The United States and the UK successfully blocked attempts to outlaw all use of incendiary weapons

That’s because incendiary weapons are great for exterminating villages full of poor people in the colonized world - ie, the kind of wars the US and UK prefer to wage.

Artificial intelligence is worse than humans in every way

As if capitalists have ever cared about that…

He’d patent avocado genetics and call them “xavocados.”

crystal ball

The nature of capitalism and the capitalist class haven’t been a secret now for more than a hundred years. No crystal balls required.

he might have done something worthwhile

No, he wouldn’t have. Musk is an incompetent billionaire parasite, even more incompetent than the average billionaire parasite, and would have simply squandered his ill-gotten money on something else.

So Apartheid Boy just said the quiet part out loud?

Color me surprised.

Let’s jusy call it Shitter, then.

There are some countries in Africa that isn’t impoverished enough yet.

I remember when I was growing up,

You remember propaganda (when corporations do it, it’s called “Public Relations”).

That’s what you remember. Now, thanks to the internet democratizign information somewhat, they don’t just get to feed us their “public relations” anymore. Now people can counter that shit, and people see them for what they really are - parasites.

It’s capitalism, baby. Welcome to the real world.

I’d like to implant something in Elon’s brain. It’s called a pick-axe handle.

Hard yes from me, thank you.

Chrome who?

You can’t train a Russian bot to sound as stupid as Musk - the tech just isn’t there yet.

Nationalism is inherently concerned

Hey, don’t tell me… tell every African nationalist in history that they are doing nationalism wrong because you, an armchair genius, only ascribes to the meaning of the term nationalism as it was presented to you by white liberal western media. Go tell every nation-state in the (so-called) “3rd world” that the nationalists that helped free them from your country’s imperialist yoke cannot possibly be nationalists because you, still an armchair genius, have decided that they aren’t based on internet “definitions” written by people just like you.

Go on. I’ll wait here.

This idea that Imperialism and Nationalism are conflicting ideologies is just… so dumb

Again… don’t tell me - tell it to all the nation states that aren’t fundamentally imperialist, since, according to you (still just an armchair genius) nationalism cannot exist without imperialism.

Don’t worry… I’m still waiting right here.

Fine - it’s not yours.

Well, let’s have a look at this description of yours, shall we?

As a movement, it presupposes the existence and tends to promote the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to create a nation-state.

Oh yes… you are absolutely correct - I have no idea where I got the idea from that nationalization would be the most logical, direct and dependable method for a nationalist “to promote the interests of a particular nation” and “gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland.” There is no way state control over resources and industries could ever “promote the interests of a particular nation,” could it?

Quick, somebody call Cuba - driving your citizens into abject poverty through privatized medical debt is how real nationalists do it.

that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power. It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on a combination of shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity.

This is not descriptive - it’s just the pseudo-scientific gibberish used to justify nation sates which does absolutely no justifying whatsoever.

Naturally, what proposed benefit (if any) the existence of nation states offers to it’s citizens doesn’t form part of this description… which is telling.

Nationalism is more about elevating a certain ethnic group

No it isn’t - that is so distinct from garden-variety nationalism that we call it ethno-nationalism. There are plenty of nationalist projects that doesn’t have an ethno-nationalist aspect to them - there are plenty of them outside the imperial core in the (so-called) “third-world.” You wanna be the one to tell them they are doing nationalism wrong?

WW2 Germany was all about elevating Germans at the cost of everyone else.

Violently building an alt-fantasy empire has nothing to do with “elevating” a people - that’s imperialism, not nationalism. You can argue that the two concepts may be related - but you can’t argue that nationalism inherently requires genocidal imperialism.

Nationalizing is about taking a resource or a company and putting it into the hands of the state for the people.

In other words… the only possible benefit that nationalism has ever presented as a justification for it’s own existence?

Fancy that.

I think you might have a inaccurate definition of nationalism.

Sorry - I don’t see it. It’s very easy for fascists to wear the trappings of nationalism - fascists will wear whatever gets them into power - but of all the things Fascist Italy, Showa Japan and Nazi Germany had in common a concern with the welfare of the people living inside the nation state wasn’t one of them… you know - the only point nationalism ever had? There’s a reason we separate the concept of ethno-nationalism from that of just plain ole’ nationalism.

Nationalism is concerned with the welfare of the actually existing nation state - not the alt-fantasy empires fetishized by fascists. In fact, the three fascist examples above was far, far more imperialist than they were nationalist, and you’d be hard-pressed to get any political philosopher to argue that nationalism inherently demands genocidal imperialist expansion.

The problem isn’t usually nationalization but the utter lack of democratic control of what is owned by the state

I’d say that before that your problem is that if a state has the power to nationalize something it also has the power to privatize it again… all it takes is one Reagan or Thatcher. Or hell, an Obama - who essentially nationalized General Motors after the 2008 crash and then handed it all straight back to the capitalists again.

You have completely and utterly misused

Lol! No Clyde - I haven’t. Nationalism is a very simple thing - it’s not my fault you associate nationalism with fascism (which is always just false nationalism) or capitalism (which is perfectly incompatible with the beliefs of anyone who actually fetishizes a given nation state - even fascists like Francisco Franco understood that). The US has spent more resources combating nationalism in the middle-east than socialism - do you think they did that because nationalism is so “compatible” with capitalism?

I hate to be the one to break it to you - but Fidel Castro was far more of a nationalist than Adolf Hitler was. In fact, the majority of the anti-imperialist campaigns waged against colonial power during the (so-called) “Cold War” was nationalist in nature - not socialist.

The historic link between nationalism and capitalism

There are those who will pretend that there are “historic links” between liberalism and democracy, too - even though they are violently incompatible concepts. “Historic links” doesn’t mean anything.

You can call the US “democratic” and the USSR “socialist” all you want - but that does not make any of it reality.