LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Communists like Pol Pot deprived people of their lives for trivial reasons without real charges or trials. People don't accuse communism of being totalitarian because you take away property, as many systems have done that and aren't considered totalitarian. Your bad rap comes from many of the other things communism aligned regimes have done. U.S. style Republics doing bad things doesn't excuse communist atrocities, neither does Fascist atrocities.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Serious question

Are there any political YTers that aren't cancer

Very, very few. And most of them are either blah or dangerous to your sanity if you try and binge.

There's also very few who aren't "asshole talking to the camera" or "rantsona" types of content.

People in the US die of lack of healthcare every day, and people in the Horn of Africa die preventable deaths of starvation while whole warehouses of food rot in Europe. When are we going to call those the 'evils of capitalism'?

"my family were killed by communists"
"bUt WhAt aBoUt CaPiTaLiSm ThO!?"

Sure, that's my only argument, if you cut out the actual argument I made:

And that justifies sending out death squads and imprisoning, torturing, and killing everyone that even vaguely disagrees with you?

No, but what you're criticising now is authoritarianism, not leftism. If your family was killed by death squads, then they were killed by authoritarianism. It is possible, desirable, and probably even necessary that a left-wing system be anti-atuhoritarian and democratic. You will not find many tankies on this forum.

If your argument is that 'we should prefer capitalism over communism because communism kills people', you should at least take into consideration that capitalism also kills people.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Communists like Pol Pot deprived people of their lives for trivial reasons without real charges or trials. People don't accuse communism of being totalitarian because you take away property, as many systems have done that and aren't considered totalitarian. Your bad rap comes from many of the other things communism aligned regimes have done. Fascists and U.S. style Republics doing bad things doesn't excuse communist atrocities.

Surely, but there is no point in acting like any side, left, right, or otherwise, doesn’t have blood on its hands. Yes, communist regimes killed people and dictators like Pol Pot killed innocent civilians and whatnot, but what is your point? Name me an ideology or regime that doesn’t have a bloodstained history of senseless violence and repression. These sorts of discussions are inherently useless because they inevitably devolve into people pulling cheap gotchas over death counts.

[Proctopeo]

Very, very few. And most of them are either blah or dangerous to your sanity if you try and binge.

There's also very few who aren't "asshole talking to the camera" or "rantsona" types of content.


"my family were killed by communists"
"bUt WhAt aBoUt CaPiTaLiSm ThO!?"

Sure, that's my only argument, if you cut out the actual argument I made:

No, but what you're criticising now is authoritarianism, not leftism. If your family was killed by death squads, then they were killed by authoritarianism. It is possible, desirable, and probably even necessary that a left-wing system be anti-atuhoritarian and democratic. You will not find many tankies on this forum.

If your argument is that 'we should prefer capitalism over communism because communism kills people', you should at least take into consideration that capitalism also kills people.

Sorry to say, your actual argument is just as stupid, it's just less funny.

Communists like Pol Pot deprived people of their lives for trivial reasons without real charges or trials. People don't accuse communism of being totalitarian because you take away property, as many systems have done that and aren't considered totalitarian. Your bad rap comes from many of the other things communism aligned regimes have done. Fascists and U.S. style Republics doing bad things doesn't excuse communist atrocities.

Surely, but there is no point in acting like any side, left, right, or otherwise, doesn’t have blood on its hands. Yes, communist regimes killed people and dictators like Pol Pot killed innocent civilians and whatnot, but what is your point? Name me an ideology or regime that doesn’t have a bloodstained history of senseless violence and repression. These sorts of discussions are inherently useless because they inevitably devolve into people pulling cheap gotchas over death counts.

The ones that haven't been tried!

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

-Snip-

[Byeclase]

Communists like Pol Pot deprived people of their lives for trivial reasons without real charges or trials. People don't accuse communism of being totalitarian because you take away property, as many systems have done that and aren't considered totalitarian. Your bad rap comes from many of the other things communism aligned regimes have done. U.S. style Republics doing bad things doesn't excuse communist atrocities, neither does Fascist atrocities.

Pol Pot sided with the US against Vietnam and I don't consider him a communist or even a progressive revisionist for his role.

The other things we've spoken basically false propaganda. Yet I'm pointing out that even with that being true, they're still ultra-humanitarian compared to the socdem-liberal side.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Sure, that's my only argument, if you cut out the actual argument I made:



If your argument is that 'we should prefer capitalism over communism because communism kills people', you should at least take into consideration that capitalism also kills people.

Sorry to say, your actual argument is just as stupid, it's just less funny.

Surely, but there is no point in acting like any side, left, right, or otherwise, doesn’t have blood on its hands. Yes, communist regimes killed people and dictators like Pol Pot killed innocent civilians and whatnot, but what is your point? Name me an ideology or regime that doesn’t have a bloodstained history of senseless violence and repression. These sorts of discussions are inherently useless because they inevitably devolve into people pulling cheap gotchas over death counts.

