- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Communism isn’t bad, it just crumples as soon you put anything but saints in charge of it.
I’m not entirely sure anything works better in a long-term scenario though :)
AES leaders have never been “saints,” no human has been, but the Socialist systems nevertheless have resulted in robust systems with dramatic improvements in the lives of their people. The PRC is an example, I wouldn’t call Xi a perfect saint but the Socialist system itself works well.
This map misses some red. For instance, Belgium was also targeted with the Brabant killings (don’t remember if Killing Hope covers that. It’s been so long, I should read it again anyway.)
It’s such a long book(> 20 hours), but very good. I only finished it ~ a year ago, and I remember the person who recorded the audiobook said it’s been a journey.
I like this version better, thx.
Anytime anyone whines about “commies / tankies”, they’re entirely complicit with these mass killings.
Don’t know how your get one from the other. I can think that state socialist experiments were flawed, misguided, and ultimately destined for autocracy, and still think that targeting them with imperialist intervention is wrong.
Just because the US empire is evil doesn’t make everyone opposing them good. The world is not black and white.
Who’s the one telling you that the USSR, Cuba, China, Venezuela or Vietnam are/were autocracies?
If you actually investigate countries that have substantive / economic democracy, which goes far beyond the liberal equality before the law, you’ll find them to be far more democratic than the countries accusing them of being autocracies.
The US Empire being incredibly evil and predatory towards anyone daring to exert domestic control over their economies and even their own allies does paint a better picture for AES states. It doesn’t make them automatically good, but it starts them off on the right foot.
Then you can analyze how AES states have brought immense democratizations of the economy, massive expansions in key quality of life metrics like education, literacy, life expectancy, Home Ownership, and more, while expanding worker rights and supporting the Global South against the Imperialist countries, it’s hard to see AES as “bad.”
There are genuine critiques of AES countries, but I wouldn’t call them “autocratic,” considering they are generally more democratic than western countries, and moreover the needs of the people are better met. For example, people in China believe the government represents their interests at rates surpassing 90%, and more Chinese workers believe they have democratic control than USian workers.
All of these considerations need to be taken into account, and the fact that these AES states have been treated with the harshest of violence from the US Empire means they are deserving of support for their own existence.
09/11 Chile vibes
And it’s a holiday in Cambodia
Where you’ll what you’re told
Holiday in Cambodia
Where the slum’s got so much soul
When people ask me what communist country was successful I usually say all of them until cia decided to go there and spread freedom 🇺🇸🦅
Well… There was this thing called Soviet Union. They decided to try to speed up the transition to communism by using repression and violence. And ended up being a totalitarian state, a direct opposite of what a communist state is supposed to be like.
Of course you can argue that Soviet Union was not communist, it was just a state that had chosen to call itself communist for propaganda reasons… But still, Soviet Union is an example of a communist country that was unsuccessful as a communist project already by itself. Then came outsiders and helped make it even worse, but bad doesn’t become good by some people wanting it to be even worse. Burma is another example. I’d say they hacked away their own leg before anyone else, such as CIA, had time to interfere in their business.
The USSR is responsible for the largest decrease in poverty in all of world history
Finland decreased its poverty between 1917 and 1991 more than Soviet Union did. In the beginning of year 1917 Finland was a part of the Russian Empire, so we were extremely poor here as well. Soviet Union could be on the second place, perhaps. But, since there is at least one country that fared better, the claim you made it evidently false. There can very well be other countries than just Finland that decreased poverty more than USSR did. I do not know for sure, though, as I’m not terribly well aware of how faraway places like Chile or Burma were faring in 1917.
The USSR had to deal with a civil war, rising up during WWI and being sabotaged by the Germans, more civil war, foreign meddling, and all while being the first successful communist revolution. Yet they still managed to raise literacy, raise health outcomes, raise average life expectancy, gender equality, science and technology, end the cycle of famines (after the first one or two they had when they were still building up), had faster growth during that period than any capitalist country (except maybe the US, which was doing imperialism at the time and the biggest hegemon), all while helping sustain other socialist countries, like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea.
Yup, it would have been difficult not to get better at those after things were as bad as they were. It might be that the Soviet system did actually get some things right, just like the damn nazis managed to build a decent Autobahn network, designed Volkswagen and built some very useful underground train lines in Berlin. If you are a totalitarian country with concentration camps, you are not okay as a country, not even if you do some good things.
Soviet Union was a prison of its peoples and a murderous regime. A country exists for its citizens (or inhabitants, if you prefer that), but in Soviet Union the citizens existed for the country – meaning that the country did not fulfil a country’s main reason of existence.
Of course, if you want to compare growth against non-socialist countries, you need to choose one where the starting point was as abysmal as that of the Imperial Russia. Probably Finland is a good comparison, because when it became independent from the Russia in 1917, it was obviously about as developed as the Russia was.
So, if Finland was doing its job as an organized society better in 1991 than Soviet Union was, then there we’ve got a country that grew to a better result from the same starting point. If Soviet Union of 1991 was a better place for its people than Finland for its people as of 1991, then probably the Soviet way was better. From what I heard from my relatives who visited Soviet Union around the change of 1980’s to 1990’s, they seemed to consider Finland more successful. You can of course point some other country where the starting point was as bad as the socioeconomical state of the Imperial Russia in 1914, and we can look at that. But, the comparison Finland vs. USSR 1917–1991 does not look terribly good for USSR, all that frankly. A part of the Russian Empire broke away and did not become socialist. It ended up faring much better than the rest of areas that were under Russian rule. Why, if not because of avoiding Socialism?
