Gorilladrums

@Gorilladrums@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  No, I’m calling the communist society that Marxist are trying to ultimately achieve a utopia, which it is. But considering how you ignored everything and went for another disingenuous attempt tells me everything I need to know about you. I won’t reply to you again.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  My point is you have no idea what communists are trying to achieve or have achieved.

  You don’t have any basis for this claim besides the fact you’re mad that I’m openly critical of Marx and this shitty ideology. If that was the case then you would’ve provided your case, but you haven’t and you probably won’t. Communism is very much a utopia no matter how much you twist it. It’s fits the definition to a T. Marx pretending his utopia isn’t a utopia and then going to attack other people for their utopias is like a closeted homosexual denying their sexuality and being homophobic to cope with their reality.

  Also he was an economist lol.

  He was both

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You’re full of shit. You’re just mad because I’m openly critical of this shitty ideology instead of blindly accepting it like you. Keep in mind, everything you said here applies directly to you. Instead of asking me what I disagreed with it, you arrogantly assumed that I was ignorant and can’t define the ideology solely because you can’t accept that there are people who understand the ideology and hate it.

  I could’ve told you to fuck off right then and there, but I actually gave you an honest summary of what the ideology is. Once again, instead of responding to what I said, you refused to accept that other people disagreed with your incredibly myopic worldview and you arrogantly assumed that I was ignorant and haven’t read any of his works. You even went out of your to insult me by calling me brainwashed, because apparently to you, that’s the only way people can ever disagree with his holiness, Karl Marx.

  Once again, I could told you to fuck off, but I decided to just tell you the works that I read. You could’ve just started a discussion based on them. Instead, you rejected what I’m telling yet again, and arrogantly assumed that I was lying because how can anybody possibly disagree with the holy scriptures of the prophet Karl Marx after reading them? That clearly impossible.

  All your comments follow the same pattern of: You reject the criticism that’s right in front of you -> you make a bunch of character attacks -> you pretend that I’m incapable of responding or articulating criticisms even though they’re, again, right in front of you. In fact, I’m the only one who has been articulating thoughts and criticism, you haven’t provided shit. You haven’t addressed anything that I said and you haven’t provided anything of substance of your own. All of you’ve done is cope with whats in front of you and attacked my character 3 times in a row without ever bothering to engage with me in good faith even once. Now you’re after doing this, you’re going to have the conceit to accuse me of attacking your character? You’re accusing me of being incapable of engaging in good faith? What a fucking hypocrite you are.

  I was waiting for you to start saying something worthy of a discussion at some point, but it’s clear at this point that you’re not going to do that because you’re the one who’s incapable, not me. I think now is the right time to tell you to fuck off.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Communism can mean many things, and many things that call themselves communism have very little to nothing to do with what Marx wrote about.

  I’m talking about the original communist ideology as derived by Marx himself. I’m not talking about people like Stalin or Xi Jinping here who could be argued as not communist even though they described themselves as much.

  As an aside, Marx was not just a grumpy philosopher, he was also an economist who laid the foundation for thinking of the economy in terms of power, ownership and democracy. The Marxian school of economics is still influential today.

  Influential doesn’t mean it’s correct or has any actual value. His analysis was flawed and his proposed solutions were even worse. His work can only make sense if you accept his assumptions as axioms. A lot of people did, but when they tried to carry out what he prescribed things didn’t go as planned because, well, his assumptions were flawed. Not every philosopher deserves respect just because it’s influential. Mussolini also invented a very influential ideology that’s unfortunately still popular today, but that doesn’t mean he and his ideology are above criticism or worthy or respect just because.

  Your ramblings about “communism has always failed” leads me to believe that you are talking about Marxism-Leninism, which I also believe is outdated and dominated by dogmatic thinking, but I digress.

  If you’re going to reduce my criticism to “ramblings” then you’re already in engaging in bad faith. You can’t seem to accept the core idea itself is flawed. It doesn’t matter what flavor it comes in, the result will inevitably be the same.

  Now let me rephrase: Existing socialism has worked many times, but has always been stomped out by brutal capitalist imperialism.

  Why are you moving the goal posts? Communism is a specific ideology, socialism is just a general economic model. These are not the same thing. With that being said pure socialism in any form hasn’t worked either. What examples do you have to prove this? Just start listing them. I’m positive that list won’t be based on actual results but on speculation and assumptions.

