphy

spitting out milk.jpg