On the southern Kazak steppe an aged yellow-skinned herdsman, dying, sent a last message to his son who had been village president and who was now elected delegate to the All-Union Congress: “All the years of my life were dark with toil and hunger. But I lived to see the new day. Take care of the Soviet power, my son; it is our power, our happiness.”
Comparing the Nazis to the Communists is a form of Nazi Apologia, originating with Double Genocide Theory. The truth is that they are in no way comparable, read Blackshirts and Reds..
The Soviet Union existed for the workers. They doubled life expectancy, over tripled literacy rates to 99.9% from the low 30s, dramatically reduced wealth inequality, provided free and high quality healthcare and education, and democratized the economy.
Comparing Finland to the USSR is… odd. Finland funds its safety nets through Imperialism. The Soviet Union was also far larger and far more populous, and yet cared for its people while detached from much of the global economy. The Soviets did 80% of the combat against the Nazis and had half their buildings destroyed and 20 million people killed by the Nazis, while Finland saw no such comparable devastation. The Soviets largely rebuilt on their own, while Western countries had an unscathed United States propping them up. The point is that Finland didn’t accomplish any of this on their own, and moreover a lot of these concessions came to prevent revolution like was seen in Russia.
I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds.
What no theory does to an mf
The USSR didn’t “do repression and violence to speed up Communism,” they had a successful revolution and established Socialism. By all accounts it was quite successful overall, but we can learn from where they erred and adapt for the future.
The only ones who believe the Soviet Union wasn’t Socialist are generally Western Trots or liberals/Anarchists who already don’t want the form of society Marxists want, which is a government that publicly owns its large and key industries and gradually folds in the new firms that grow to that level until the entire economy is publicly owned.
Have you never heard of bolševiks and menševiks? What you’re explaining is what menševiks wanted, but what happened was what bolševiks aimed for.
And that was inhumane horror.
No, the Mensheviks had a poor understanding of Historical Materialism and didn’t think the Peasantry could truly be allied to the Proletariat. What I am describing is what the Bolsheviks did. To a better extent the PRC also fulfills this.
PRC has concentration camps. Not a sign of a succesfull society, all that frankly.
I don’t think reeducation camps should be considered “concentration camps,” which brings to mind the mass killings of the Holocaust, but regardless the reeducation program is pretty much complete.
As far as can be considered a successful country, the PRC absolutely fits that. Conditions for the people are rapidly improving, the economy when adjusted for purchasing power parity is the largest in the world, it’s a world leader in renewable energy, and is overtaking the rest of the world in key metrics.
Least smug shitlib
you know, i tell you what. i’m fed up with all this gringo self-righteousness when you talk about “oh communism was bad, oh people where killed, oh people had no food, oh people had no liberty, oh people could not buy ataris, oh our countries are so democratic”. your countries were democratic during the cold war in the first place because you had people to sort things out for you here in the global south. for each person complaining about how the food rations in eastern europe were not tasty enough, there were 10 dying of hunger or malnourishment here in the global south. for every person complaining they had to wait 5 years in a queue to buy a trabant or an oka, there were 10 who got no school in a range of 50 km. for every person complaining that their 8 hour shifts in state owned factories were overwhelming, there were 10 who were indentured workers. for every person complaining about how the stasi, kgb or the stb had bugged their apartment, there were 10 suffering the most horrific tortures inside black sites of the military of u.s. allies here in the “third world”. for every person complaining about dull standard apartment blocks in mikrorayons, there were 10 who lived in mud shacks and slums, and those are just who were lucky enough to have a roof over their heads. finally, for everyone complaining about chinese sweatshops, which are indeed a problem, there are 10 americans who work and yet cannot afford proper housing.
you wanna complain about how communism was bad? go ahead. you wanna complain how your parents lived under communism and could not drink coke? do so if you wish. but there are still millions of people down here who would give an arm and a leg to have a polish ration, an apartment in a russian gray building, or a yugoslav job. and while the chinese maoist red guard was bad, surely it won’t be an inch closer to the harassement people endured on a daily basis by our police forces.
again: you wanna complain? be my guest. but for me that’s an encyclopedic example of white privilege.
This, so much this. Having a job and a roof over your head is such a luxury in the ‘global south’, the true face of capitalism
Luckily the US is dismantling the CIA so that’s good news for communism!!!
JDPON DON
Is this true?? I suspect something closer to the way the KGB was “dismantled” and then re-assembled around the entire government.
whoops, brazil. we had a budding workers movement that was absolutely crushed by the traitorous brazilian military, in the name of the US of course.
that hasnt stopped syndicalism to take root here and improve our lives a bit, but the communist organizations responsible were all crushed and we see our rights being taken away ever since because no one is left to defend them. we are scrambling rn to see if we can stop fascism.
to anyone who says “why don’t you compare communist eastern europe to democratic western europe?”. sure, first thing to notice is that eastern europe didn’t had companies exploiting underdeveloped nations for their cheap labour and raw materials, their oppression of labour organizations and the support of corrupt rulers. since brazil was mentioned (heh), let us remember that west german companies such as vw or mercedes-benz used to report on syndicalists and communists working and organizing on their plants to the brazilian military during the dictatorship, and sold equipment to the military and police. that siemens sold nuclear reactors to the dictatorship during the late 70s. that many former officials of the dictatorship got leadership jobs in these companies and in basf, hoescht, atlas-schindler, mwm. behind the “economic success” of the rich countries of the west there’s always some degree of exploitation of poorer countries.