  Also, this idea that the reason why socialism has never worked is because of US or Western intervention is pure cope. Not only does this ignore all the instances where socialism collapsed in on itself, but also ignores the fact the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent China, also tried to brutally stomp out capitalism all around the world. They toppled democratically elected government, they installed puppet dictators, they committed genocides, they invaded countries, they employed propaganda campaigns, they’ve done it all. Marxists always conveniently forget the other half of the cold war. Regardless, capitalism survived the onslaught, socialism didn’t. This is because socialism is simply a more fragile system that can’t withstand disruption.

  A brief look at the history of central and south america, and all other colonially exploited areas should show you that the system that has produced the most suffering, destroyed the most democracies, is capitalism. Let me rephrase: Capitalism has never worked.

  That’s such an odd, vague, and cherrypicked statement that proves nothing but makes a bunch of declarations. Why focus on South America and not the world at large? Capitalism has done wonders for China, India, Poland, Romania, Spain, Ireland, the Baltic countries, Germany, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Botswana, and the list goes on and on. Actually even in South America, countries like Chile and Uruguay have had their best economic stretches under capitalism while countries like Venezuela declined substantially under socialism. It’s silly to try and reduce an entire continent to a single misguided soundbite.

  Capitalism is a very flawed system, but it is pure objective fact that it works, maybe a little too well. The criticism of capitalism were never that it didn’t work, but that it has no breaks, it keeps going until things break. In terms of pure functionality, capitalism has been proven to take any economy and turn into something that’s much more efficient, wealthy, and overflowing with surplus of goods. Capitalism can increase the industrial capacity of any country that let’s it do it’s thing. Pretending that capitalism never worked is simply just a false statement.

  So again, what kind of economic system do you advocate for?

  I gave you my answer, you just refuse to accept it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You’re such a boring anticommunist proapgandist, you’ve been educated a million times in this platform and you refuse to absorb the smallest knowledge.

  Lmao you’re an idiot. You’re NOT knowledgeable, and the fact that you’re so arrogant that you think you’re in a position to educate just shows how much of dimwit you are. Idiots like you seethe every time I make the most obvious criticisms of this shitty ideology because you can’t prove me wrong. I bring up

  If communism doesnt work, why did it take 1bn people out of poverty and save Europe from Nazism?

  It quite literally did neither. The Soviet Union were literally the closest allies of the Nazis. Stalin and Hitler signed a pact and invaded Poland together. They’re literally half the reason why WWII started. Things only changed when Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union, and even then, the Soviet Union did not save Europe from the Nazis. That ignores the massive contributions from the rest of the allies, mainly the US and the British Empire, who liberated the other half of Europe AND took down the other two axis powers by themselves. Not to mention that the Soviet Union didn’t liberate shit, they were occupiers themselves who were just as brutal as the Nazis in a lot of ways. There’s a reason why every single Eastern European country despises communism and the Soviet Union as much as they despise fascism and Nazi Germany.

  Also communism is notorious for dragging societies into poverty. There’s not a single example of communism taking a society into a better place then where it has left it. Every single instance in history has either resulted in collapse or revert to capitalism in some form. I assume you’re referring to China’s economic rise lifting 800 million people out of poverty. But if you had even the most elementary understanding of Chinese history, which you very clearly don’t, then you would know that this rise started in the late 80s because that’s when China officially adopted capitalism.

  Mao was a true communist and China under him was well and truly socialist. This was the darkest chapter in China’s 5000 year old history. Socialism was such a colossal failure that it has resulted in the biggest man made disaster in human history, the Great Chinese Famine, which killed somewhere between 15 and 55 million people. This coupled with the Great leap forward and a bunch of other campaigns, somewhere between 40 and 80 million people were killed as a direct result of Mao and his policies. This makes Mao the dictator with the highest death toll in history. All the while, the Chinese economy was in complete shambles and the country was on the verge of collapse yet again. When Mao died in the 1976, the next leader of China, Deng Xiaoping made it very clear to the public that country was going to go into a de-Maoization similar to what Khrushchev did after Stalin died.

  Starting in the late 70s and throughout the 80s, Deng Xiaoping made a series reforms where China adopted capitalism and liberalized the economy. He allowed foreign investment to come into the country, he allowed people to hold private businesses, he allowed farmers to keep surplus crops and sell them for profit, he loosened restrictions on free markets, state owned corporations were restructured to have a lot more autonomy, he established “special economic zones” all over the country where capitalism ran free. China’s GDP growth correlates with these reform 1:1. If you look at a graph of China’s economic growth it starts and directly correlates with these reforms. The vast majority of the world, including China itself acknowledge that capitalism is what’s responsible for China’s economic boom.

