LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Duvniask]

Also, it's insane how utterly incompetent the Soviets were during World War II, to the point they needed the paragon of Capitalism (the United States) to save their asses. In a straight up fight, they would've been demolished by the Third Reich.

I don't even know where to begin with this post.
I mean, you're the same guy who has argued that the United States was a command economy during World War II and there were very few differences between its economy and the Soviet economy. While that doesn't inherently make you wrong, it does show that you probably don't even know what you're talking about, and explaining the reality of the situation is going to be a complete waste of time.

Don't take the bait.

[Valrifell]

Also, it's insane how utterly incompetent the Soviets were during World War II, to the point they needed the paragon of Capitalism (the United States) to save their asses. In a straight up fight, they would've been demolished by the Third Reich.

"The Left is stupid" immediately followed up by "The Soviets sucked in WW2"?

Come on, you're not even trying to be subtle anymore.

[Philjia]

Who would win:

A bunch of Leftists?

(Image)

Again, this is the part where we laugh at the milquetoast comedian who'd never actually do anything daring or provocative because it might hurt his paycheck, and all the people who think he has edge because they're too young to have actually seen Brass Eye or The League of Gentlemen or are American.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I don't even know where to begin with this post.
I mean, you're the same guy who has argued that the United States was a command economy during World War II and there were very few differences between its economy and the Soviet economy. While that doesn't inherently make you wrong, it does show that you probably don't even know what you're talking about, and explaining the reality of the situation is going to be a complete waste of time.

Don't take the bait.

Already did, but if the reply is inane, I'll just ignore it.

[Major-Tom]

Who would win:

A bunch of Leftists?

(Image)

Gervais endorsed Labour in 2017, he’s a known humanist etc etc. Hes a spicy leftie BOI.

[Page]

Who would win:

A bunch of Leftists?

(Image)

Gervais endorsed Labour in 2017, he’s a known humanist etc etc. Hes a spicy leftie BOI.

I don't understand why people think opposition to cancel culture and other toxic things like it is but a small minority on the left. Many, many leftists are calling this shit out. Natalie Wynn (Contrapoints) just made a video about her experience with this insanity (In which people wanted to "cancel" her because she had Buck Angel do an 8-second voiceover on her show on the subject of opulence, because Buck Angel prefers the term transsexual over transgender which apparently makes him a transmedicalist who hates non-binary people and makes Natalie guilty by association as well as everyone on Breadtube who defended her).

I would say a strong majority of the left is against this behavior.

[Cekoviu]

Who would win:

A bunch of Leftists?

(Image)

Gervais endorsed Labour in 2017, he’s a known humanist etc etc. Hes a spicy leftie BOI.

He's also a fake-edgy concern troll and that should be grounds for extirpation from the leftist club.

[Totenborg]

Gervais endorsed Labour in 2017, he’s a known humanist etc etc. Hes a spicy leftie BOI.

I don't understand why people think opposition to cancel culture and other toxic things like it is but a small minority on the left. Many, many leftists are calling this shit out. Natalie Wynn (Contrapoints) just made a video about her experience with this insanity (In which people wanted to "cancel" her because she had Buck Angel do an 8-second voiceover on her show on the subject of opulence, because Buck Angel prefers the term transsexual over transgender which apparently makes him a transmedicalist who hates non-binary people and makes Natalie guilty by association as well as everyone on Breadtube who defended her).

I would say a strong majority of the left is against this behavior.

Thanks for bringing Contrapoints up. She's awesome.

[Duvniask]

Don't take the bait.

Already did, but if the reply is inane, I'll just ignore it.

I guess I was telling you for future reference.

[Ostroeuropa]

Gervais endorsed Labour in 2017, he’s a known humanist etc etc. Hes a spicy leftie BOI.

I don't understand why people think opposition to cancel culture and other toxic things like it is but a small minority on the left. Many, many leftists are calling this shit out. Natalie Wynn (Contrapoints) just made a video about her experience with this insanity (In which people wanted to "cancel" her because she had Buck Angel do an 8-second voiceover on her show on the subject of opulence, because Buck Angel prefers the term transsexual over transgender which apparently makes him a transmedicalist who hates non-binary people and makes Natalie guilty by association as well as everyone on Breadtube who defended her).

