Video: Debunking Every Anti-Communist Argument Ever

[Revoltingest]

Only a small handful of capitalist countries (out of hundreds, both past and present) can boast any degree of "prosperity,"

Prosperous capitalist countries....
USA, Canuckistan, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong,
England, France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
Denmark, Spain....the list goes on.
No socialist country has ever been as prosperous or had
even remotely as much liberty, eg, N Korea, USSR, Cuba,
Khmer Rouge, China.

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."

Socialist countries have also employed slavery, genocide, etc.
But this fact is irrelevant to the argument that capitalism offers
countries with prosperity & liberty, but socialism doesn't.

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?

You cited problems in capitalist countries as evidence
that socialism is better. But you still don't compare these
with problems in socialist countries, eg, the "Road Of Bones"
in USSR, the "Killing Fields" of the Khmer Rouge, etc, etc.

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.

You're joking....right?
Some history of the origins of the concept...
Libertarianism - Wikipedia

 

[Stevicus]

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...

That's not really what he said.

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.

Well, there is some truth to that. After Munich, Stalin seemingly saw the West as too weak and ineffectual to stand up to Hitler. Perhaps he believed that by making a temporary alliance of convenience with Hitler, Germany's attentions would be focused on the West, which would weaken all of his enemies. What he probably didn't expect was for France to fold up so quickly.

The bottom line is that the Western capitalists have been fanatically against socialism in every single instance and actively tried to attack it and sabotage it in any and every way possible. They were clearly under siege and developed a siege mentality, which is tragic, but what other real choice did they have? Were they supposed to just fold up and surrender to the West? That's what they did in 1991, and look where we are now.

 

[Stevicus]

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.)

Actually, it's the capitalists who typically align themselves with fascists, such as the Shah, Pinochet, Saudi Arabia, Somoza, Marcos, Batista, any number of military regimes in Africa and Latin America, and even the Axis powers to some degree prior to the US entry into the war. US corporations still did business with the Nazis through neutral countries, which seems practically treasonous when you think about it.

Sure, there was that one time when Stalin and Hitler signed a non-aggression pact in 1939, but that backfired terribly on the Soviets, and I'm sure Stalin must have regretted it terribly. We all make mistakes.

But other than that, capitalists and fascists (along with racists and nationalists) have been drinking buddies for centuries. Socialists and Communists are really their only enemy.

I'll give liberals some credit for attempting to soften capitalism a bit, removing some of the more malicious and odious fascist elements (such as slavery, genocide, and colonialism, to name a few things). Liberals are generally nice, decent people with good hearts, but there's only certain distance they will go.

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.

Lenin's New Economic Policy contained elements of capitalism and social freedom. After Lenin died, there was a struggle for power, and counter-revolutionary activity ticked up again, no doubt with much help from outside. Just like the US passed the Patriotic Act and has engaged in the War on Drugs (quite authoritarian programs), they felt it was justified to defend the country and its people.

I can't defend or account for every single thing that happened. In the end, I wasn't there and had nothing to do with it. No doubt there was a great deal of post-revolutionary vindictiveness, a settling of old scores. I don't deny that, but my only contention would be that it wasn't caused by the "system."

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.

Two-front war? Wasn't that the fatal error of Kaiser Wilhelm?

 

[Revoltingest]

The bottom line is that the Western capitalists have been fanatically against socialism in every single instance and actively tried to attack it and sabotage it in any and every way possible.

If so, then is it also significant that socialists have been
fanatically against capitalism "in every single instance
and actively tried to attack it and sabotage it in any and
every way possible"?

BTW, I like how your socialists were so quick to align
with Hitler, & plot how to divvy up the spoils of Europe.
It seems they were dumb, & Adolph tricked'm.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

Which empires didn't see the same benefits? It seems pretty clear when looking over the historical progression from the time of Columbus' voyage and the period of Exploration and Colonization, which increased exponentially for mostly economic reasons. The vast lands and the resources they provided most certainly increased the wealth of the nations which benefited and exploited those resources.

I can't see how anyone could deny it.