The ones that haven't been tried!

I guess Nazbols haven’t started any genocidal regimes, strangely enough.

[Proctopeo]

Sorry to say, your actual argument is just as stupid, it's just less funny.


The ones that haven't been tried!

I guess Nazbols haven’t started any genocidal regimes, strangely enough.

Or Egoist Anarchists.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I guess Nazbols haven’t started any genocidal regimes, strangely enough.

Or Egoist Anarchists.

Mass murder is something every ideology does? That sounds like a spook!

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Sure, that's my only argument, if you cut out the actual argument I made:



If your argument is that 'we should prefer capitalism over communism because communism kills people', you should at least take into consideration that capitalism also kills people.

Sorry to say, your actual argument is just as stupid, it's just less funny.

Surely, but there is no point in acting like any side, left, right, or otherwise, doesn’t have blood on its hands. Yes, communist regimes killed people and dictators like Pol Pot killed innocent civilians and whatnot, but what is your point? Name me an ideology or regime that doesn’t have a bloodstained history of senseless violence and repression. These sorts of discussions are inherently useless because they inevitably devolve into people pulling cheap gotchas over death counts.

The ones that haven't been tried!

I'll just assume you have some wicked argument and take you on your word, then.

[Byeclase]

Can't take seriously "ancaps" who cry about the leftists saying "never tried communism" laughing at them while they claim we live in crony capitalism or that Pinochet wasn't a true ancap and so on as if that was "liberalism never tried".

How other tendencies see MLs:
"Call KGB, arrest the pilot, make him confess their crimes... shut them down the fuck" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIkHbSCp_tY
Stalin's beatings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHhr08HBvFo

[Fahran]

Except for the fact that the DPRK's economic hardship only started in the late 1980s. The one legitimate point you can make in this regard, is the fact that they relied to heavily on the USSR for trade, resulting in a heavy drawback especially in the 1990s.

North Korea began experiencing issues in the 1960s and 1970s due in large part to the USSR and China's unwillingness and potential inability to adequately fund ambitious plans geared towards modernization. But, importantly, autarky (or self-reliance) was still one of the principal focuses of these efforts and a command economy remained in place with some allowances made beginning in the 1980s. North Korea's has never been a viable economic model without strong support from better organized economies. I have no idea why you're arguing that a staunch command economy or autarky are good things but the record for both ideas is less than stellar.

[Fahran]

the interesting thing, @ fahran, is that she's been a "leftist" for a really really short amount of time. like i do remember when she was loosely associated with right wing figures and she might have been a centrist or some uncommitted shit. so why should she be treated as an authority on leftist matters anyways? like let's be real, she probably has no knowledge of actual theory. this isn't meant to be condescending but she literally serves no purpose when it comes to being an educational figure. I've literally learned so much more from you and other posters on this dumb website - and you guys do it for free!

At first, I thought you were insinuating that I was a leftist.

I haven't dug too deeply. She rattled off a list of left-wing policies she supports in the video Ostro shared and they seem pretty cookie-cutter as far as American progressives go. She mentioned having an adversarial relationship with BLM, which is strange, but not really a deal-breaker for being comfortably left-wing. If I'm going to be honest, I don't think any BreadTubers or keyboard warriors are reliable authorities on left-wing matters. I watched a video by Vaush recently and the man seemed pretty meh in terms of original thought or nuance. They're good for reinforcing existing biases and talking to kids who feel disenchanted with establishment politics, but they're not serious political thinkers by any means.

[Solomons Land]

Can't take seriously "ancaps" who cry about the leftists saying "never tried communism" laughing at them while they claim we live in crony capitalism or that Pinochet wasn't a true ancap and so on as if that was "liberalism never tried".

How other tendencies see MLs:
"Call KGB, arrest the pilot, make him confess their crimes... shut them down the fuck" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIkHbSCp_tY
Stalin's beatings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHhr08HBvFo

I will preface this by saying I do not believe nationalized communism or socialism are good ideas. With that being said, I cannot point to any communist system that has been successful, but I can point to very successful socialist systems. While the kibutzim are all capitalist dominate, for decades, there were socialist farming communities all across Israel. Proto forms of socialism existed in Russia, Mongolia, and probably countless other places I do not know. These places lived in harmony. I do not believe in nationalized socialism not because it is inherently wrong, but because, without a communal social structure backing it, it is terrible.

[New haven america]

Communists like Pol Pot deprived people of their lives for trivial reasons without real charges or trials. People don't accuse communism of being totalitarian because you take away property, as many systems have done that and aren't considered totalitarian. Your bad rap comes from many of the other things communism aligned regimes have done. U.S. style Republics doing bad things doesn't excuse communist atrocities, neither does Fascist atrocities.

And yet you only hear about the bad things communism has done while turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by capitalism, like the whole Colonial Era fuckery, insane wealth gaps, stock market crashes, helping prop up nobility and the rich, etc...