I would say a strong majority of the left is against this behavior.

Probably because opposition to gamergate and other stuff like it is evidence that it isn't a majority opposed to that stuff in practice because those oppositions and evaluations rely on cancel culture logic?

It's more of a "I don't support privatizing the NHS because all these criticisms of how that's a shit idea are obvious and legit. But I agree that selling the NHS to this specific person is acceptable and anyone who disagrees is a bitter communist who hates consumer choice, and this person will make healthcare affordable and more efficient while relieving the tax payer".

That's an incoherent position adopted largely to defend the leftist from the psychological consequences of self-reflection and accepting that in fact they do and have supported cancel culture for years and their critics are right about them and the harm they have done, much like; "Ofcourse i'm not a racist, I just don't believe in systemic police violence and anyway maybe you shouldn't do crime if you don't want to get shot and blah blah". It's segregating the criticism from their positions by attaching that criticism to a label rather than actually applying it to the positions they hold.

"Ofcourse I don't support privatizing the NHS because people couldn't afford it. But I support selling it to this person because they'll make it more affordable."
->
"Privatizing the NHS will make it unaffordable, not more affordable."
->
"I agree, you're misrepresenting me. I don't support privatizing the NHS, i'm simply saying selling it to this person would make it more affordable.".

When someone says "Are you a racist?" people don't think of themselves that way without being off the deep end. So it goes for cancel culture.

So let's try this page;
Why did such a massive amount of the left flip out over gamergate if it wasn't cancel culture logic?

That question is unanswerable by your perspective in my opinion. By mine it's easily explained; cognitive dissonance.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Already did, but if the reply is inane, I'll just ignore it.

I guess I was telling you for future reference.

I've been on NSG long enough to know that discussions with some people, such as OEP, are an even bigger waste of time than NSG itself is. Even when I was originally posting, I didn't think that I would get a serious intellectual discussion from OEP, I just didn't have anything better to do.

[Uiiop]

Gervais endorsed Labour in 2017, he’s a known humanist etc etc. Hes a spicy leftie BOI.

I don't understand why people think opposition to cancel culture and other toxic things like it is but a small minority on the left. Many, many leftists are calling this shit out. Natalie Wynn (Contrapoints) just made a video about her experience with this insanity (In which people wanted to "cancel" her because she had Buck Angel do an 8-second voiceover on her show on the subject of opulence, because Buck Angel prefers the term transsexual over transgender which apparently makes him a transmedicalist who hates non-binary people and makes Natalie guilty by association as well as everyone on Breadtube who defended her).

I would say a strong majority of the left is against this behavior.

Contra herself says the situation is more complicated than that but go off i'd guess.

This isn't to say that there wasn't some shit on the criticizing end that needed to be called out.

[Totally Not OEP]

Also, it's insane how utterly incompetent the Soviets were during World War II, to the point they needed the paragon of Capitalism (the United States) to save their asses. In a straight up fight, they would've been demolished by the Third Reich.

I don't even know where to begin with this post.
I mean, you're the same guy who has argued that the United States was a command economy during World War II and there were very few differences between its economy and the Soviet economy. While that doesn't inherently make you wrong, it does show that you probably don't even know what you're talking about, and explaining the reality of the situation is going to be a complete waste of time.
EDIT: To be clear, the Soviets were incompetent - sending your best officers to break rocks in Siberia because they might be a threat to your regime when just about every nation on Earth wants you, your country, and your ideology dead is an utterly stupid idea for reasons that should be obvious to everybody - but American industrial assistance wasn't necessary for their victory. It probably saved the lives of a few million Russians, and it definitely accelerated the Nazis' defeat, but the real deciding factor was Stalin removing the stick from his ass and bringing his officers back to the front lines. Once that happened, the Nazis were going to lose, and if he didn't bring his officers back, no amount of foreign aid would keep the Soviets from falling.