 

[Heyo]

Actually, it's the capitalists who typically align themselves with fascists, such as the Shah, Pinochet, Saudi Arabia, Somoza, Marcos, Batista, any number of military regimes in Africa and Latin America, and even the Axis powers to some degree prior to the US entry into the war. US corporations still did business with the Nazis through neutral countries, which seems practically treasonous when you think about it.

Yep. That is where you are right and @Revoltingest is wrong. Fascism = capitalism + authoritarianism.

I can't defend or account for every single thing that happened. In the end, I wasn't there and had nothing to do with it. No doubt there was a great deal of post-revolutionary vindictiveness, a settling of old scores. I don't deny that, but my only contention would be that it wasn't caused by the "system."

When a system is based on authoritarianism, it is "the system" when it is oppressive.

Two-front war? Wasn't that the fatal error of Kaiser Wilhelm?

Not only of him. It is an reoccurring fatal error of many anarchists. Though it isn't a two-front-war from the beginning. It starts as an alliance of communists and anarchists against the fascists and at a crucial points the communists backstab their anarchists "friends", sometimes allying themselves with capitalists and fascists to do so.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep. That is where you are right and @Revoltingest is wrong. Fascism = capitalism + authoritarianism.

It's not enuf to make the simple bold claim to
support your fellow socialist. It requires support.

And you've a problem with counter-examples.
Canuckistan =/= Fascist =/= Denmark
Every socialist country = Fascist

What country do you post from?

 

[Stevicus]

Prosperous capitalist countries....
USA, Canuckistan, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong,
England, France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
Denmark, Spain....the list goes on.

The list seems to stop there. 12 countries. Wow. I'm not sure you could even count Hong Kong, as the grip of the PRC seems to be tightening around them. Prior to that, they were a colony of the British Empire, so I would include them in England's prosperity, if we want to get technical.

No socialist country has ever been as prosperous or had
even remotely as much liberty, eg, N Korea, USSR, Cuba,
Khmer Rouge, China.

Socialist countries have also employed slavery, genocide, etc.

Source?

But this fact is irrelevant to the argument that capitalism offers
countries with prosperity & liberty, but socialism doesn't.

Socialism offers equality and fairness.

You cited problems in capitalist countries as evidence
that socialism is better. But you still don't compare these
with problems in socialist countries, eg, the "Road Of Bones"
in USSR, the "Killing Fields" of the Khmer Rouge, etc, etc.

Well, as they say, "we are all sinners." In the US, we have our "Trail of Tears" and other such atrocities which can be attributed to capitalism.

As I mentioned to @Heyo, I can't account or answer for every single thing that happened under perceived communist regimes. The communists have already answered for it to some degree, in the sense that Khrushchev severely denounced the crimes of Stalin and condemned what he did, and the Soviet-backed Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and showed the Khmer Rouge what for.

You're joking....right?
Some history of the origins of the concept...
Libertarianism - Wikipedia

What does this have to do with what I said?

Can a capitalist society which imposes separate restroom facilities based on the color of one's skin be truly characterized as "liberty"? (And that's only scratching the surface. If you want me to elaborate further, I can most certainly do that.) It wasn't really until the 50s and 60s that US society started to address many of the "anti-liberty" policies we had in the past, manifested in such landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education, Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade - and many others I can't think of offhand.

 

[Heyo]

It's not enuf to make the simple bold claim to
support your fellow socialist. It requires support.

And you've a problem with counter-examples.
Canuckistan =/= Fascist =/= Denmark
Every socialist country = Fascist

What country do you post from?

You know.

Look up fascism in a political dictionary. It is defined as right-wing and authoritarian.
Communism is defined as left-wing and authoritarian. They are both authoritarian so that may be what confuses you.

 

[Revoltingest]

The list seems to stop there. 12 countries.

I didn't know you required more.

I'm not sure you could even count Hong Kong, as the grip of the PRC seems to be tightening around them.

The commies are indeed.
Nonetheless, while it had capitalism & independence
from the PRC, it was an example of superiority over
socialism.

Prior to that, they were a colony of the British Empire, so I would include them in England's prosperity, if we want to get technical.

