/lit/ - Literature

>>13635395
>No, I don't. All rightists in the current year are right-liberals. My operational definition of liberal is "basically anything that's come out of the British tradition for the past ~300 years".
Then you are fundamentally wrong, because liberalism came out of the French revolution in the 1800s.
>Capitalism is a facet of liberalism.
What
Liberalism is the ruling ideology of capitalism - not the other way around.
>Most of these countries aren't even competent enough to run a secret police force.
you'd be wrong then, cause many do.
>There's the liberalism again...
At this point liberalism means basically nothing because how its applied
>So why are you complaining about secret police forces again?
I am complaining about the ends it is used towards - the continuation of capitalism.
>Great, let's go back to liberalism again...
Again, meaningless usage.
>>13635411
>A multiethinic empire isn't the same thing as a nation
"it wasn't real nations"
>yes, the value of the product is in it's production not just the price of the initial material, holy shit
Wrong, it is composed of the labor that went into creating the material, the price of the material itself, the labor that went into the material, and the market forces that needed to get it in all of it's points of production to where it needed to go. But in reference to my point, I deplored the low wages of the 3rd world workers that were getting you the end products you crave.
>Fascist italy was economically isolationist, a nation is capable of surviving on local economy.
l m a o, if only you knew how much the fascists relied on international capitalism to stay afloat. If only you read books.
>Because it works? Meanwhile what do you have? A bunch of failed examples? A hypothetical ideal society that you can't try out on a small scale?
Oh yes, we're all quite pleased with how everything just works Mr Todd Howard.
>A bunch of failed experiments
Far from failed, and often forcefully destroyed by capitalist elements to preserve themselves.