Yeah.
The CIA is why the Soviets fell. Not corruption or incompetence.
It was complicated. Kruschev, and later Gorbachev’s reforms really weakened the Socialist system because they didn’t properly retain strong control of the larger firms and heavy industry (a lesson the CPC took to heart), however the CIA and really the US absolutely worked tirelessly to weaken it. The Soviets also had to spend a much larger portion of their production on the millitary in order to keep parity with the US, meaning that development rates began to slow.
What is complicated about it?
The reforms you refer to allowed for political dissent. If the Soviet Union was some worker’s paradise, then allowing people complain wouldn’t change anything.
The simple reality is that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship that only survived as long as it did because it was a dictatorship. Once people had the option of opposing Communist rule, they did. And that is what killed the Soviet Union. Not some conspiracy by the United States or the kulaks.
The reforms didn’t just allow for “political dissent,” they worked against the Socialist system, that was based on central planning. Rather than running in a more efficient manner, it ran against itself.
Further, nobody says the Soviet Union was a “worker’s paradise.” It had tremendous strides for workers, but it wasn’t perfect by any means.
The Soviet Union wasn’t a dictatorship. Read Soviet Democracy. It lasted as long as it did because it had tremendous GDP growth while lowering wealth disparity, free and high quality education and healthcare, doubled health expectancies, full employment, and over tripled literacy rates to 99.9%.
Do you really believe that we could have retained power and have had the backing of the vast masses for 14 years by methods of intimidation and terrorization? No, that is impossible. The tsarist government excelled all others in knowing how to intimidate. It had long and vast experience in that sphere. The European bourgeoisie, particularly the French, gave tsarism every assistance in this matter and taught it to terrorize the people. Yet, in spite of that experience and in spite of the help of the European bourgeoisie, the policy of intimidation led to the downfall of Tsarism.
Exactly, and this didn’t last for 14 years, but nearly the entire 20th century, and is succeeded by other AES countries like the PRC.
That’s what dissent is.
Nothing you said disputes it being a dictatorship. The people could not choose their leaders, there were no limits on the power of their leaders, er go it was a dictatorship. None of your “pros” matter. And that’s before we get into the lack of freedom of speech and press and total absence of transparency, meaning that I have no reason to trust those supposed accomplishments.
None of your “pros” matter
Healthcare? Doesn’t matter.
Education? Literacy? Reading is how the communist get you, remain illiterate.
Full employment? You don’t need to feed your family.
Life expectancy? Why prolong the suffering?We weren’t debating the quality of the Soviet Union. We were debating whether or not it was a dictatorship.
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
A lot of the cold war propaganda about the USSR turned out to be bullshit, now that US & Soviet archives have been released, as contemporary Western academic historians will tell you, like Domenico Losurdo and Grover Furr.
No, that isn’t what dissent is, it was a fundamental liberalization of the economy that favored private property over public.
Secondly, they absolutely chose their leaders.
Finally, you say life expectancy, literacy rates, and worker rights “don’t matter?” That strong, sustained economic growth doesn’t matter? You must be trolling.
As for distrusting the sources, you can look into them yourselves, they are well-respected.
So, you’re denying that glasnost allowed for political dissent?
Second, no they didn’t.
Finally, it does not matter because we were debating whether or not the Soviet Union was a dictatorship, which the literacy rate has nothing to do with.
Well-respected by Tankies, not by actual historians.
Glasnost allowed for liberalism to expand as an ideology, sure, alongside other reforms that weakened the economy and erased its foundations. You can’t cherry-pick the reforms to make it seem like the system worked poorly and only was dissolved because the “people had a choice.” In fact, most post-Soviet citizens regret the fall of Socialism and prefer it over Capitalism.
Read Soviet Democracy.
We were debating a great many things, one of which being the economy and the well-being of the people, because that helps explain why it was democratic.
Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is quite literally used as a reference on the Wikipedia article for Soviet Democracy. You are incapable of being honest or looking at facts that disprove you because you care more about appearing morally righteous than being correct.
The Soviet Union was, if not a traditional dictatorship, absolutely a totalitarian autocracy. Stalin was a brutal dictator and his successors were chosen by the communist party. Elections in the USSR were for show.
Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people. The USSR’s implementation of communism was so bad, it’s become cliche.
Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people.
People like you should be forced to live under conditions like Tsarist Russia.
“Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people”, said the romanovs.
Allow me to repeat myself:
The Soviet Union wasn’t a dictatorship. Read Soviet Democracy. It lasted as long as it did because it had tremendous GDP growth while lowering wealth disparity, free and high quality education and healthcare, doubled health expectancies, full employment, and over tripled literacy rates to 99.9%.
lemmy.ml moment
Tbh did you read this thread? lemmy.ml made these capitalists look like completely unread simpletons, it’s genuinely embarrasing on their side
Most people don’t become Marxist-Leninists without doing a lot of reading, in my experience.
The biggest flaw with communism is that you have to actually read instead of trusting a propaganda mill blindly and uncritically to become one.
some utterly propagandized capitalist will read this and think we’re the propagandized ones, hilariously not realizing all they have is strawmen they didn’t even come up with themselves and things they didn’t fact check even the tiniest bit.