  This basic information. If piss poor propaganda and misinformation that can easily be debunked with a 30 second google search is your “education” then you take the crown for being the biggest clown on lemmy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Europe has figured it out so has New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Japan, and so on. In fact, only capitalist systems have ever produced genuine democracies. All the socialist examples in history were authoritarian governed by an unelected ruling elite.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s not competition. I don’t think you understand what that means.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This is a load of nonsense. Socialism is not a blanket term that you can manipulate to mean whatever you like, the same goes for capitalism where you turn it into a pejorative for anything you don’t like. Democracy is also very much not socialism is any way, shape, or form and they have zero connection to each other.

  Socialism is an economic model that revolves the concept that all the resources, property, and means of production in a society are publicly owned and managed, aka a centrally planned economy. Democracy is when the people govern themselves. There are ideologies that try to interoperate both, these are very much not the same thing. The same goes for capitalism which is an economic model which revolves around economies being run by free markets, aka unplanned economies.

  Socialism is NOT state capitalism, it’s NOT welfare programs, and it NOT public schools or infrastructure. A country like Denmark is NOT socialist because it has universal healthcare and public schools. In fact when Bernie Sanders called them socialist in his 2016 campaign, the PM of Denmark at the time literally came out and correct him by saying that Denmark was capitalist. An actual example of socialism would be the Soviet Union or China under Mao.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Socialism is a failure because it shifts the wealthy class from private individuals with a lot of influence to the actual ruling elite. Therefore the exploitation is happening by the very people running the economy. We saw this happen time and time again in socialist countries.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This is pure cope. I’ve read a few of his works like Das Kapital, Critique of the Gotha Program, and the Communist Manifesto and it is what opened up my eyes to how much of an idiot this guy was and how shitty his idea are in both theory and practice. You’re just mad because you bought into the bullshit and can’t accept that the rest of the world is also educated on his works, but come to a different conclusion because they have basic critical thinking skills.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You have to be an actual idiot to treat this subpar philosopher as some prophet and crappy works as the gospel. They hold ZERO legitimacy. He can claim that communism was not a utopia all he wants, but it’s literally an idealized fantasy of what a perfect society looks like, that’s what a utopia is by definition.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  If you think a country like Denmark is socialist then you don’t know what socialism is

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I mean the US isn’t the definition of capitalism. It’s just one hundreds of examples. There are other countries that do capitalism way better like Denmark for example.

  Also a big part of capitalism is the idea that different factions will compete for influence. The idea is that the different fingers of the invisible hand (the government, the public, capitalists, corporations, institutions, NGOs, the media, etc) are going to keep each other in check. If tension breaks and things fall out of balance then you basically get a dystopia. That’s why checks and balancing is one of the most crucial things to any successful capitalist system. It’s also the reason why capitalism in the US is heading down the wrong direction. Money in politics has thrown everything out of whack.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  But that’s not what socialism is. Socialism is when the “public” (read: government) controls all of societies land, resources, and means of production and distributes them from ability to need. Socialism is a specific economic system where the entire economy is centrally planned.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The thing is that capitalism isn’t an ideology like communism. Capitalism is a purely economic system. There are ideologies built around it, but capitalism itself is not one. Capitalism can exist under wildly different ideologies and produce wildly different result. India, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Iceland are all capitalist but they very different from each other. That’s because capitalism is more like a tool. Communism actually tries to layout how a society should ideally be run economically, politically, and socially. The counterpart to capitalism is not communism, but socialism.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s a shitty utopia thought up by a grumpy German philosopher from a bygone era where he thought that all the issues of Germany during the Industrial revolution could be solved by having all the resources, land, and means of production be publicly owned and operated as well as have the redistribution of them go from ability to need. He thought that this was the silver bullet solution to everything. He thought because there’s a theoretical equality of outcome, there would no longer be class division tearing society apart. Therefore, there will no longer be crime or discrimination or a need for money or even a state… as that’s the reason why these things exist in the first place. It should be noted that he thinks that the state would dismantle itself after the utopia is achieved just because, and it’s not just the government but also the state apparatus so things like the military, public schools, the courts, the media, etc would also get dismantled.