Whatever the history, it's significant that capitalism
offers the potential for liberty & prosperity. Socialism
doesn't....not one positive example in history.

Source?

I'm surprised that you need a source for examples I've cited,
eg, the "Road Of Bones", "The Great Leap Forward".
Here's one...
Forced labor in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

Socialism offers equality and fairness.

This is your dream for socialism.
But it's not the reality of implementation.

Well, as they say, "we are all sinners." In the US, we have our "Trail of Tears" and other such atrocities which can be attributed to capitalism.

You can't support your claim that socialism is better
simply by finding examples of bad things that happen
under capitalism. All you really achieve is showing
that wrongs can happen under it. That's never been
a point of contention.

What does this have to do with what I said?

The concept of liberty is far far older than FDR.

Can a capitalist society which imposes separate restroom facilities based on the color of one's skin be truly characterized as "liberty"? (And that's only scratching the surface. If you want me to elaborate further, I can most certainly do that.) It wasn't really until the 50s and 60s that US society started to address many of the "anti-liberty" policies we had in the past, manifested in such landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education, Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade - and many others I can't think of offhand.

Again, you're only citing things you dislike that have
occurred under capitalism. You don't offer any kind
of comprehensive comparison. I have.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know.

Look up fascism in a political dictionary. It is defined as right-wing and authoritarian.

Definition of right wing | Dictionary.com
1) members of a conservative or reactionary political party, or those opposing extensive political reform.

That definition applies to socialist & communist
parties we see in socialist countries.

Communism is defined as left-wing and authoritarian.

From which dictionary?
Certainly not...
Definition of communism | Dictionary.com
1) a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2) (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

They are both authoritarian so that may be what confuses you.

Perhaps confusion lies with the one who cites
no dictionary for his definitions. When you use
personal definitions that differ from lexicologists',
confusion will indeed reign.

 

[Heyo]

Definition of right wing | Dictionary.com
1) members of a conservative or reactionary political party, or those opposing extensive political reform.

That definition applies to socialist & communist
parties we see in socialist countries.

From which dictionary?
Certainly not...
Definition of communism | Dictionary.com
1) a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2) (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Perhaps confusion lies with the one who cites
no dictionary for his definitions. When you use
personal definitions that differ from lexicologists',
confusion will indeed reign.

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1]" - Fascism - Wikipedia

Since when is communism "far-right"?

 

[Nakosis]

From the OP....
"2:45 Socialism is when the government does stuff"
Just perusing the list of topics, I see this problem.
If everything government does is socialist, then
I'm a socialist too. What's wrong then? This isn't
the definition of socialism, ie, the "people" owning
the means of production.
So no time will be wasted on watching the video.

But I have a treat for all the anti-capitalists...
China building Communist Party training school in Metaverse...

Well in this case he disagrees with the attempt to define socialism as capitalism with social program, so I have some hope for the video. He is a socialism purest.

However he tends to bring out strawman capitalists to argue against.

 

[Nakosis]

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1]" - Fascism - Wikipedia

Since when is communism "far-right"?

Then Communism would be a form of far-left, authoritarian ultraglobalism.
Political spectrum - Wikipedia

The authoritarianism is the same, the difference is in political ideologies.
Such analysis produces a factor whether or not it corresponds to a real-world phenomenon and so caution must be exercised in its interpretation. While Eysenck's R-factor is easily identified as the classical "left–right" dimension, the T-factor (representing a factor drawn at right angles to the R-factor) is less intuitive, as high-scorers favored pacifism, racial equality, religious education and restrictions on abortion, while low-scorers had attitudes more friendly to militarism, harsh punishment, easier divorce laws and companionate marriage.

 

[Stevicus]

I didn't know you required more.

It's not really a question of numbers of countries, but overall populations of the aggregate global total of everyone who has lived under the rule of capitalist countries. Since capitalist globalism is a worldwide phenomenon and countries' economies link and intertwine with each other, it's not enough to simply list the "cream of the crop" and use that as an argument that "capitalism is better."

Not exactly a "complete" analysis, is it? In order to be complete, you'd have to include many other countries in the capitalist sphere, such as those in Latin America, South Asia, Africa.