There’s propaganda on both sides
yeah in the same way that there’s guns and shootings all over the world but they’re almost all concentrated in one place… american schools.
either way, communists are vastly more prepared to deal with propaganda because in capitalist societies critical thinking is destroyed by nearly every institution that can teach it.
if you go by this thread one side has nothing but propaganda. There was not one valid argument made on the capitalist side when I read this thread, I could’ve better argued for capitalism, it’s pathetic.
closest they got was china is mean to uyghurs, but capitalists do genocide every 5 seconds so that’s hardly a pro capitalist argument. At least the chinese, if they are covering it up, have the decency to cover it up, capitalists brazenly and openly happily do it, and support it!
Your main problem is that you’re saying capitalism = USA. There are a lot more other countries that aren’t involved in genocides
The only arguments I’ve seen in this thread are “but USA corrupted them so it’s entirely their fault” and “but somewhere in the world some people had worse living conditions”
I think we’re all suffering from confirmation bias in this thread
I have to admit I don’t know a lot about communism and geopolitics overall, but so far I haven’t seen a successful implementation of it that would make me want to live there, and the main countries that approaches its definition are a huge red flag to me
The Western Capitalist countries that you’d likely consider “good to live in” depend on Imperialism. In short, they act as landlords in country form. Socialist countries like the PRC are making huge strides in comparison without depending on Imperialism, genocide, etc to sustain themselves.
If the only arguments you’ve seen in this thread are along the lines you’ve described, then you’ve either blocked people or otherwise are defederated from instances like Lemmygrad.ml.
If you want to learn more about Communism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. It’s designed for complete newcomers, the first section is designed to be self-contained in that it gives you a broad overview of Communism in theory and historically, then it goes through the essentials of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice in the latter sections. There are audiobooks linked as well for most works.
No, all capitalist countries that are nice places to live are guilty of imperialism, colonialism, genocide, or some combination of the three. No exceptions. All you’re noticing is that they have successfully exported their suffering at best.
Communist countries have a massive uphill battle, they have to gain wealth without imperialist exploitation AND fend off the US, who has the same military budget as the rest of the world COMBINED, this combined with the fact they usually started poor makes this a wildly unfair comparison. Only authoritarians can hold onto power when faced with all of these things.
the mere fact that in 75 years china has gotten where it has and the only issues you can really point to are matters of policy rather than fundamental failures of communism tells most of the story, communism can be essentially identical to what china does with freedom of speech, no censorship, and no genocide very easily, as none of those things have anything to do with whether a country is communist or not, with all of the benefits.
in other words capitalists can’t find flaws with communism that don’t apply to capitalism, only issues with particular implementations, the issues communists talk about are mostly fundamental to capitalism.
can communism survive in a single country was always a big question.
I think the original idea was to try a world revolution but that didn’t work out.
Us is the main holdout. Russia is basically socialist, EU is basically socialist. China is communist.
Us is the only serious holdout
Russia is Capitalist, the EU is Capitalist, the US is Capitalist, and China is Socialist. Communism must be global, but Socialism is the process of building towards that through publicly owning large firms and key industries. Communism exists as an ideology for now, and hasn’t been achieved yet.
Russia has universal health care and mandatory vacations and many other perks - it’s in Russia constitution in 7.1. Same is EU.
us is definitely capitalist
Welfare and social programs are not Socialism. Socialism is when public ownership is the primary basis of your economy.
For what purpose - for the purpose of providing these social programs. It’s all connected
No, not really. The purpose behind Socialism is that as time goes on, production becomes more and more complex, and eventually must be publicly planned to continue being effective. Social programs are important, but Social Programs in a system dominated by Private Capital are subject to the will of the bourgeoisie, and often done in a manner that supports private profits.
Socialism and Capitalism are descriptors for economic formations, not if a country provides free healthcare or not.
China is a cocktail of socialism, capitalism, nationalism… claiming it’s only one ~ism is probably oversimplifying, but communism is probably a bit far stretch.
China has a Socialist Market Economy, it isn’t so much a cocktail as it is Marxism-Leninism applied to China’s current conditions.
China has a Socialist Market Economy, it isn’t so much a cocktail as it is Marxism-Leninism applied to China’s current conditions.
This sentence is in Chinese constitution and text book for every first grade student. Repeating it doesn’t help any meaningful conversation, unless you are a 7 years old trying to pass exam and get to second grade…
It’s a sentence I made, just because the PRC agrees with describing themselves that way doesn’t mean I’m not adding to meaningful conversation. When you declare that China is a cocktail of Capitalism and Socialism, what does that actually mean? It seemed like your comment was more about not analyzing China’s economy than coming up with a coherent and consistent answer, which is what I pushed forward.
Basically, Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors of overall systems, not portions of an economy, so calling a system a cocktail of each doesn’t make too much sense and adds confusion more than clarity.
Seeing some of the zingers in the comments here, now seems like a great time to plug my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Read up, comrades!
The struggle depicted perfectly lol
For those that don’t like to read, you don’t have to read theory. In fact, most theory is old. There are newer and better takes on these ideas. Find a good YouTube channel that goes over the ideas. I like Vaush.
If you like to read theory, go for it. But I think there are faster and easier ways to get the concepts.
Vaush’s whole thing is controversy bait. He purposely crosses lines to get people mad at him while maintaining some form of “plausible deniability” to where his fans can always find a way to defend and excuse his actions by talking about “you don’t understand the context” or whatever, it’s a very common and tiresome tactic. Like, if you’re trying to promote a shitty video game that can’t stand on it’s own merits, just do something to antagonize either the left or the right (doesn’t matter which) and then go to the other group and be like, “Look, the guys you hate hate us, you should check us out.” Controversy generates clicks. A big reason for Trump’s success is that he cracked the code on how to apply this formula to a political campaign. If you know how to recognize it, it’s very obvious that Vaush does this.