  So basically it’s just a fantasy of anarchist society that doesn’t have state, money, or classes where all the people magically agree and get together to publicly manage all the means of production and redistribute all the resources in such a way where everybody has exactly what they need all the time. Oh, and all of this will happen after a violent revolution that overthrows capitalism followed by a transitional tyrannical socialist state that supposed to represent the workers that’s going to rule with an iron fist to bring about the necessary social conditions to realize communism. That’s the state that will voluntarily dismantle itself when communism is achieved.

  The ideology is such a fucking joke that it can’t even withstand basic criticism and logical reasoning. It’s no wonder that it has literally failed every single time it has been tried. Hundreds of attempts across different time periods, lands, cultures, and circumstances. At one point communist countries controlled over 1/3 of the planet… and yet they all failed. Every single one is a failure. They all either collapsed, turned into authoritarian shitholes, or reverted to capitalism in some way. The opposite never happened. Capitalism is not good, it’s a very flawed system and idea, but at least it functions to some capacity. Marxist communism is so delusional and unsound that it literally doesn’t function. No amount of “MUH THEEREES” will change the reality of communism being a meme.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Communism is just utopia. It’s the fantasy of a German man from a bygone era of how he thought a perfect society should look like. It’s not a realistic or practical ideology, and never was. This is why every single attempt at achieving it in history results in failure and it’s the reason why that’s always going to be the case.

  You can’t run an economy based fictional utopias or treating some German philosopher’s subpar ideas as gospel. The economy, like with anything else in society, has to be run pragmatically. It needs to be studied like any other academic subject, and the research should be used to organize and refine what’s been proven to work and what doesn’t. Likewise, people who are experts on the subject should be the ones drafting guidelines that drive the economy, and the advice they give should be based on their society’s current problems. If it’s makes sense for their country’s economy to have socialized healthcare then they should do that, if it makes sense for their country to privatize their country’s musical instrument industry then they should do that. This idea that we have to box ourselves and our economies into some ideological box never made sense to me.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s just cope. The reality is that communism is fundamentally flawed to the point where failure was always going to be the inevitable outcome. That’s why despite a century of nonstop attempts across all cultures and lands, not a single attempt panned out well. They all either collapsed or reverted to some version of capitalism. The opposite never happened.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s how all societies work though. We live in a world where sacristy is reality, and therefore there will always be people competing to control the same limited resources.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It is. You can smack your head against a wall, but reality won’t change.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Communism is a meme. It will never work and there will never be a silver bullet revolution.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Why is this highly upvoted? This is just a poor understanding of economics.

  The market cap just shows the aggregate value of shares that are being publicly traded. It has nothing to do with labor value. You can’t derive labor value from the market cap because there’s no correlation. If you want to find out how much each employee contributes, you would have to use something like company revenue.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  These aren’t opposites. Democracy is a system of governance, capitalism is a system of economics. A society can be both at the same time.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Socialism hasn’t exactly worked out either. Replacing a flawed system like capitalism with something even worse is not a solution

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨great entertainment⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The most sensitive people on the internet are, without a doubt, the celeb gossipers. I have never come across any celeb gossip community that was not a dystopian echo chamber filled with the most brainless and miserable creatures.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨great entertainment⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hee Hee Ho Ho Ha Ha⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  But again, he does this of his own choosing. If it was bad as you say it is then there’s nothing stopping him from retiring or switching to normal job. He chooses to do this anyway because the money is good and he probably enjoys it. We also have to consider that he’s professional ragebaiter, he knows what he’s doing and people like him know how to avoid and tune out criticism and harassment.

  Keep in mind, I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m just saying that he’s not shouldering the weight of the world from being a professional political steamer like people here are making out to be.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hee Hee Ho Ho Ha Ha⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  In his case, he could quit his job and work a normal, more low profile job or he could just straight up retire entirely since he has the money do so. He’s not in a position where he’s forced to do anything. He’s not some victim in poor victim who’s worthy of unconditional empathy. He’s not living paycheck to paycheck, he doesn’t do steaming because he has to, he doesn’t have to pay attention to what people say online, and he doesn’t have to keep streaming. He’s consciously choosing to do it, this is something that he clearly enjoys.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hee Hee Ho Ho Ha Ha⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You’re just projecting. I had the most lukewarm take there is, which is that rich internet celebrities don’t care about what people say about them online. You’re over here putting on your knight armor defending him at every turn for no reason. Like come on

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hee Hee Ho Ho Ha Ha⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Wouldn’t it make more sense to judge him on his own merits rather than the merits of his perceived enemies?