If by common knowledge, you mean that a significant portion of the population believes it, I’m not sure how reliable that evidence that is. People will believe a whole lot of strange stuff.

On topic, even the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page states that it was “popularized by cooks from India living in Great Britain”. Regardless of where it was first created, this is clearly the product of Indian immigrants. I don’t believe their heritage should be ignored just because they moved. Although, I don’t want it to sound like I believe in a 100% black and white distinction here. It’s clearly a fusion dish with British influences. The original chicken tikka was a lot dryer and the “masala” sauce was added to make the dish creamier to appeal to British tastes.

However, I don’t go around claiming General Tso’s chicken isn’t Chinese food, just because it was first made in New York; or that the chimichanga isn’t Mexican food, just because it was originally made in Arizona; or that a Cuban sandwich isn’t Cuban, just because it was first made in Florida. These dishes wouldn’t exist without the immigrants who modified their cultural recipes to adapt to a new environment.

To me, chicken tikka malala is an Indian dish with British influences.

E: Tao to Tso.

Indian food?

“Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.” - Malcolm X

What about vaping marijuana?

My guess is Costa Rica. If correct, I guess you are technically correct too.

It drives me crazy that people still microwave their food in plastic containers.

Paging FlyingSquid.

This is hilarious 🤣. I’m laughing my ass off right now, irregardless of how frustrated you guys may be.

That’s ok, they bought their own! 😄

For the anti-capitalists, I have a genuine question (sorry, I couldn’t find an “ask a commie” community):

In the capitalist system there is a movement called Financial Independence Retire Early (FIRE) where people commit to living frugally in an effort to maximize savings and investments. The goal is to achieve a balance that allows you live off a safe withdrawal rate (around 3.5-4%) and then leave the workforce at an earlier than normal age. Some people commit to a life of minimalism and lean-FIRE with under $20k in investment income per year. I believe there is significant overlap with the van-life crowd and other nomadic lifestyles.

Is this lifestyle compatible with, or is there a similar lifestyle within a communist system? To expand, can those with a different set of priorities trade away their later working days in exchange for less material things?

What’s bonkers is that you still haven’t offered up your position so it’s difficult to deduce where you are going with this. The original claim was that personal property cannot exist without state protection. I disagree with this and think the black market is a perfect example of a capitalist market that exists outside the protection of the state (and in defiance of it). However, for the sake of constructive dialoge, I conceded that the power structure at the top of the black market could possibly be considered a quasi-state that protects their interests. Now what is your point? Wouldn’t a communist economy still have a central authority to protect the property of the people? Are you against the idea of personal property in general? Personally, I support the concepts of personal property, free markets, and increasing taxes on billionaires.

Look friend, it should be clear that “things”, in the context of this conversation so far, is the market. Once again, just like expanding the use of “state” to include anything resembling central authority, you try twisting my words as some sort of gotcha. I’ve been clear and consistent in my beliefs regarding the market and I’m open to hearing alternative views.

Why are we talking about the state running things? Because your comment I originally responded to was “sorry, but the market requires a state to protect it. How else are we gonna make sure no one steals our shit?” I believe my responses have been very much on this topic.

I disagree that every market requires a state to function. Humans are social beings and will always continue to trade and barter regardless of the form of government, or lack of government. I absolutely disagree that any third-party is needed for protection of property. Now, if we consider all forms of centralized authority as defacto states, sure, I guess I can’t compete with those semantics and will have to concede that you are right. In that case, I believe any group of people can be a “state”.

Now, I’ve been conversing in good faith, stating my point of view, and even answering one-liner questions. You are clearly against capitalism, and you seem to believe that state protection is necessary for a market to function (please correct me if I’m wrong; I don’t want to put words in someone else’s mouth). Are you against the idea of markets in general? If so, what replaces the market and how would its authority be any better?

Hold up, I thought we were talking about the state running things? Of course everything has a central authority; this includes unions, churches, and corporations. Though, we certainly don’t need the state for a black market to run its business. However, I guess it wouldn’t really be a black market if there wasn’t a state to declare things illegal 🤔.

I absolutely agree with your second half though. The black market is a perfect capitalist example, and I believe it is an inevitable response to state authoritarianism.

deleted by creator

An example of someone taking ownership of their own security? If so, the most basic form would be carrying a firearm for defense instead of relying on police. If you want an example with more of a link to the market, how about a illicit drug dealer who protects their person and property?

Edit: Upon reflection, it seems that the existence of any black market proves the point.

It sounds like you basically just described retirement, and I see nothing wrong with that. I’m investing in my future so that someday my capital increases to the point that I can live off the proceeds. I absolutely don’t want to work until I die.

That’s nice, but the claim was that a market cannot exist without a state. It clearly can. Nobody needs to outsource their security. I’m not sure what efficiency has to do with this.

… by protecting your own shit.

But what if both current mainstream US parties are my political opponents? The lesser of two evils is still evil.