This sort of opportunism is very detrimental to actually understanding the world or promoting ideas or building a movement. It’s essentially brain-poisoning and a cognitohazard. You’re much better off reading actual books than just following whoever’s best at attracting attention on the internet. If you are going to shun books for videos, you should at least go with someone more educational, like Shaun.
I don’t know where you are getting the idea that he purposefully generates controversies. He lost subs during most of his controversies, not gained. And it has down stream negative impacts on his channel other than just sub count.
He is just very careless.
No way it’s just carelessness, nobody forces him to say edgy shit. It’s the classic “no such thing as bad publicity,” or, “but you have heard of me” thing. I’d have never heard of him without the controversies (of which there are many), and despite making a conscious effort to avoid him, even I’ve seen clips of him. When you get people talking about something, people will get curious and want to see it straight from the horses mouth, then some percentage of the people who show up “to get the full story” will like what they see and stick around, and even if they don’t, a hate click is still “engagement,” it doesn’t matter why you click, if you click, it boosts him in the algorithm.
Going into examples will naturally only play into this effect, but I recall him once talking about performing eugenics to eradicate trans people from existence, under the idea of detecting gender dysphoria in the womb and aborting the fetus. This is an example of walking right up to the line and getting people mad on purpose, that’s not something someone just “organically” says out of “carelessness,” it’s specifically formulated to generate outrage, while, as always, leaving him an out that he can fall back on.
There is 100% such a thing as bad publicity. Your post here is a literal example of this, you actively avoid him and there are many people who feel the same way as you.
Hes not forced to say edgy shit, he just doesn’t put much effort into not saying edgy shit and he naturally wants to. He doesn’t police his own words, for instance, his frequent use of the word “retarded” and his joking about hating women. He also constantly blurts out shit and then his audience points out he misspoke and he gets annoyed and says “You fucks know what I meant”. He has no anxiety or shame about his wording of things. There is no worry on his end about saying something shameful, he’s literally said that he thinks shame is a worthless emotion.
He doesn’t “mask” essentially. He is not careful. Maybe to some degree that helps his internet career because of reputation of authenticity or something but it also frequently pisses off his own audience. The controversies have lost him subs, they’ve severely damaged his ability to engage with other creators because he has either alienated or outright insulted them, which means he doesn’t debate anyone anymore, left or right.
Its not on purpose. Hes not playing 12D chess to boost his youtube career. He wouldn’t be a leftwing creator in that case, he’d be a rightwing grifter instead. A lot more money in that.
Your post here is a literal example of this, you actively avoid him and there are many people who feel the same way as you.
And yet, I’ve given him clicks. And I’m talking about him. That’s what he wants, that’s why he does what he does. Were it not for the controversies, I wouldn’t watch him either because I wouldn’t have heard of him, and also because I’m not his target audience.
Hopefully my criticism calls out the pattern directly enough that people take away that they should just ignore him, as opposed to playing into his specific controversies that are calculated to make use of criticism and outrage.
Hes not forced to say edgy shit, he just doesn’t put much effort into not saying edgy shit and he naturally wants to.
All I can see is that I see a pretty clear method to the madness. There’s always an out, it’s always “you don’t understand the context.” It’s the same tactic Trump uses, and the same tactic used in countless ad campaigns. I can’t really prove it because it’s just a matter of pattern recognition, but suffice to say, I don’t fuck with what he does. Even if your interpretation were correct, associating with someone so careless about messaging and so prone to controversies is more of a liability to the left than an asset. But also, your interpretation is not correct.
The first time I see someone holding a bloody knife over a dead body, I might be willing to listen to their explanation and their side of the story. The 17th time I see the same person in the same situation, something’s going on. How many times am I expected to give him the benefit of the doubt? Because whatever that number is, he’s exceeded it, because he’s doing this constantly, and you can pretend that it isn’t a clear pattern of behavior all you want, but I’m not going to.
He wouldn’t be a leftwing creator in that case, he’d be a rightwing grifter instead. A lot more money in that.
No, there’s lot’s of little niches that one can carve out, regardless of being left or right. There’s plenty of opportunists with supposedly left-leaning brands. The right-wing grifts and personality cults are more profitable, but it’s also a fairly saturated market with a lot of competition. There’s plenty of room for people like Destiny, Jimmy Dore, and Vaush to carve out their respective “left-leaning” niches.
Also, btw, I have never heard about any actual insight that watching Vaush gives. His content isn’t educational or edifying, the way someone like Shaun’s is. It’s all about aesthetics and personality. The best thing anyone can really claim about Vaush is that criticism towards him is invalid, or that he makes people they don’t like mad, nobody actually seems to learn anything from watching him.
And yet, I’ve given him clicks.
I thought you said you only watched clips of him? I assumed you meant by other creators.
All I can see is that I see a pretty clear method to the madness. There’s always an out, it’s always “you don’t understand the context.” It’s the same tactic Trump uses, and the same tactic used in countless ad campaigns.
Trump supporters don’t actually care about context though. They say that shit for propaganda purposes. Vaush supporters bring up context because he literally gets clipped out of context for oppositional propaganda purposes.
