Jump to content

i know yall aint ready to admit it

Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

but marxism leninism as a political ideology has been the most effective thus far at eliminating poverty and liberating working and marginalized people.

the u.s. is a fascist superpower and needs to fall for the betterment of mankind, and a system run by the proletariat for the proletariat needs to be established in its place

Steam: Annie
Discord: Annie#6365

Share this post


Link to post

Fascist is a little harsh, they don't have a voting system based on conscription yet

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Annie said:

but marxism leninism as a political ideology has been the most effective thus far at eliminating poverty and liberating working and marginalized people.

In what way exactly do you measure these things?

6 hours ago, Annie said:

the u.s. is a fascist superpower and needs to fall for the betterment of mankind

[citation needed]

 

I'm full of shit

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/4/2020 at 3:41 AM, kerdios said:

Fascist is a little harsh, they don't have a voting system based on conscription yet

 

Interesting take and the author does get some things correct. Notably that there isn't really a concrete way to define what fascism is. Fascism as a political concept is a bit of a grift, it's easy to identify based on a number of characteristics, but a fascist doesn't necessarily need to display every characteristic in their belief to be a fascist, which gives them plausible deniability which they love to use to their advantage to make their political ideology more marketable/palatable. That said, the video itself doesn't really address the central question and focuses on whether or not the word "fascist" has any weight in discourse, which I think is a totally meaningless and irrelevant discussion.

And speaking of:

On 5/4/2020 at 3:42 AM, kerdios said:

 

I'm not at all a fan of David Pakman but I'll give him credit where it's due. He does do a decent job of painting Marxism in broad strokes without grossly overgeneralizing, and he does make a completely valid point in more or less saying Marxism is, in addition to an economic theory, a lens with which to view economic and societal issues (this is why I'm not shy about calling the U.S. or its leaders fascist, it's very easy to rationalize from a Marxist perspective). What he does get wrong is placing special emphasis upon anarchism in particular and social democracy in particular, social democracy not really being worth mentioning in the discussion of whether or not socialism is effective because it's not socialism, and anarchists proving to be wholly ineffective in establishing a permanent and functional socialist society and stopping fascism. This video frankly goes off the deep-end in describing Marxist-Leninist systems as "right-wing totalitarian perversions" of Marxism when they've thus far been the only effective systems in putting a stop to the fascists and despots of their time and establishing a system of proletariat liberty. You need not be a Marxist-Leninist to be a good leftist, but you shouldn't demonize those who actually value the effectiveness of good praxis. Left unity is important.

 

On 5/4/2020 at 4:28 AM, BTGBullseye said:

In what way exactly do you measure these things?

[citation needed]

Given that you have a history of quote mining and picking apart posts, and stomping off in a hissy fit after reporting posts you don't like, I don't entirely know why I'm giving you the time of day.


Regardless: The research is yours to conduct. Once you take the numbers given to you you'll find a number of inconsistencies. The black book of communism is a common citation for anti-socialist sentiments, and yet it's been thoroughly debunked and its method of acquiring such statistical figures has been brought in to question numerous times by now. Even if you wanted to take the deep-end estimates for how many have died by fault of socialist governments, they don't hold a candle to the most generous estimates of how many die due to negligent management of resources under capitalism alone. Food wastage, carbon emissions, this isn't to mention wars fought in profit of the military industrial complex and of course, rampant human trafficking rings that all take place underground and between wealthy elites which by this point has not only been proven but is simply common knowledge. Capitalism is immoral, disregards the life, health, and well-being of others, and creates more suffering the world over through death, poverty, and slavery than communism could've ever hoped to accomplish. This isn't even to address how sketchy the estimates are to begin with. The holodomor is simply assumed to be an intentionally conducted genocide but examining the details makes it much less black and white. The fact that many of these details were fabricated by Nazi collaborators should tip you off, and of course there have been many casualties of war carried out by the Nazis but attributed to Communism. This is just speaking of the USSR, I could go in to detail about the DPRK and PRC, but admittedly I'm not well-versed in the history of the PRC and I'm not all too familiar with the inner workings of the DPRK's government.

Steam: Annie
Discord: Annie#6365

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Annie said:

And speaking of:

You need not be a Marxist-Leninist to be a good leftist, but you shouldn't demonize those who actually value the effectiveness of good praxis. Left unity is important.

Marxist-Leninist aka bolshevism is demonized partly because one of it's core precepts is an armed rebellion against any form of government which isn't bolshevik and will inevitably lead to mass murders , which, I hope you'll agree with me, is very "demonic".
The other part is just right wing false propaganda, but I think the first part pretty much takes the lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I feel like a death toll comparison between capitalism and communism doesn’t make much sense considering how ubiquitous and common the former has been for the past centuries compared to the latter, but I also don’t think it should matter: you can’t justify the massive casualties that occur under one regime by pointing to the even more massive casualties that occur under another. It is my view that flagrant human rights violations aren’t justifiable even if they may result in a supposed net gain in social progress. It’s a mindset that reduces people to numbers, with little regard for the inherent value of individuals. Even though one major publication on the topic may have included dubious findings, the number of people who died because of economic mismanagement or political/genocidal purges by governments professing the ideology of Marxism-Leninism is still bound to be in the ten millions, and that’s not even talking about the intense repression and state surveillance that these governments subjected their people to on a daily basis. I don’t believe capitalism in its current form should be allowed to continue existing, but if the aforementioned atrocities are really the price that must be paid for its downfall, then surely it is too steep, especially since without any democratic control or accountability over the state there is absolutely no guarantee that any gains in social welfare won’t be easily turned back. Absolute power corrupts even the most naïve idealist: many leaders of Marxist-Leninist nations developed cults of personality and committed unabashed personal enrichment, and in China predatory capitalism and wealth hoarding has even been allowed to return because it personally benefits those in power. Income inequality has been on the rise there since the 1980s. Is living in the PRC, where human rights and rule of law have no meaning, where citizens are forcibly evicted on a regular basis with little to no compensation in order for land to be sold to private developers, and where one can be thrown into a concentration camp for being a Muslim, really preferable to living in a modern Western democracy?

 

Furthermore, I strongly contest the assertion that Marxism-Leninism is the only system effective in stopping fascism, not just in light of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the fact that Moscow-aligned forces in the Spanish Civil War were more concerned with weeding out Trotskyists and anarchists among the Republicans rather than fighting Franco, and the fact that the Stasi colluded with Western neo-Nazis during the Cold War in order to discredit West Germany, but also of the fact that Marxist-Leninist governments invariably instated police states that demanded unquestioning loyalty from its citizens, and in many cases either co-opted or instigated virulent ethno-nationalism that resulted many times in ostracization, campaigns of forced cultural assimilation and even genocidal massacres (Uyghurs in China; Muslims in Mongolia; Muslims, Chinese and Vietnamese in Cambodia; Roma in Romania; Turks in Bulgaria; Jews in Poland; too many ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union to count). Should Joseph Stalin (arguably the one most responsible for developing Marxism-Leninism as a distinct ideology), an initial ally of Hitler who fought horrible wars of conquest, massacred his own population at the first sign of dissent and committed cultural genocide and hate campaigns against numerous minorities (including Jews), really be held up as an inspiration to the cause of antifascism?

Edited by Mira (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.