Looks to me like a rather juvenile collection of Aunt Sallies.
Who's it by? Russell Brand or some other facetious onanist?
Never heard of Aunt Sally or Russell Brand. Did you actually watch it, or are you just playing around?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Video: Debunking Every Anti-Communist Argument Ever
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
Never heard of Aunt Sally or Russell Brand. Did you actually watch it, or are you just playing around?
For what it's worth, the narrator's position is the same as yours on this. He wrote "Socialism is when the government does stuff" as one of the misconceptions of socialism, not that he was making the argument himself. All of the section titles are various anti-communist arguments which addresses in the video. As I said, it's rather brisk and fast-paced, so even those with short attention-spans might be able to get through it.
In Europe we have a lounge-loving, elitarian and carefree Left-Wing.
Who sides with banking and financial élites and could not care less about European suburbs. About commoners.
They only care about sipping cocktails in luxurious lounges talking about Venice or Cannes movies
And they call themselves leftists. I too could name a dog a cat. That does not make him a cat.
I have known real leftists. They side with Marco Rizzo, leader of the Italian Communist Party.
They do side with the commoners.
Who sides with banking and financial élites and could not care less about European suburbs. About commoners.
They only care about sipping cocktails in luxurious lounges talking about Venice or Cannes movies
And they call themselves leftists. I too could name a dog a cat. That does not make him a cat.
I have known real leftists. They side with Marco Rizzo, leader of the Italian Communist Party.
They do side with the commoners.
Fascism appeals to national pride among the masses, but in practice, it was supported by the upper class capitalists because it promised to keep the restless masses in line (which it largely did in practice). I've said before that capitalism and nationalism are in the same ideological ballpark, because both rely on natural law and social Darwinism as justifications for their beliefs. Capitalists routinely argue that the lower classes deserve their fate because they are weak and stupid and make bad choices, while nationalists would argue that other nations/races deserve to be oppressed and exploited because they are/were weak. "The weak and cowardly perish, and perish justly" is how a nationalist might see it - exactly the same as a capitalist viewpoint.
Btw...the video is interesting but not entirely accurate as for Italian fascism.
Capitalists did fund fascism at first.
But in the thirties there was a socialist and anti-capitalist U-turn.
The president of Bankitalia was blackmailed and forced to obey the Duce's guidelines.
When he refused, fascists threw him out of the window: that is how Stringher's defenestration marks the nationalization of the Bank of Italy, and the birth of IRI, with the Bankitalia law (1936). The socialist State. The State firm.
Historians have tried to cover up Stringher's defenestration, because that was the evidence that the Duce was against the banking elites.
And post-WW2 narrative was that Mussolini was a far right wing dictator.
Banca d'Italia | Wikiwand
Capitalists did fund fascism at first.
But in the thirties there was a socialist and anti-capitalist U-turn.
The president of Bankitalia was blackmailed and forced to obey the Duce's guidelines.
When he refused, fascists threw him out of the window: that is how Stringher's defenestration marks the nationalization of the Bank of Italy, and the birth of IRI, with the Bankitalia law (1936). The socialist State. The State firm.
Historians have tried to cover up Stringher's defenestration, because that was the evidence that the Duce was against the banking elites.
And post-WW2 narrative was that Mussolini was a far right wing dictator.
Banca d'Italia | Wikiwand
Last edited:
Having been born and raised in a capitalist system and fed the standard Western propaganda on the subject, I eventually found it to be somewhat juvenile and heavy-handed. Oftentimes, it was spread on so thick as to be absolutely unbelievable. That's why there was such a sharp reaction against anti-communism, particularly as it was applied to America's policies during the Vietnam War.
Sure, I can see that, although he did post numerous links on the video page.
In the U.S., liberals and Democrats are sometimes castigated as "left-wing" or even "socialists" by the right-wing and the GOP, but they're really not. I put them more in the "limousine liberal" category.
They pay lip service to "SJW" issues, but ultimately, they worship the same economic system as the right-wing. Then they stand around shocked and mystified, scratching their heads and wondering "Why did all these people vote for Trump?" As if they didn't know.
In Italy they are called radical chic
Meaning they call themselves radical, actually they are so sophisticated that they look down on the real people who make economy function (truck drivers, bakers, farmers, factory workers).
Fascism can indeed occur under capitalism.
But it always occurs under socialism, eg, Cuba,
N Korea, USSR, China, Khmer Rouge.
Capitalism's big advantage (for those who prefer
a more democratic & libertarian government) is
that fascism so often doesn't occur.
It's largely the same here. Upper-class liberal coastals have been crapping all over blue-collar Middle America for the past three to four decades, and now they're wondering why there's so much anger and hatred out there.
Oh, not this again.
I've answered this point so many times, and you've ignored my responses each time or dismissed them with a handwave.
Don't you have any new material? You sound like a broken record.
Well, if we're talking about very recent history and only referring to first-world nations which already built up huge amounts of wealth from slavery, sweatshops, colonialism, imperialism, and the current neo-imperialism masquerading as the "global economy," then maybe there's a kernel of truth in this statement. But it only shows a miniscule part of the story. Your specious analysis is woefully incomplete and selective.
When you associate fascism with capitalism, &Oh, not this again.
ignore it's closer relationship with socialism, it
falls upon me to enlighten.
You don't want this to become another socialist
echo chamber, do you, eh.