Also, there isn’t always an “out”. Some of the things Vaush has said/done are bad even with context. Like when he told his followers to go harass Contrapoints on Twitter once because he was upset with her and wanted to “Force her to see reason” or whatever. When he was unnecessarily nasty to TJ Kirk during some debate. Or when he flashed on screen AI generated and drawn porn of a canonically 16 year old character and bestiality.
There are a few other things I’m probably forgetting.
No, there’s lot’s of little niches that one can carve out, regardless of being left or right. There’s plenty of opportunists with supposedly left-leaning brands. The right-wing grifts and personality cults are more profitable, but it’s also a fairly saturated market with a lot of competition. There’s plenty of room for people like Destiny, Jimmy Dore, and Vaush to carve out their respective “left-leaning” niches.
Jimmy Dore is 100% vapid grift. Destiny is a terrible human being but he is also almost certainly not a grifter. He says what he means and means what he says.
Vaush is someone who is significantly egotistical, narcissistic, impulsive, and short sighted. But he is not a controversy-monger, on that front he is just a dumbass.
I do get that vibe from Vaush occasionally. Unfortunately the attention economy is a real thing and I would be impressed with anyone with the same reach as Vaush wouldn’t be doing similar things. I am not sure I would be as far left as I am without his content.
Doesn’t Hasan have a larger audience without doing that sort of thing?
Hasan has drama/beef with H3H3 & Lonerbox.
I don’t know what it’s about or who those people are really. Aren’t they Zionists?
No. Or at least I know Lonerbox isn’t.
No idea, I have only watch him one or two times. Seemed good to me.
A big difference between Hasan and Vaush is that Hasan generally wastes very little of his time with sectarian nonsense or left-punching, while Vaush makes that one of his core focuses. Hasan networks with the Deprogram crew, Chapo, and other more Marxist aligned groups without screaming about “tankies,” while Vaush leans heavily into that.
Hasan is also generally much better with foreign policy, even though I don’t always agree.
The biggest thing is that Hasan serves as a great gateway to Leftist radicalization, while Vaush ends up preventing further Leftist movement, kinda like a more Libertarian Socialist-coded Destiny.
My fiancé and I will still watch Hasan even when we may disagree with him on some issues because he is generally entertaining and generally more correct than not, but would never watch Vaush.
Hasan avoids arguing with leftists because hes a cowardly clout monger and can’t debate for shit because he isn’t really that smart and is captured to some degree by his audience.
I don’t hate Hasan, I do agree with a lot of his takes but hes fundamentally a less ideologically honest person than Vaush. Vaush doesn’t give much of a shit about pissing off his audience, he does it constantly.
Support for chasers and sex-pests like Vaush is pretty awful, not to mentions his awful politics and constant butchering of Marxist theory for an audience that usually can’t tell the difference.
Theory is important. Much of my list is newer, some is older when it holds up, some is newer when it meaningfully adds to the discussion. However, as someone who had your approach, reading theory directly genuinely is much faster than rolling the dice.
I have audiobooks linked as well that people can listen to if they prefer, and importantly they won’t be distorted by a sex-pest who complains about Marxists constantly while misrepresenting them.
I am pretty familiar with Vaush’s arguments on Marxist theory. What are your points of contention?
The vast majority of them, to be honest. He has no grasp of Dialectical and Historical Materialism, has no knowledge of AES, and horrendously distorts Lenin.
He’s a liberal that cosplays an Anarchist and pretends to have beyond a Wikipedia understanding of Marxism.
That’s, of course, ignoring that he’s a chaser, pedophile, sex offender.
He has no grasp of Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Can you list a specific example? I think he has a good understanding of this.
One of the worst issues is when he depicts AES as “not real Socialism” because they contain contradictions, when Dialectical Materialism shows that all systems contain contradictions and must resolve them, that doesn’t mean they aren’t that system. Ie, Capitalist states contain public ownership, which is a contradiction but does not define the system.
One of the recent and larger-scale issues was when he tried to explain Lenin advocated voting Socialism into existence.
I don’t make it a point to hate-watch sex offenders that do the work of the US state department.
Yeah, I am not surprised that you have disagreements behind Lenin and AES. The two are pretty related and hard to pull apart. I was just surprised that you would disagree with any of his Marxist takes. I think you both agree what the problems are from a Marxist perspective.
As for the sex offenders/sex pest stuff. I don’t think he is those things, but I understand I am just one person. From the stuff I have seen it is mostly people that disagree with him that label him as such as a way to get around the fact they don’t really have a leg to stand on; Fascists and the like. Not saying that is you of course.
Thanks for taking the time to talk this though by the way. I figure you get hit with a lot of stuff.
Where can I find audiobooks you talked about? My app probably doesn’t show your userpage right.
I have audiobook links after (almost) each listed work.
I like Vaush
Lmaoooo, ye I always follow the political opinions of some dude who watches child porn … oh wait, not child porn, it’s “shortstack goblins”
As far as I know, all the criticisms of Vaush watching child porn has been misinformation.
Then you clearly don’t know much. Maybe you should actually learn about the people you recommend
I watch Vaush a lot and I haven’t seen what you are talking about.
Communism only works on a small scale. The second society gets bigger, you require a state with militaristic presence to keep the people in line. To this very day, the Marxist ideal of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” has ALWAYS resulted in centralized power structures that became brutal dictatorships.
