Facilitated movement of goods

Where did it all go wrong, Zig Forums?

Attached: 1200px-Flag_of_Europe.svg[1].png (1200x800, 26.16K)

Other urls found in this thread:


The moment it was created as a neoliberal institution meant to make controlling Europe easier for America

Just kill yourself. This level of retardation shouldn't be acceptable.
That's literally your argument right now

Wasn't it created in 1957 to improve resource distribution?

Yeah, that's why I am asking where it all went wrong you dunce.

Obviously by being a capitalist organization.

Capitalism is a progressive economic system according to marx it makes sense that eu will develop productive forced in new ways

its foundation as a capitalist organization

Attached: 5CF01607-B1F9-4942-9CE2-DEB9FB76D7DB.jpeg (640x480, 15.83K)

Not to be that guy but soviet socialism couldn't keep up in the 70s to 80s and could use a bit of Dengism

They just needed OGAS and capitalism had a huge crisis then anyway which was "fixed" b neoliberalism and your idol Deng increasing profitability by opening chinese markets to investment.

capitalism was progressive in the 19th century when there were still slave and fuedal societies

Just because socialism exists and existed as states and ideas does not mean that capitalism is a spent progressive or historical force. Feudalism wasn't truly really overthrown until around WW1 anyway. Before then large landowners still controlled British, Italian, Russia, and German politics.

EU is a Franco-German imperialist bloc, Greece, Ireland, and Portugal are all semi colonies and have to break free from EU colonial shackles.

Has been doing the opposite lately.

And the money they needed to build it didn't fall from the sky. Let me remind you the most advanced nation in eastern bloc when it comes to computers was GDR, and it's computer industry needed to be subsidized for it to be able to sell and even then it cost twice what the west produced. Of course some of those things were problems of socialism, othters were because of history, but something certainly needed to change.
Deng didn't have that much of a choice. All of Asia, not only China, was seen as cheap labour force, and Deng had no reason not to gain from it. What choice did he have? Leave China poor and it's neighbours prosperous? If you want revolutions to happen like they did in the eastern bloc, he could have gone for such road.

Except Ireland is now a model neoliberal society of the EU and a massive tax haven for multinationals. It has long since rebounded from austerity. Its not colonized anymore and anyway has been a reactionary state since its founding in the 1920s. Irish leftism is a stillborn movement. In fact Ireland is a case study of how the language of oppression and antiimperialism is wielded by hypocrites who will gladly except capitalism if it benefits their society

Funny enough Irish Maoists would agree with you in a lot of ways, but would argue that the multinational investment is itself EU and Yankee colonization. Not to mention the 6 counties are still militarily occupied by Britain.

Did Valera kill leftism and how?
What were the political positions of the IRA and did the GFA play a role in the Irish left wing, and if so what?
I just don't understand how a former colony could turn so ultraneolib and love it, there were politicians defending all those tax avoidance scheme in the name of patriotism.

There's always been a capitulationist side to the Irish natlib movement, from Michael Collins and the pro treaty side to the GFA surrender. They're always willing to "move on" from struggling for independence because they don't want socialism, they want capitalism with a green flag. Google "Limerick Soviet".

lmao "resource distribution"

Its not colonization if the irish elite invited and accepted it. Ireland has always been dirt poor and its elite grasped at the chance to enrich themselves when the chance came with EU entry, bux,investment and tax haven status.
And NI was created willingly by protestants or at least most didn't protest. The large catholic minority didnt have a choice obviously but its not really a colony if a sectarian majority hitherto supported the state.

You could say the same about India.

It never stood a chance irish leftism. Like o said it was stillborn. The leftist movement was always pitiable and isolated to developed areas of Dublin and Belfast, most of the society was conservative, catholic, and up until 1916 and beyond most of the population wanted to continue in the UK with Home Rule. Its highly misleading to say that the Irish are somehow inherently anti British, anti imperialist, or against oppression. Its total ahistorical nonsense. Also most of the political leadership of Irish independence were staunchly catholic and social conservatives that set up a kind of church-state that persisted till 1990
Im not even irish btw Ive just studied their history a little bit

Yes and that wouldnt be wrong to say. At least India had a kind of leftist-statist consensus from 1947 to 1990. The irish elite went from a rigid Catholic dominated state based on dairy export to a neoliberal one based on tax havening

What about Sinn Fein's role in Irish left?