this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
292 points (100.0% liked)

memes

22774 readers
402 users here now

dank memes

Rules:

  1. All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.

  2. No unedited webcomics.

  3. Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in [email protected], it's a great comm.

  4. Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.

  5. Follow the code of conduct.

  6. Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.

  7. Recent reposts might be removed.

  8. Tagging OC with the hexbear watermark is praxis.

  9. No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
292
today i will remind them (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
136 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 year ago (29 children)

It always comes across to me as maximum cope when Americans brag about "winning the space race". I mean, even if it was true, the US's economy was massively wealthier than the USSR's. This "race" was literally between the wealthiest country on earth and a very poor country. Even at the height of the USSR, its GDP was only about half that of the US's.

It really does not show the US's "strength" to brag so much about winning against someone with so much less resources. It's a sign of weakness to actually even be in a "race" with a developing country to begin with, which suggests they are actually competitive and have a chance of winning.

That's really what the whole "space race" shows. It does not matter who "won", the very fact a poor developing nation could compete with the wealthiest and most powerful country on earth in the first place demonstrates the extraordinary weakness of the capitalist system.

The US only placed a man on the moon because of NASA, which they founded as a direct response to the Soviets launching Sputnik. Meaning, the US literally only implemented this space program as a response to the Soviets, they were not a natural outgrowth of the US's system and would not have happened without the Soviets (as we have seen NASA massively defunded ever since). The fact the US even got on the moon in the first place only happened because of the USSR.

That was back in 1969, and we're now in 2022 yet, funnily enough, the capitalist private sector has not got a man that far yet.

—aimixin

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (25 children)

It really does not show the US's "strength" to brag so much about winning against someone with so much less resources.

It really does show the US's strength when no country has nearly the same amount of resources.

"Everyone else being weaker than you does not show your strength" is a very odd take.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With all that wealth plundered from the rest of the world they ought to perform better.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I'm not sure what you're arguing.

Yes, the US has a large amount of wealth. That is what makes them strong.

they ought to perform better

So you're saying they should be even stronger (than the strongest nation to ever exist)?

Or are you saying that "strength" is not about the total power one has, but about the efficiency with which one can convert resources into power?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

big-honk Where did they get all that wealth from?

honk-enraged Where did they get all that wealth from, motherfucker?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I never argued that they became strong using rightful measures.

But they did become strong.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So if you agree that the US obtained its wealth through plundering and imperialism then what the fuck was your original point? I don't think you have one and you're trying to debate just to debate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My first comment:

It really does not show the US's "strength" to brag so much about winning against someone with so much less resources.

It really does show the US's strength when no country has nearly the same amount of resources.

That was my sole point. Noone having nearly as much resources as the US does show the US's strength.

It does not matter how they aquired those resources or how strong they could theoretically be.

My point was simple and clear from the beginning on: USA = strong.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Debate pervert

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There are different kinds of strength. One kind of strength is to be really good at colonizing and plundering the rest of the world. Another kind of strength is to be really good at dreaming of new horizons and using limited resources to reach them. America has more of the first kind of strength, the USSR had more of the second kind.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure what you're arguing.

Do you not understand what plundering is?

Wealth extraction from the global south into the global north via american companies involved in resource extraction - minerals, gases, etc etc. Rights to said resources gained at the barrel of the gun of the US military itself or a coup instigated by the CIA.

For the love of god read a book about modern imperialism and how it works and save us from your international political illiteracy. https://resistir.info/livros/imperialism_john_smith.pdf

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You completely deviated from the original point.

Never did I claim that the USA gained their strength rightfully, so why are you arguing against that?

I only ever claimed that the USA having significantly more resources does show their strength.

You can discuss the bad things the USA does and has done, but I don't know why you're discussing them with me.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You said you did not understand what the other person was saying. This can only come from not really understanding what imperialism is and how it functions.

I explained what they were saying.

You are now trying to divert away from that. Because it is not a topic you wish to engage in while you do this nationalist thing of engaging in apologetics and sly weasel-word half-hearted US support.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Is guess I could've said "I'm not sure why you're arguing" instead of "I'm not sure what you're arguing".

you do this nationalist thing

I'm not American, how would speaking well of a nation I've never even visited be nationalist? (I can already imagine you calling me a traitor to my own country)

half-hearted US support

As opposed to full-hearted US support? You don't have to be extremely against something or extremely for something (though I'm aware extreme leftists would like to see it that way).

I do recognize the negative things the US does and has done. But that does not mean that I'll unreasonably make up negatives (like the USA not being strong while being the strongest nation).

There are enough factual things to dislike the USA about, no need to make stuff up on top of that.

load more comments (23 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)