Fun fact, ~10-25% of the diamonds in the world are blood diamonds (Diamonds that were mined in war zones or failed states in order to fund warlords and usually done through modern slavery) with diamonds themselves being worth jack shit except for the fact that 1 diamond company has been keeping them artificially scarce.

[Celritannia]

Communists like Pol Pot deprived people of their lives for trivial reasons without real charges or trials. People don't accuse communism of being totalitarian because you take away property, as many systems have done that and aren't considered totalitarian. Your bad rap comes from many of the other things communism aligned regimes have done. U.S. style Republics doing bad things doesn't excuse communist atrocities, neither does Fascist atrocities.

And yet you only hear about the bad things communism has done while turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by capitalism, like the whole Colonial Era fuckery, insane wealth gaps, stock market crashes, helping prop up nobility and the rich, etc...

Fun fact, ~10-25% of the diamonds in the world are blood diamonds (Diamonds that were mined in war zones or failed states in order to fund warlords and usually done through modern slavery) with diamonds themselves being worth jack shot except for the fact that 1 diamond company has been keeping them artificially scarce.

Not to mention, Parts of Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, and East Asia are still suffering from the Imperialist colonialism it left behind after WW2.

[Italios]

the interesting thing, @ fahran, is that she's been a "leftist" for a really really short amount of time. like i do remember when she was loosely associated with right wing figures and she might have been a centrist or some uncommitted shit. so why should she be treated as an authority on leftist matters anyways? like let's be real, she probably has no knowledge of actual theory. this isn't meant to be condescending but she literally serves no purpose when it comes to being an educational figure. I've literally learned so much more from you and other posters on this dumb website - and you guys do it for free!

At first, I thought you were insinuating that I was a leftist.

I haven't dug too deeply. She rattled off a list of left-wing policies she supports in the video Ostro shared and they seem pretty cookie-cutter as far as American progressives go. She mentioned having an adversarial relationship with BLM, which is strange, but not really a deal-breaker for being comfortably left-wing. If I'm going to be honest, I don't think any BreadTubers or keyboard warriors are reliable authorities on left-wing matters. I watched a video by Vaush recently and the man seemed pretty meh in terms of original thought or nuance. They're good for reinforcing existing biases and talking to kids who feel disenchanted with establishment politics, but they're not serious political thinkers by any means.

yeah, i don't rly know much about vaush other than the fact that he's a huge soyboy. we don't want him.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

We also produce enough food in the world for no-one to starve, but that food is withheld from people not because we can’t physically transport it, but because the starving can’t pay for it.

When a draught hits the Horn of Africa, it’s not the lack of food that kills people. It’s the lack of income combined with a price surge following decreased supply. It’s entirely a market failure, nothing else.

[Fahran]

yeah, i don't rly know much about vaush other than the fact that he's a huge soyboy. we don't want him.

Any white man who wears a topknot or man-bun must be forbidden from participating in politics. I'm willing to negotiate if David Beckham gets into politics though.

[Fahran]

We also produce enough food in the world for no-one to starve, but that food is withheld from people not because we can’t physically transport it, but because the starving can’t pay for it.

When a draught hits the Horn of Africa, it’s not the lack of food that kills people. It’s the lack of income combined with a price surge following decreased supply. It’s entirely a market failure, nothing else.

This can be explained by a number of factors acting in concert as well. First, a lot of developing countries have insufficient food infrastructure. Honestly, a lot of urban and rural areas in developed countries have insufficient food infrastructure. Second, violence interrupts the regular flow of goods, including food, to combat zones and damages food-related infrastructure like fields, roads, butcher shops, grocery stores, markets, etc. Third, food remains a for-profit business - and, if farmers and ranchers are to survive on already low margins, it has to remain so. One option that is viable is changing the way in which the government regulates agriculture and how we deal with excesses of crops and livestock. Another is starting more NGOs and funding existing NGOs that buy and transport food to famine-stricken regions. If there's one place I want to keep the most revolutionary ideas away from, it's agriculture. Because that's how you get even more famines.

[Cekoviu]

yeah, i don't rly know much about vaush other than the fact that he's a huge soyboy. we don't want him.

Any white man who wears a topknot or man-bun must be forbidden from participating in politics. I'm willing to negotiate if David Beckham gets into politics though.

I'll go one step further and say that any man who isn't Asian who wears a man-bun should be forcibly re-educated by the state

[Fahran]

I'll go one step further and say that any man who isn't Asian who wears a man-bun should be forcibly re-educated by the state

I'm not moving on the exemptions for David Beckham.

[Cekoviu]

I'll go one step further and say that any man who isn't Asian who wears a man-bun should be forcibly re-educated by the state

I'm not moving on the exemptions for David Beckham.

Does he even ever wear a man-bun?

[Fahran]

Does he even ever wear a man-bun?

It used to be his thing actually.

[Cekoviu]

Does he even ever wear a man-bun?

It used to be his thing actually.

Ah. Well, there are no exceptions. Not even the hottest face can fix the terrors inflicted by man-buns.