This is how money started, currency. It took a few men of means deciding they’d honour some agreement between them. Only then could some economic mechanism appear and seduce less-loyal slobsabitches into the loop.
Shit mayne. Gotta think these things through to the first scheme.
Stands for loyalty? Watch one of them go broke, see how fast the others forget about him.
Under that tree, in New York I presume you mean, that was the exact opposite. The agreement that loyalty was both impossible and silly. That was what we call an understanding.
And, unless you mean the USSR was American communism, I do hope you are joking. And yes, prior to 1900 or so capitalism as we know it was still in its infancy, still very much attached to old ways of doing things. But the germs for the destruction of those ways was embedded, and people in charge were more aware of that than you might believe.
Only reason kings made use of capitalists, like the Dutch slave traders and public companies, or Italian adventurers, was the same reason capitalism was to prevail in the end: the devastating edge it gave them against other kings. They tried to keep as much of a leash on it as they could, but even then they knew it wouldn’t last. But it was preferable for them all to perish than for a rival to prevail.
And when you say Eurasian, I hope you are not including the middle East.
Let’s look at the surviving USSR satellites: Iran and Siria. Let’s look at some of the Republican satellites: Egypt and Iraq. Well Iraq was later cannibalized by retarded Neocons, but was the absolute image of sanity and enlightenment when compared to Siria and Iran. Lybia is a weird outlier there. Communism did seem to suit it better than the alternative. But one wonders what might have happened if a staunch republican had taken over there.
As for the Islamist fascists, those are all nazis and by extention communists. Proletarian revolts against capitalism.
“Don’t cha know if one of them falls they all feel the cold breeze.”
Even though what you are describing here is a half-state half-business corporatist monster with a truly healthy dose of socialism injected before that collapse happened, that a cold breeze should have to be held as a reason to stick together already speaks of an understanding and against any such thing as loyalty.
Dutch corporations did not work for Republican or Democratic governments, now dzzid they?
And anyway, who profited from slave trade carried out by capitalists in politics? Other than, ultimately, capitalists? King of Spain comes to mind. Queen of England there also… Shit IS complex dog. But not THAT complex.
No dude. Syria was like a less hellish Iraq.
And Iran stands on 4000 years of tradition and went through several completely differing leaderships in the 20th century.
It’s France that owns the Khomeini revolution, they flew him in straight from the Sorbonne.
I’m sure you’re not the only one that feels that way.
I’m not a bad reader. I just tend to know what y’all are talking about better than y’all, unless in the possible scenario that some of y’all are purposefully making arguments that are less informed than y’all are.
Don’t answer that. Perhaps in the very question you can see why gentlemen prefer to speak about the issues, and not each man’s personal standing regarding this or that.