I've dismissed the specious arguments.
But you haven't tried the cogent kind yet.
I'm not the one who entirely ignores the records of
all socialist countries throughout history.
I'm not the one who cites capitalist countries as
positive examples of socialism. Every single one
has been oppressive & poor.
I even take the generous view that socialism is only
what its definition says, ie, the people own the means
of production.
I could (but don't) take the more extreme view proffered
by your spiritual guru....
But in fact, you never do actually "enlighten," because (as you've told me in the past) it's "too much work." Much easier to just make snide, unsupported statements which have no basis in fact.
How would you even know? You've admitted numerous times that you don't even bother to read much of what I write.
I thought posting this video was a change of pace. It seems to address many of the same issues in a different way than the discussions we've had in the past.
Well, actually you do, because you only focus on a few selective portions of their records, most of it based on unsupported anti-communist propaganda.
Not only that, but you entirely ignore the records of all capitalist countries throughout history. (Remember this? I saved the link just for you: The answer is a communist party | Page 7 | Religious Forums)
I don't really do that much myself, but it can be argued that those countries have stronger safety nets (including socialized medicine) which we don't really have here in Ameristan. Liberals and progressives have called for reforming our system much like in Scandinavia, but it's the capitalists who routinely dismiss that as "socialism." I'll admit that you're the only capitalist in the entire world who doesn't do that, so I'll give you credit for that.
Capitalists still believe that Biden is a socialist, so can capitalists really be trusted on this point? I think not.
This point is covered in the video, although in a nutshell, they were even more oppressive and poor before they became communist. Likewise, when previously communist countries became capitalist, they too became more oppressive and poor than what they had under communism. The video cites polls which show that the vast majority of people in former communist countries actually would like communism to come back.
I even take the generous view that socialism is only
what its definition says, ie, the people own the means
of production.
I could (but don't) take the more extreme view proffered
by your spiritual guru....
The state or condition where the people control the means of production is defined as "socialism," yes. However it can also be applied to those whose systems may not be completely socialist but where they are actively working towards the goal of socialism.
I've listed socialist countries.
All are/were oppressive & poor.
Those are the emergent properties of socialist states.
I've listed capitalist countries that had prosperity & liberty.
Thus capitalism has greater potential for these traits.
You've never countered that....only deflected (which is dismissed).
That addresses the rest of your post.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Oh, not this again.
I've answered this point so many times, and you've ignored my responses each time or dismissed them with a handwave.
Don't you have any new material? You sound like a broken record.
Well, if we're talking about very recent history and only referring to first-world nations which already built up huge amounts of wealth from slavery, sweatshops, colonialism, imperialism, and the current neo-imperialism masquerading as the "global economy," then maybe there's a kernel of truth in this statement. But it only shows a miniscule part of the story. Your specious analysis is woefully incomplete and selective.
And here we are again, three of the four quarters of the political compass, two of those accusing each other of being potentially the fourth. But as soon as the real enemy of the two raises it's ugly head (me), you two will form an alliance (even together with the fascists) to crush what you really see as dangerous. (At least that is what historically has always happened.)
What the author of the video has friendly omitted is that all communism ever tried was by the Lenin doctrine of "dictatorship of the proletariat", i.e. politically a form of authoritarianism - but not fascist authoritarianism. The one is as far from the other as I am from @Revoltingest. Extremes on the left and right edge of the spectrum. But, as far as the geometry of the political compass goes, I'm equally distant to communism, only on the other axis.
Yes, I'm going to fight this two-front-war, against authoritarianism (communism) and right-wing capitalism. You are both wrong, because you are half blind by doctrine, only on different eyes.
Communism is political oppression and capitalism is economic oppression.
Augustus
…
Even if they are overstated (which is debatable), they are still many tens of millions which isn't exactly a massive rebuttal.
Saying the holodomor, great leap forward/cultural revolution, year zero, etc. were really because "the devil made me do it" doesn't seem that persuasive to me either...
I watched his Stalin video too and he basically says the Soviets assisting in rearmament of the Nazis and the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact was also because "the Western devils made Stalin do it".
Can't say the chap seems a particularly impressive defender of Communism to me.
Let's look at economic systems around the world.
Capitalism in many countries looks far better
economically than any socialist / commie country.
Augustus
…
Why do you think the above were the cause of wealth when many other empires with all those features didn't see the same benefits?
For example, why was empire the cause of economic success rather than (at least partially) the result of it?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia
And in fact, I have countered your points about capitalist countries and your claims of "prosperity and liberty." (But again, you probably wouldn't know this because you don't even bother to read it.)
Only a small handful of capitalist countries (out of hundreds, both past and present) can boast any degree of "prosperity," and it's really only the wealthiest classes within that society who are privileged enough to enjoy this alleged "prosperity." You routinely ignore the fact that the reason these few capitalist countries you mention are prosperous at all is due to slavery, colonialism, genocide, imperialism, and neo-imperialism masquerading as "globalism."
As for "liberty," need I remind you about the War on Drugs or the numerous instances of police brutality, murder, wrongful imprisonment which have occurred?
And as I said, this thing called "liberty" is only a very recent development, which started with liberal political reforms started by FDR and continued by his successors. Prior to FDR, no one can honestly say that what we had in capitalist America was anything at all like "liberty" as we understand it nowadays.