What if they take it seriously and suffer the other consequences? Because remember, the biggest threat to Germany currently isn’t Russia or China or even America; it’s the far right. Expanding the military this much would put a lot of strain on the budget and inevitably come at the cost of social welfare, further fueling the far right as living conditions get worse and worse. And on top of that taking healthy young adults away from a workforce that already needs more people to do something wholly unproductive can’t be good for the economy. You’re completely ignoring the opportunity cost here; there are simply more important and pressing problems that deserve attention and budget than a hypothetical with nothing to back it up.

WWII jokes aside, it’s absolutely inane that Germany is actually taking “threats from Russia” seriously. It’s one thing to keep their military in shape, but nothing we’ve seen from Russia makes expanding it even remotely necessary. Spend this momey on the poor you corporate stooge. And let’s not get into the demographic crisis these idiots are exacerbating with their treatment of immigrants.

Trump becoming submissive and breedable when faced with a strong man.

(Kill me).

I gladly welcome New Zealand into the third world.

You’re citing my text but cutting off just before the point I was trying to make.

Yes, because my point is that your point doesn’t make sense.

I think be would still side with the people who claim to follow his ideology

Why…? That’s not how leftwing politics worked, ever, and it’s not like there has ever been a shortage of leftwing criticism of Leninism and Stalinism.

r in Marx’s case admitting that his ideas didn’t work or the fact that they didn’t work as intended cost the lives of millions.

Yeah that’s my point: They’re not his ideas; they’re their ideas. Lenin for example, aside from being an authoritarian dickhead, was an intellectual juggernaut and a lot of his ideas would be baked into the foundation of the Soviet Union. What you’re presenting here is a false dichotomy.

It’s important to understand that 20th century communist states weren’t just “communist” (there’s no such ideology as communism); they were Marxist-Leninist, which despite the name is a rebranding of Bolshevism by Stalin. “Socialist” and “communist” are incredibly broad terms, and the idea that communist = implementing Marx’s ideas is so reductive as to be just wrong. Now Marx’s opinion would likely vary depending on time and place, but at least he’d probably condemn Stalin’s USSR as an authoritarian hellhole. Beyond that I have no idea, but many Marxists who were contemporary to the things you describe condemned them and many others supported them, so we can’t make a realistic guess without projecting our own values on him. Basically what you’re asking is analogous to “what would Adam Smith think about the current state of the US;” it’s something we can speculate about but generally isn’t as salient a point as seem to you think it is.

PS: I suspect you don’t know much about Marx’s ideas, so you should start from there. First, the dictatorship of the proletariat isn’t necessarily an actual dictatorship (that’s not how the term is used by Marx).

I think if he were honest with himself he would see that what he got wasn’t what he had envisioned in any of the countries that claimed to be communist/socialist.

I mean… obviously? Bolshevik theory (which is what all future socialist/“socialist” states would adopt) was their own take on Marxism with a lot of original thought. That’s where the authoritarianism comes from, and it’s not like the Bolsheviks were trying to hide it. Odds are Marx would denounce the Bolsheviks as heretics.

No no you see it’s only Science TM if they can use it to shit on Christians.

On the other hand, Mamdani is a brown Muslim socialist immigrant and Trump is an aspiring 21st century Hitler. Uh… I ain’t holding my breath.

Yeah that’s the thing: They (usually) do. It’s weird and irrational, but people are weird and irrational.

Outside romantic relationships, the vast majority of people don’t have to deal with false declarations of love, so there’s no general method here. If you want to ask about your specific case you’ll need to provide more information.

Alternate theory: This is a conspiracy to turn the Latin alphabet into an abjad. Would go along nicely with Zohran Mamdani teaching Arabic numerals.

Fortunately Trump is too homophobic to pass this.

While I do agree it’s more complicated than “money = food,” a lot of this complexity is fueled by imperialism of one kind or another, so this isn’t an “oh well that’s just life” situation. People would be less hungry if, for example, the people keeping them hungry weren’t financed and armed by America and (occasionally) China. The message of “we could fix this if we wanted” is still accurate.

Imperial boomerang moment in 3, 2…

Your comment doesn’t actually address what the inital comment said at all.

It does. My point is that what they want is a pipe dream.

Our military is simply murdering people.

This has been the case for as long as your military existed, so that goes without saying.

Why, in the name of all that is good and holy, should we require someone whose dream it is to be a carpenter, to take calculus to graduate high school?

I mean, they elaborate on that in the same paragraph.

but the fundamental ideas about rates of change seem like they’re something that everyone human deserves to be exposed to.

Now you can disagree with this idea, but you’re not even addressing it.

What?

Oil they consume nationally is oil they can’t sell.

Its opposition has continued in the run-up to the UN Cop30 climate summit in Brazil, yet the country is now also making a whirlwind switch to renewable power at home.

It’s kind of in their interest to decrease their own oil consumption while keeping international oil consumption high, which is kind of what they’re doing. As for your other points, good public health is good for the economy in general, but not necessarily a boon for the leadership’s coffers. They make their money from oil; other people would make money from a thriving and diverse economy. It’s that divide that fuels seemingly counterproductive policies; they benefit special interests who don’t care about everyone else.