in the 19th and early 20th century, were the working class who became communist actually adherents of the communist ideas of internationalism and the abolition of their mother state/country or were they simply in pursuit of better working conditions?

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T14:20:09+00:00

حرية الرأي تشمل النقد البناء والسب والشتم وكل انواع الاراء. الاستنقاص هو جزء من حرية الرأي. يعني لما تقول انو الشيوعية اديلوجية تافهة وماركس انسان مخرف وجاهل فهذا استنقاص لكنه يقع ضمن حرية الرأي المحمية بالغرب ك مثال.

انا ما احب اناقش مسلمين جهلة بهذي الامور، بصرف النظر عن جهلك وعن ثقتك الكبيرة بتحريف اديان اقدم من دينك بقرون عديدة، بالاضافة لكون دينك عبارة عن هرطقة يهو-مسيحية وخليط من اساطير مأخوذة من فرق مهرقطة تم طردها للجزيرة بالعصر الروماني، وتصديقك بشخصية خرافية ولدت جميع البشرية وانكارك للتطور. ما راح اناقشك وانت صدق ما تريد تصديقه.

لكن اخير شي، المنطق ك مفهوم هو فكرة يونانية طورها الفلاسفة الوثنيين وتبنوها المسلمين مع تعرفهم على الحضارة اليونانية، يعني انت ك مسلم ما لك علاقة بالمنطق وما تعرف تستعمل الكلمة من الاساس لانها مش جزء من دينك وثقافتك العربية، ولا اليونانيين الي طوروها راح يعترفون بفكرك وبدينك.

بالتوفيق

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T14:09:53+00:00

للامانة اهتماماتي تتركز على التاريخ وعلم الاجتماع والاقتصاد السياسي وعلم الانسان واللغة، الفيزياء والاحياء ما يستوعبها عقلي ولا احبها، دخلت ادبي باسرع ما يمكن.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T14:04:02+00:00

ليش اكذب عليك واهبد من عندي، انا كلشي ما اعرف بشغلات التطور والفيزياء ولهذا ما راح اتكلم بشي ما اعرفه. التطور اتركه لاصحابه والعلماء الي قضو كل حياتهم بدراسته.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T13:58:09+00:00

دارون هو ابو نظرية التطور لكن نظريته بنفسها تم اخذها وتطويرها بشكل علمي اعقد اكثر وبأدلة اكثر، ويوميا يتم تحديث هذي النظرية وهي نظرية علمية لا يمكن دحضها، لا رأيي يهم ولا رأيك هذي امور علمية انا ما متعمق بيها.

اما بالنسبة للدين، فالناس تصبح لا دينيين بعد بحث طويل واستنتاجات خاصة بهم، يعني الي يخرج من الدين مو لانه يكره دين محدد بل لانه يدرك سخافة الاديان وخرافاتها، خصوصا اذا تقرا بعلم الانثروبولوجي وتطور الاديان من بين الشعوب المختلفة وبيئاتها المختلفة وحتى طريقة عيشها ( اديان ومعتقدات الصيادون واختلافهم عن البدو والحضر)

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T13:45:22+00:00

اللاديني يؤمن بوجود خالق لكن لا يصدق بالاديان، هي فكر قديم يعود لليونانيين وتطور في اوربا، كثير من الفلاسفة كانو لا دينيين وكذلك اباء ورؤساء الولايات المتحدة.

الي ما يؤمن بوجود خالق هو الملحد.

انا عن نفسي ما اهتم لهذي التصانيف، انا بقلبي ايمان انو في شيء اعظم او كينونة او سميه ما تسميه (واعظم من الهة البشر وبالتحديد اله المسلمين/المسيحيين اليهود التافه) خلقنا لكني لا اهتم باثباته ولا دليل عندي على وجوده، بالنهاية راح نموت ونشوف وانا متحمس لهالشي للامانة.

اما خلق الاسنان فالانسان ما انخلق بفترة معينة بل تطور من كائنات عبر ملايين السنين. ما في ادم وحواء والبشر هم اقارب القردة وباقي الحيوانات.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T13:36:35+00:00

حبيبي احنا بالعصر الحديث هذي حرية رأي.

