133arc585
Every day:
- The Pentagon unveils $1.3 billion for Ukraine, bringing total new U.S. aid this week to $2.3 billion.
- US to provide $345 million in military aid for Taiwan
- US Senate approves $12bn for Ukraine in government funding bill
Every other day:
- student loan relief shot down
- budget accountability shot down
- tax enforcement on top income earners shot down
- funding to medicare slashed
- funding for food assistance programs slashed
- funding for school lunch programs slashed
- funding for public schooling slashed
- union strikes shut down
- tax relief and subsidies increased for most profitable companies
- tax relief for most wealthy individuals
- funding for clean water programs slashed
I try not to view government spending as zero-sum because there’s no saying that not spending money on X means that money automatically gets spent on Y. But the government’s priorities could not be more clear: its citizens (and common citizens of the world) are not of any concern.
So what’s the conclusion as to what’s happening?
As I wrote about in a thread a couple weeks back (here, here, and here), this should have been fine, and was fine on paper.
According to official statements it was going to be diluted, before release, to a level that was even lower than what Fukushima NPP put out while operational. Then it was going to be released at a rate that maintained this concentration.
Did Japan lie? Did it not dilute how it said it would? Was it a technical failure and dilution did not occur at the level they said it would, or was it released too fast at the dilution level they set? Was there not testing at release time/site?
I don’t see how that follows.
Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism.
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people; in theory, why can’t it engage in colonialism to bring in resources to benefit its people?
There is definitely no other way.
Its obvious how capitalism leads to imperialism, but it’s definitely not obvious how that would be the only way to arrive there.
Any elaboration you can provide would be great because you’re acting as if it should be obvious why what you’re saying is true but it absolutely is not.
I don’t think you’re doing a very good job of attempting to answer the very direct confusion I’m having. You’re doing a lot to make sure it’s obvious how capitalism can and does result in imperialism, which frankly I’m mostly in agreement with. My issue is that you’re asserting that socialism can’t lead to imperialism. You’ve still given no reason that this is to be the case except for this attempt:
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people by moving past a society based on exploitation. This is why it wouldn’t engage in colonialism.
And I agree that, by definition, it’s a society based on the betterment of its people. Stress should be applied there to its people. I’m not justifying imperialism at all, but it’s a pretty obvious argument that by subjugating other nations/peoples and exploiting them, you can make the lives of your people better. Perhaps you’re trying to say that the type of leadership and ideology that creates and maintains socialism would also be ideologically against imperialism, but that seems more pragmatic than theoretic. You’re saying socialism can’t engage in imperialism by definition but the most I’d give is that it doesn’t engage in imperialism in practice.
Is there a transcript available?