No matter which country you pick, large ones like china or the soviet union or smaller ones like cambodia under pol pot or vietnam under the CPV, all of them have devolved into a dictatorship. Even “experiments” like yugoslavia under tito were, in the end, still dictatorships where political opposition was disallowed, a secret police was founded and tito still had absolute control. Now, you might say: “But the people lived well!”, yes, for about 10 years until the 1960s where the country suffered a massive economic crash, insane debt (because commies suck at economics) and inflation. Tito was able to hold it together with sheer force until he died, and after his death, yugoslavia completely unraveled into the mess it is today.
I know you like to cope with “oh no the evil CIA again >:(” but in the end, communism is a failed ideology that will never work on a large scale without completely suppressing individual freedom and brutally knocking down any sign of dissent.
Edit: By the way, I’m more than willing to argue about this - however, I just noticed that I’m on lemmy.ml so I’ll most likely get banned for not conforming to the tankie-ideals.
This is generally wrong, though. Communist countries have dramatically democratized society, it works better at large scale if we are speaking of Marxian Communism because that’s the Marxist reason for Communism to begin with. Competition centralizes, so in the future it must be publicly owned and planned. This is the basis of Scientific Socialism, primitive Communism is not the same as the post-Socialist Communism, which must be large-scale as production increases in complexity.
Pol Pot wasn’t even a Communist.
Communist countries have dramatically democratized society
No. That’s just a straightup lie. Name one.
it can only work at large scale because that’s the Marxist reason for Communism to begin with
And yet, it never did. Not one single time.
Competition centralizes, so in the future it must be publicly owned and planned.
Competition does the exact opposite of centralization. That’s why I can buy most goods from completely different vendors that differ in price and quality.
Are there mega corpos that harm people in general? Absolutely. Should we do something about it? Absolutely. Is communism the solution? Nope.
Pol Pot wasn’t even a Communist.
Pol Pot followed a radical form of Maoist communism, heaviely influenced by china. So no - that’s also a lie.
Competition does the exact opposite of centralization. That’s why I can buy most goods from completely different vendors that differ in price and quality.
Competitions have winners, and in this case it means the competition goes out of business and dies, leaving you with a near monopoly or outright monopoly.
That power then gets used to
- lobby (bribe) the government to raise barriers to entry to prevent new competitors
- buy out new competitors
- intentionally price everything lower than competitors, at a loss, to kill competitors in a war of attrition that they can’t possibly outlast
And that’s even assuming there’s any competition at all, which often isn’t the case with certain things like healthcare, internet, electricity, etc.
Not really? Competition might cut into your profits, sure, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to be bankrupt. Just because dyson vacuums are amazing doesn’t mean stuff like vorwerk is dead, right? They still exist and are very profitable.
I’m not saying that the ones at the top are not using their power and money to lobby and stuff, but that doesn’t really seem like a good argument to me why we should switch to communism instead of just fixing the issues we currently have lol.
The USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc are more democratic than theie previous systems.
Communism still works, just because the Soviet Union isn’t here doesn’t mean everything is a failure.
Competition forces centralization and monopolies over time due to increasinly complex production practices that raise the barrier to entry. It’s unavoidable.
Pol Pot denounced Marxism and focused on an odd agrarian system, and was backed by the CIA.
The USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc are more democratic than theie previous systems.
No?
While these regimes may have dismantled previous monarchies, colonial systems, or oligarchies, they did not replace them with democratic governance, but rather installed rigid, one-party authoritarian states that eliminated political competition, suppressed civil liberties, and centralized power. By nearly every standard of democracy these systems fell short, making them less democratic, not more.
Communism still works, just because the Soviet Union isn’t here doesn’t mean everything is a failure.
No, it doesn’t. The USSR was the most successful country and only existed for like 60 years, and every other communist country that still exists today is an authoritarian shithole like Vietnam, North Korea or Cuba where people are executed and suppressed constantly.
Competition forces centralization and monopolies over time due to increasinly complex production practices that raise the barrier to entry. It’s unavoidable.
True for a very narrow spectrum of products and services, mostly those that are extremely expensive to manufacture/develop or those under government supervision, like medicine. Untrue for most.
Yes, competing with twitch.tv on streaming is nearly impossible because the infrastructure is extremely expensive. But you can compete with most other companies in the space. Look at lego, for example. 15 years ago, there was only lego, nobody was competing with them, they became worse over time, more expensive, less quality, people complained and suddenly, companies like cabo or bluebricks came up and invaded the market, offering a wider variety of products.
Pol Pot denounced Marxism and focused on an odd agrarian system,
He still followed communist ideals for the most part, or are we going to argue that maoism is not heaviely influenced by communist ideals?
and was backed by the CIA.
The US never directly supported pol pot. Before 1975, they supported Lon Nol, who was fighting against the communist Khmer Rouge.
The part that IS true is that the US did support China and Thailand at the time, which in turn used that aid to support resistance groups in cambodia because vietnam invaded cambodia in 1979 - something the US had no problem with since vietnam was backed by the soviets. Also, it is true that the US and other western countries supported keeping the Khmer Rouge as Cambodia’s official UN representative, however, that was mostly done to undermine Vietnam’s rule over cambodia.
So, yes, by extension, the US supported pol pot, but it’s not the big “gotcha” you think it is - it was the cold war, an extremely complex geopolitical time.
Read Soviet Democracy, as well as read up on the government structures of the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, etc. They are democratic.
The PRC is more successful today than the USSR was, and is Socialist. Calling countries in the Global South “shitholes” is wildly chauvanist, along with your unsourced claims about them.
You didn’t really go against competition causing centralization. Even further than companies, there are joinings of companies under single megacorps that share supply chains and interwork.