The commies are indeed.
Nonetheless, while it had capitalism & independence
from the PRC, it was an example of superiority over
socialism.

When was it ever independent? It was held by the UK before it was handed over to the PRC.

Whatever the history, it's significant that capitalism
offers the potential for liberty & prosperity. Socialism
doesn't....not one positive example in history.

Not any example that you'd be objective enough to acknowledge.

I'm surprised that you need a source for examples I've cited,
eg, the "Road Of Bones", "The Great Leap Forward".
Here's one...
Forced labor in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

That's not slavery. Even our own 13th Amendment makes an exception for involuntary servitude as punishment for crime. I recall that even you agreed that convict labor doesn't count as "slavery," so you fail on this point.

What about your claim of genocide? Which race did the communists vow to eliminate?

This is your dream for socialism.
But it's not the reality of implementation.

It was the goal and it was implemented, more or less.

You can't support your claim that socialism is better
simply by finding examples of bad things that happen
under capitalism.

Perhaps not, although it does refute your claim that "capitalism is better." You haven't been able to support that by listing random bad things that happened under socialism.

All you really achieve is showing
that wrongs can happen under it. That's never been
a point of contention.

The concept of liberty is far far older than FDR.

Again, you're only citing things you dislike that have
occurred under capitalism. You don't offer any kind
of comprehensive comparison. I have.

I cited things that I like that occurred under capitalism, such as the liberal reforms made by FDR and his successors.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1]" - Fascism - Wikipedia

Since when is communism "far-right"?

It's authoritarian.
You lefties often recognize only one definition of "right",
ie, free markets, capitalism. But another is to be
authoritarian. And socialist countries sure do tend
towards authoritarianism / fascism / oppression, eg,
N Korea, Cuba, PRC, USSR.
Ref...
Definition of right wing | Dictionary.com
1) members of a conservative or reactionary political party, or those opposing extensive political reform.

It seems you're reasoning too much from definitions
personal & culled ad hoc. If we deal with the concepts
then it could be clearer. The words "authoritarian" &
"oppression" aren't associated with any particular
economic system.

 

[Estro Felino]

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1]" - Fascism - Wikipedia

Since when is communism "far-right"?

All right.
Name me just one right wing economic policy that Mussolini implemented in the 20 years of his government.
Just one.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's authoritarian.
You lefties often recognize only one definition of "right",
ie, free markets, capitalism. But another is to be
authoritarian. And socialist countries sure do tend
towards authoritarianism / fascism / oppression, eg,
N Korea, Cuba, PRC, USSR.
Ref...
Definition of right wing | Dictionary.com
1) members of a conservative or reactionary political party, or those opposing extensive political reform.

In the political economics books that law students use it is written that right wing policies are usually within the supply-side economics.
That is the policies that intend to make the supply rise, often by favoring financial groups. By lowering taxes, mainly.
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

Well in this case he disagrees with the attempt to define socialism as capitalism with social program....

Aye, that's just capitalism with social welfare programs.
Socialism has "the people" (which is always government)
owning the means of production, ie, no capitalism.

I favor capitalism with social welfare programs.
Call it "social capitalism".

...so I have some hope for the video. He is a socialism purest.

However he tends to bring out strawman capitalists to argue against.

Socialists do love their strawmen...it's the only way
to win arguments that socialism is successful.
Of course, I cringe when I hear most conservatives
similarly mis-characterize socialism as any gubmint
program they dislike. Ugh. Muddies the conversation.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not really a question of numbers of countries, but overall populations of the aggregate global total of everyone who has lived under the rule of capitalist countries. Since capitalist globalism is a worldwide phenomenon and countries' economies link and intertwine with each other, it's not enough to simply list the "cream of the crop" and use that as an argument that "capitalism is better."

You're still missing my claim....
Capitalism offers the potential for liberty & prosperity.
It has a record of many successes.
It does not deterministic, ie, there are no guarantees.
There have been horrors under capitalism.
Socialism differs in failure every time a country tries it.
It is nothing but horrors.

So I won't counter your argument against something else.