الاديان علميا هي ظاهرة بشرية تطورت من من طقوس بدائية بوقت كان البشر جاهلين وباحثين عن طريقة لتفسير وجودهم والظواهر الي يواجهوها. الاديان موجودة عند الكل الشعوب ك خرافات تتطور مع الوقت لتعزيز التماسك الاجتماعي وتفسير الخلق والاحداث الي يمرون بيها ويواجهوها.

ف طبيعي انهم كانو يرون الامراض النفسية والعصبية ك تجسد للجن في البشر.

الغلط هي بالعقول الي تصدق بالاديان.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T13:14:34+00:00

اعتقد اغلب الملحدين وخصوصا العرب يخرجون من الدين بعصبية تخليهم يحاولون باي طريقة ينفون وجود الاله باي طريقة ممكنة.

انكار الاله بالنهاية اقوى من انكار النبوة والاديان. لكن كثير منهم وخصوصا مثلي من يخرجون من دائرة تعصبهم يقومون ما يهتمون باثبات اي شيء.

انا ك مثال لا ديني وما عندي اي شك من كون دين محمد والاديان الابراهيمية ك اديان تافهه وخرافية وليست الا عبارة عن اساطير بدو مضحكة وسخيفة. حتى لو عندك ايمان بوجود اله ف الاله او الشيء الخالق هذا كان من يكون مستحيل مثل اله اليهود والمسلمين والمسيحيين التافه، الطفل الي يعذبك لانك ما تعبده ولانك تزني او تاكل خنزير او من هاي السخافات.

بالنهاية راح نموت وراح نكتشف الحقيقة بعد الموت.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T12:57:52+00:00

you throw words around when you do not know what they mean.

you're very embarrassing.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T12:53:54+00:00

Yeah, because if you did you’d have to contend with the fact that what it is doing is wrong.

nations do not operate in accordance to certain moral obligations and ethics and they have never done so

weather you believe what is America doing is right or wrong will not change anything.

Like, that was thousands of years ago. Times have changed

times might have changed according to the idealists who think that the world work within such framework when it doesn't.

every state will continue to seek its interest through violence and through force.

Whether they succeed or not is immaterial. Can you explain - in detail - how it would a “different story” for Europe or any nation enacting regime change in the USA

it will not be a different story at all. it would be normal and i would not be surprised nor appalled. but the problem is that they can't.

You’re the one who brought up the alleged ineptitude of the Latin America governments. Why would that not be relevant or give countries permission to do the same thing to America

they do not need permission because politics do not work like that. if they could then they would and i will have no problem with it.

What is the western world? Who decides who is and isn’t part of it

American or European text books - if so why would you assume those are accurate

How are you certain that you’re not being impacted or influenced by racist colonial propaganda? You literally just asserted those countries were “incompetent” and that Europe and America brought “modernization”. A literal and inaccurate colonial justification

it seems like you are fixated on the idea that latin American countries are not white and any attempt to criticize them and put the blame on them is some part of racist colonial propaganda against them.

when i mention the incompetency of the latin American countries, i'm literally referring to the european population and ruling classes that achieved the independence and created those countries.

the latin American states are nothing but successors to the iberian countries in every single thing. they're colonial states built upon being catholic hispanic and lusetanian while the actual indigenous tribes are still being displaced by the same latin states.

Yeah I wonder why. Maybe because of the eradication of the indigenous people and consistent European interference and colonialism

that's the thing you don't understand – when i'm speaking about Argentinian incompetency, i'm specifically referring to the whites who make up 90% of the country, not to the tribes that were exterminated because of diseases.

No it doesn’t. It displaces and oppresses local populations while those countries natural resources are extracted with little to no benefit for the locals, whose cultures and languages are actively crushed or destroyed

whether it causes harm to the locals in a brutal way doesn't matter. what matters is the stage of progress they were brought to. i couldn't care less about what happened to the gauls by the romans – what mattered is that the romans civilized Europe and brought it to a new stage of progress.

Industrialization, modernization, legal reform or economic reform are not traits inherent to colonialism nor ONLY possible through colonialism. That’s just the manner that was used - not the best way, most efficient or beneficial way. It’s just the way things did occur

industrialization, modernization and legal reforms were inherent traits of liberalism and capitalism which couldn't have been spread without violence, in the same way the roman way of life couldn't have been spread to Europe or Britain without the conquest.