Pol Pot did not “follow Communist ideals,” though. Moreover, if someone makes a clear deviation from Communism and denounces Marxism, why on Earth include it as a detractor other than clear bad-faith?
Sure, the Cold War was complicated, but the US was never fighting for Communism and neither was Pol Pot. The Khmer Rouge never actually read Marx, and mostly declared any Communist sympathies out of aesthetics and geopolitical support than genuine support for Communism, and the US supported them.
You made a lot of claims here. Do you have any sources to provide support?
Here’s a well-sourced post on China’s democracy, but really, read their constitution and government structure if you want more.
Cuba was under a fascist slaver before Socialism, and now has a democracy.
The PRC is Socialist, and has one of the largest and most rapidly growing economies in the world, I don’t think you need a source for this.
As for competition and centralization, where do you think the megacorps came from? We are more centralized now than ever before.
Pol Pot and the CIA, alternatively Blowback lists their sources and they went over it in Season 5.
Im sure the uyghurs and tibetans see it differently
EDIT: \s
The Schrödinger’s sarcasm edit 🙄
uyghurs
The US propaganda machine’s “Uyghur genocide” psyop has been debunked six ways to Sunday already. [1] [2]
.
tibetans
I’m pretty sure virtually all of the Tibetan people are happy to no longer be suffering under theocratic feudalism. Happy to no longer be illiterate serfs and slaves, suffering depredation under a god-king. I doubt many of them are sad that CIA asset Dalai “suck my tongue” Lama is in exile. [1] [2]
By debunked you mean the leader accused of genocide denied it and then denied journalists and observers access! Your propaganda is too stupid to believe.
The tibetens were beaten into submission and shown that they will be disapeared for even suggesting that god-king Xi might be wrong.
Not sure what you’re trying to say. Uyghurs are systematically eradicated and tibet is controlled by china since their invasion in the 1950s. Not exactly speaking in favor of communism.
So, if you’d like to expand on your point, I might be able to discuss this further.
Lol I meant to reply to the main thread, but you could pretend im being sarcastic and it kinda works
Makes sense, I just was kinda confused and wasn’t sure.
This is a good example of one of things people hate about lemmy.
Communism fan boying, implicit denial of genocides committed by communist powers, out in the open on the front page.
You’re going to find Communists on a website made by Communists. Don’t know what you mean by “genocide denial,” but in another comment you were unironically recommending the Black Book of Communism’s chief writer as a legitimate source, you’re doing the “Communism killed 100 million” meme.
And you cited a website that denies the Uyghur Genocide and the Holodomor.
You’re doing genocide denial.
Wow, I wonder what went on there…
Uyghurs aren’t being systematically murdered at scale. There are reeducation camps, but to call it “genocide” isn’t accurate. You should read the UN report.
As for the idea of an “intentional famine,” this is disputed at best. In reality, there was a famine in the 1930s that didn’t have any racial motivations. Nobody denies the famine’s existence.
So no, I’m not doing genocide denial, and I’m correct, you want to appear morally righteous regardless of the real facts.
Yeah, I remember how my grandfather and everyone he knew fought tooth and nail just to stop America from dismantling communism in eastern Europe!
Oh, wait, he didn’t. Everyone celebrated when it fell.
And then 7 million people died, and most people feel they were better off under Socialism and wished it continued.
It’s easy to say if one has never lived under communism rule. Stalinism caused the Holodomor in Ukraine and starved to death 2-7 million people. Mass deportations of people in Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and many other countries in Eastern Europe. Federated platforms? Forget about it. Everything is controlled by the state. Do you want to say something that the government doesn’t like? You can, but then you are off in a concentration camp (gulag) or sent to Siberia. Almost every family has a history of one of its family members being sent or imprisoned because they said something bad about communists / had a farm and could feed themselves with the products from their farm or land. On the contrary I would recommend to read the Animal Farm by George Orwell. - “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
The famine in the 30s was caused by natural causes and spiraled to greater heights because of collectivization, but this ended famines.
The Soviet system was similar to federated platforms. It was government controlled, in a somewhat federated manner. Read Soviet Democracy.
The GULAG administration was a prison system, not concentration camps. Read Russian Justice.
Orwell was a fan of Hitler, hated workers, and in Animal Farm specifically his biggest critique was that Russian Workers are stupid and destined to be taken advantage of. Read On Orwell and A Critical Read of Animal Farm.
Oh yes, my friend, I knew someone would repeat me this soviet narrative. I urge you to read about Mr. Jones or watch a film about these events. Regarding gulags, it’s the same as telling me about concentration camps built by the Nazis. They also claimed it was just for labor, you know. I see you are well prepared with communist materials, it’s the same as entering communist class in the Soviet Union and expecting they will share the truth.
I urge you to read about Mr. Jones
There have been millions of Mr. Joneses so you’ll need to be more specific. In the meantime,
- Domenico Losurdo, 2008, Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend
- Grover Furr, 2014, Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False
.
Regarding gulags, it’s the same as telling me about concentration camps built by the Nazis.
I see you are well prepared with communist materials, it’s the same as entering communist class in the Soviet Union and expecting they will share the truth.
Those aren’t arguments, they’re vague, empty rhetoric.
No, now you’re doing holocaust minimization by supporting Double Genocide Theory. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
Because no one who experienced it thought hmm is briliant, yeh nah, socialist policies are needed but not any form of totalitarian communism
Most people actually preferred Socialism over modern Capitalism in post-Soviet states. Socialism works better than Capitalism, and was more democratic.