"The U.S. did command economy better" is somehow a defense of the USSR? C'mon now, you can do better than that.

And no, it was Lend Lease as well as American ground operations that decided the course of WWII. Hunger and War: Food Provisioning in the Soviet Union During World War II -

[Major-Tom]

Gervais endorsed Labour in 2017, he’s a known humanist etc etc. Hes a spicy leftie BOI.

He's also a fake-edgy concern troll and that should be grounds for extirpation from the leftist club.

I'm more so making an argument against this weird idea that he somehow "DESTROYED LEFTISTS" or whatever the fuck idk. As for Gervais himself, I don't have much of an actual opinion. The British Office was only okay.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I don't even know where to begin with this post.
I mean, you're the same guy who has argued that the United States was a command economy during World War II and there were very few differences between its economy and the Soviet economy. While that doesn't inherently make you wrong, it does show that you probably don't even know what you're talking about, and explaining the reality of the situation is going to be a complete waste of time.
EDIT: To be clear, the Soviets were incompetent - sending your best officers to break rocks in Siberia because they might be a threat to your regime when just about every nation on Earth wants you, your country, and your ideology dead is an utterly stupid idea for reasons that should be obvious to everybody - but American industrial assistance wasn't necessary for their victory. It probably saved the lives of a few million Russians, and it definitely accelerated the Nazis' defeat, but the real deciding factor was Stalin removing the stick from his ass and bringing his officers back to the front lines. Once that happened, the Nazis were going to lose, and if he didn't bring his officers back, no amount of foreign aid would keep the Soviets from falling.

"The U.S. did command economy better" is somehow a defense of the USSR? C'mon now, you can do better than that.

And no, it was Lend Lease as well as American ground operations that decided the course of WWII. Hunger and War: Food Provisioning in the Soviet Union During World War II -

Command economies are, by definition, not capitalist. The Venn diagram for those two is two circles on opposite ends of the planet.

As for the screencaps, I'm at school right now so the images aren't loading. That said, I really don't trust a source that's clearly trying to push the idea that the Soviets were incompetent and terrible at managing resources, which it is. Granted, they kinda were, but there is an immense difference between "the Soviet Union had skewed priorities with military production and their tremendous focus on quantity over quality prevented them from effectively utilizing otherwise excellent equipment, like the T-34" and "the Soviet Union couldn't have survived if 'MURICA hadn't stepped in to save them with FREEDOM". (If that's not what the book is saying, I might give it a read, but that's what you're saying and I assume that your source agrees with you.)

[Washington Resistance Army]

"the Soviet Union couldn't have survived if 'MURICA hadn't stepped in to save them with FREEDOM".

That's pretty much the case if you look at it objectively. American food shipments are why the Red Army didn't starve to death, American aviation fuel kept Soviet planes in the air, American raw materials kept things like tank engines in production etc etc. If you cut out British and American Lend-Lease entirely it's nigh impossible to come up with a scenario that doesn't involve the USSR simply losing any effective capability to fight the Axis.

[Cisairse]

"the Soviet Union couldn't have survived if 'MURICA hadn't stepped in to save them with FREEDOM".

That's pretty much the case if you look at it objectively. American food shipments are why the Red Army didn't starve to death, American aviation fuel kept Soviet planes in the air, American raw materials kept things like tank engines in production etc etc. If you cut out British and American Lend-Lease entirely it's nigh impossible to come up with a scenario that doesn't involve the USSR simply losing any effective capability to fight the Axis.

Would an Axis victory in Europe even have been feasible? The USSR wasn't the WWI Russian Empire, they weren't going to bow down to German aggressors just because they reached Stalingrad. Did Germany have the economy and manpower to actually occupy and pacify the Soviets assuming the latter didn't have the support of America?

It seems more reasonable to me that the war would have become drawn-out and approaching a stalemate before an inevitable insurrection or Allied counter-invasion in the West collapsed the German war effort.