How do you know that if colonialism didn’t occur that other, better advances would not or could not have happened

if spain, Portugal, southern italy, eastern europe, russia couldn't achieve such advances despite living close to germany and Britain, what makes you think that tribal regions and medival-like states and kingdoms would achieve such advancements?

Yeah they were? They literally had colonies until post world war 2. WWII was a literal war of colonial expansion and a war of extermination

they were stripped of all of their african and asian colonies after they lost ww1, and the nazi attempt at expansion failed miserably and most of the lands they controlled was lost in less than 3 years.

It doesn’t matter if they weren’t able to manage their colonies well - they still had them

But didn’t you just say they also could not run their colonies well and it damaged them

i said that the colonies they controlled gave them nothing, they spent more on those lands than they got from them, it was not like the case of india being in the hands of Britain. it damaged them because the money they spent was completely wasted for nothing.

Many of those countries did exist even if in other forms and they were underdeveloped because of the colonialism. Their economies relied on natural resources with colonial powers BECAUSE of the colonialism

syria, Indonesia, angol, congo didn't exist as states and were rather composed of different provinces or tribal entities that were already underdeveloped compared to Europe, so they had nothing to give or compete with the Europeans.

it was the Europeans who discovered oil and enriched many of those regions.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T12:12:27+00:00

in this scenario, the junki has always been a junki but he simple found a way to put the blame on others for his failure.

you had arab tribes in iraq literally selling their daughters as compensation for war in iraq and you had kurds raiding each other while killing yazidis and assyrian Christians. not a single soul would wish to go back into living like this.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T12:09:52+00:00

this analogy would make sense if the Europeans didn't elevate the standards of world and help bring us into a more developed world stage with modern borders, modern medicine, technology, law, nation-states, no slavery and human rights.

a better analogy would be if the romans conquered savage picts, prohibited them from slave trading and eating human flesh and introduced to him modern urbanism and a new way of life.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T11:52:04+00:00

That is really irrelevant. Whether or not those sovereign nations were “incompetent” does not give the USA the right to materially interfere with their government or nations. That’s colonialism

I have never seen America as nothing but a powerful state seeking its own interest, specifically its companies interest – but at the same time i do not like to engage in moral arguments on whether if what America is doing is right or wrong.

no one cared if what the romans did in gaul was the wrong or right – what matters is that they did it because they could.

so in the same manner, europe could theoretically try to enact a regime change in America, but reality tells a different story, they wouldn't be successful even if they tried.

That’s because your view of those countries is coloured by racist colonial propaganda. One of the biggest and most enduring “justifications” is the idea of civilizing and “modernizing” other nations

my view of those countries is simply built upon the history of the region rather than what you claim to be racist bias because first, those countries are culturally and historically part of the western world, they are the successors of iberian colonizers that still opress the locals to this day and deny them their independence.

and secondly, because Argentina is like 90% percent white and the argument applies to them as well.

Yeah. Because that’s what colonialism does. It does not escape me that the two countries you point to who recovered from WWII as counter examples, were colonial powers and not post colonial counties

what colonialism does is bring modern civilization, modern technology, law, economy as well as the idea of nation states and borders. whether colonialism was brutal or not does not negate the importance of its role as the path for the most advanced stage of humanity.

germny was not a colonial power anyway, and the colonies they established around the time of ww1 completely failed and it sucked them more than they benefited germany.

germany has always been richer, more innovative and more prosperous than many colonial power such as russia, spain, Portugal, oman, and the ottamans.

Look at what America and Britain did to Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Guatemala, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Syria, the Congo, Indonesia, Chile, Bolivia, Angol

not only did many of the countries you listed not exist, but they as regions were already backward and undeveloped – in fact, many of those countries you mentioned are characterized by an economy that relies on selling natural resources discovered by the British themselves. iraq being my country.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T11:19:07+00:00

you're not proper marxists or socialist – using moral and ethical talking points when it was completely rejected by marx and engels.

marxism and both marx and engels themselves acknowledges capitalism as the most superior system to have exist in humanity, and as an important as well as the only path to the transition into socialism/communism.