[Torrocca]

Fellas, don't take up the obvious bait. You're just going to come out of it exhausted from all the gaslighting and intentionally bad interpretation of history.

[Chernoslavia]

Fellas, don't take up the obvious bait. You're just going to come out of it exhausted from all the gaslighting and intentionally bad interpretation of history.

Well thank you for warning us about your own bait Torrocca.

[Kubra]

Also, it's insane how utterly incompetent the Soviets were during World War II, to the point they needed the paragon of Capitalism (the United States) to save their asses. In a straight up fight, they would've been demolished by the Third Reich.

Well y'know purging is generally bad, and a good rule of thumb is "don't purge".

[Dumb Ideologies]

Fellas, don't take up the obvious bait. You're just going to come out of it exhausted from all the gaslighting and intentionally bad interpretation of history.

As someone who likes both of you as posters, after some explosive disagreements you've both started beginning conversations with the fundamental assumption of bad faith and that the other is trying to wind you up.

When you start immediately talking about gaslighting and bait you're gaslighting and baiting each other into an ever deeper spiral of the same in which each round is more evidence of the other's original bad intention.

I've been there, it sucks all the joy out of the site for both of you and neither side ever comes out in credit even if they "win", because anger and spite isn't a good look.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's pretty much the case if you look at it objectively. American food shipments are why the Red Army didn't starve to death, American aviation fuel kept Soviet planes in the air, American raw materials kept things like tank engines in production etc etc. If you cut out British and American Lend-Lease entirely it's nigh impossible to come up with a scenario that doesn't involve the USSR simply losing any effective capability to fight the Axis.

Would an Axis victory in Europe even have been feasible? The USSR wasn't the WWI Russian Empire, they weren't going to bow down to German aggressors just because they reached Stalingrad. Did Germany have the economy and manpower to actually occupy and pacify the Soviets assuming the latter didn't have the support of America?

It seems more reasonable to me that the war would have become drawn-out and approaching a stalemate before an inevitable insurrection or Allied counter-invasion in the West collapsed the German war effort.

This is a good point. There's the assumption in OEP's hypothetical that the surrender or destruction of the Soviet government means that the Soviet population is out of the war. American and Britain would have continued the war, whether a central government in Moscow or elsewhere were coordinating Soviet resistance or not, and even decentralized resistance would tie down massive numbers of Wehrmacht troops as seen in parts of Russia and naturally in Yugoslavia.

[Duvniask]

Would an Axis victory in Europe even have been feasible? The USSR wasn't the WWI Russian Empire, they weren't going to bow down to German aggressors just because they reached Stalingrad. Did Germany have the economy and manpower to actually occupy and pacify the Soviets assuming the latter didn't have the support of America?

It seems more reasonable to me that the war would have become drawn-out and approaching a stalemate before an inevitable insurrection or Allied counter-invasion in the West collapsed the German war effort.

This is a good point. There's the assumption in OEP's hypothetical that the surrender or destruction of the Soviet government means that the Soviet population is out of the war. American and Britain would have continued the war, whether a central government in Moscow or elsewhere were coordinating Soviet resistance or not, and even decentralized resistance would tie down massive numbers of Wehrmacht troops as seen in parts of Russia and naturally in Yugoslavia.

We're talking about a fascist who's salty the Soviets ended up winning and does everything to belittle it. I mean, he openly says he wants the Nazis to have won over them first, in order that the United States can step in to finish the fight. No concern for the millions of more lives that are going to be lost in the process.

[Nakena]

Also, it's insane how utterly incompetent the Soviets were during World War II, to the point they needed the paragon of Capitalism (the United States) to save their asses. In a straight up fight, they would've been demolished by the Third Reich.

Well y'know purging is generally bad, and a good rule of thumb is "don't purge".

But then you get Trozki coming for ya.

[Kubra]

Well y'know purging is generally bad, and a good rule of thumb is "don't purge".

But then you get Trozki coming for ya.

And ya know that was a bad thing. Trotsky was no genius, but he was one of only a handful of soviet officials who had anything to contribute on the question of military reforms in his sensible-but-boring way.