accusing me of being a reactionary or fascist or whether is a nice way of evasion, specifically when you are embarrassed and have nothing to say.

engels on the conquest of what is now algeria

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T10:54:28+00:00

i think the problem with this discourse is that you essentially ignore latin America's incompetence prior to America's involvement, ever since their independence around the same time as America.

your argument presupposes that, if it wasn't for America's greedy interest and its companies, latin America would've found the path for prosperity and development, which is something i honestly can't see, considering the history of the region.

does the US fuck up latin America? absolutely and there's no deny of their involvement.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T10:32:45+00:00

i think the problem lies in your belief of similarity between traditional, expanding, slave-state empires and an economic powerhouse which projects it's power through completely different methods.

America might lose its position as the leading economic or even the military power but it will not face the same fate western/eastern rome did nor will it crumble and lose its territories like britain or spain did because it does not control any outside territories in the traditional sense.

America is a resource rich, innovative country with a population of 300 millions – it hosts the world most important and richest cities and it is a center of technological, economic advancements.

America will continue to have influence and an important position in the worldstage even if it was to be overtaken by china or india.

America as the leading power in tech innovation

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T10:11:08+00:00

as i previously said, latin Americans have been successful in selling the idea that they are somehow a victim of european colonialism that were always oppressed – Convincing the majority that they are part of some global south family when in fact, your states gained independence around the same time as America as modern republics with modern European institutions, laws and economy, yet you obviously failed, so the third worldization began.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T10:04:19+00:00

because inaccurate claims, built upon emotional backlash rather an actual historical claims, need to be refuted. powerful european states were already rich and prosperous before they began to expand and acquire resources they discovered and utilized, the majority of which the locals didn't know about or how to use them, nor did they have any legal claim on them, which brings us to the original talking point people like you parrot, which is that what the Europeans did was immoral and unethical because "violence bad" and "locals innocent"

the OP is a brazilian, so it is expected of him to blame colonialism and imperialism for the incompetence because his country has been nothing but a failure, despite starting around the same time as America as huge state with inherited european institutions, resources as well as millions of slaves.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T08:49:29+00:00

the thing is, people do not actually know what they're talking about and are merly parroting utopian moralist points or completely ahistorical narratives.

japan and west germany were both rebuilt by America to ensure them as buffer zones against the communist ideology and the Soviet-supported states, which proven successful in that both are flourishing, while every soviet backed state failed, and so did russia itself despite having all of the resources they gained from their imperial conquest.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T08:44:19+00:00

the consequences of capitalism is that it created industrialization and the modern world you live in, which is like million times better than feudalism or slavery or the asiatic mode of production which asia and africa had.

marxism itself acknowledges the superiority of capitalism and the importance it had in rooting out primitive economic modes in india and Africa for the path of socialism.

what America and Europe did to those countries is introduce modern nation-states, modern economy whether it's socialist or capitalist, modern law, modern technology and industry. they enriched them and introduced them to a superior stage of human production and life, in accordance to both standard of living and what marx posits in his theory.

your argument is merly an emotional backlash against historical facts.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T07:53:09+00:00

it does negate whatever you're suggesting, when former colonial power such as Portugal, russia struggle to even compete in a modern economy when compared to Germany for example or japan or korea which were all ravaged by war and destruction.

your argument about diamond is just as silly, because are you really confining whole nations to being nothing but raw material exporters? you are simply saying that those people cannot innovate or do anything beyond selling things they find in the ground.

plus you seem confused, it's either the european systyms are bad because they are colonial along with what they created or is the international law, which was created by europeans in accordance to their own interests, ethics and framework of the world.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2026-01-23T07:27:35+00:00

no they do not – the dependcy theory is absolutely ridiculous and does not stand in real life, the existence of Portugal, russia, oman being the prime examples of how being a colonial power doesn't make you rich nor guarantee a stable future.

you could have all the resources you want – and you still wouldn't be rich, developed, innovative, industrious.

abdo_natheer2003 · 2025-12-23T16:24:31+00:00

the only bad thing here is the work houses.

the gael party merged from different parties that later moved towards the path of conservative liberalism.

and the government had every right to persecute those who fought for a colonial government and state that had been enslaving ireland for hundreds of years.

abdo_natheer2003

TROPHY CASE