Socialism Is NOT An Option - Capitalism Is Literally Destroying The World

KYSSSS

rlly though, make a video debunking Sargon or Steven Crowder or some shit. More views baby.

The thing is if I made a video like that it would be 10 mins of repeating 'but socialism isnt when the state own the means of production' and 'but leftism has nothing to do with idpol'.

I might try it once to see what the views are like though.

Good Point.

Maybe do something like "Dear Capitalists" and do a rant about common misconceptions that right wingers make about the far Left. You can piece together clips of them saying the exact same shit(they always do) about Socialism. You gotta drop the bomb, Xexizy. Wear some eyeliner ffs. Get Mad. Get naked.

Might go viral, brah.

I feel as if this is a bad idea, since it'll probably just garner the response of "NO ITS A LIE SOCIALISM IS WHEN CENTRAL PLANNERS GULAG THE WHITE RACE CUCK CUCK CUCK CUCK CUCK".

He's really not worth the hassle.

But you will have to go on Pure ideology territory then.
Here is the quintescence of Right wing view on leftism, enjoy

Holy shit, this guy.

I can't stop laughing holy shit

Kek me neither

Why do the faggots who make these posts never seem to read even one piece of actual leftist literature?

"I literally can't stop shitting up the board with threads about myself" -bunkerfags

Books are for faggots user, (except mein Kampf and Atlas Shrugged, thoses are the cool kind, not the gay kind)

LOOOOOOOOOOOL

Stay classcucked, Holla Forums

You're not from Holla Forums. fuck off.

I think xxan was trolling, but it's impossible to tell. Holla Forumsyps are actually that retarded.

...

...

why I greentexted that I have no idea.

Tell us about your mother…

He is legit triggered. Everytime.

The way she meme arrows turns me on there I said it

GET OUTTA HERE YOU FUCKING PERVERT!

This guy seems so chill in his videos but is a literal sociopath in the comments.

The Mujahideen did not flow smoothly into the Taliban. It was a very small few of them that actually continued into the Taliban. Claiming they were basically the same group is very misleading.

Also, we produce 17% more food than we need, but the problem isn't growing the food, it's transporting it. You try shipping grain to the middle of Africa with any efficiency.

It's actually both. Improved agricultural efficiency and reduction of the labor value required to produce the same amount would help any socialist population, either freeing up labor for other sectors or decreasing total necessary labor. Not to mention technological advances make agriculture more feasible in a more regions.
"The problem isn't production, it's transport" is a perennial favorite of the anti-gmo playbook too, so watch yourself, comrade.

Yo Muke best vid yet, you should drop the facetime bs and keep it with the aesthetic video samples.

Also if you do a follow-up video it might be cool to talk about which countries have the most revolutionary potential.

He obviously has not read that much theory to offer this kind of analysis and thus would only be opening himself to entering a very dangerous territory and mockery in general. What would be nice for him to do imo would be a video about State Capitalism and the necessity of capitalist development as a prelude to socialism, since he is a leninist and all.

A video about the achievements of socialist states could also be nice, all it necessities is a bit reading actual history and yet it would still destroy a ton of spooks about those places being hell on earth.

Most of Africa produces enough food to sustain itself.

...

Interesting video, although I think your interpretation of the causes of the Iraq War is missing a key component. Certainly private weapons manufactures and distributors gained a great deal of money as a direct consequence of the Iraq War, but the idea that profit was the only reason why the US engaged in that war is absurd. Neoconservatism is also a major factor here, and Neoconservatism is an entirely ideological and political movement based primarily in Zionism and Israeli military expansionism, in addition to the lesser concerns of global democracy and liberalism being exported throughout the world. The Neocons in Bush's administration, who authored papers like 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' in which they called for regime change in Iraq and a "new Pearl Harbor" to expand the military-industrial complex was influenced by political and ideological concerns, be it the existential concerns of Israel, or the Imperialistic concerns of "securing the realm" or "maintaining American hegemony" which, I would argue are more political motives than economic ones insofar as they are encouraged by power, not profit.

Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' and Stephen J. Sniegoski's 'The Transparent Cabal' are great books on this subject if you're interested.

But this seems like a pretty accurate description of Left-Wing thought. Why do you think it's wrong?

It contradicts most pieces of Leftist literature, and every single piece of Marxist and Anarchist literature.
Why do you think it's right? My theory is that 90% you know about leftism is what you've read on Holla Forums, therefore agreeing with its view later.

Perhaps it's better if you first define what you mean by the term 'Leftism' so that we can be sure that we're both discussing the same concept. By Leftism do you mean Liberals, Progressives, Marxists, Communists and Anarchists, or do you only mean those last 3 ideologies without Liberals and Progressives included? Are we only speaking about theorists like Marx, Engels, Kropotkin ect or can we also include Popper, Mill and others?

There is no clear cut definition of Leftism, in fact, there isn't really a leftism at all, but on this board we refer to Leftism as the broad range from Anarcho-Communism to Social-Democrats, including Marxists, Stalinists and their derivatives, Socialist Reformists, etc.

Good on you for doing something constructive.

It's quite frustrating that one of the most basic concepts in political theory, the Left-Right political spectrum also seems to be one of the most controversial. Nobody seems to really know what Left and Right actually mean, and most will offer vague and conflicting definitions. If you ask 100 different people how they would define the terms you'll probably receive 100 different answers ranging from "Capitalism vs Anti-Capitalism" or "Globalism vs Nationalism" or "Progressivism vs Conservatism". It certainly isn't helped that these concepts also change over time. What was Liberal in the 1930s is now considered to be far-right wing in 2016.

A quick Google search supports this view. Most definitions include "a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views" or "advocacy of or adherence to the doctrines of the left". Not exactly helpful.

Wikipedia's definition is "Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality" which seems to support what's stated in that image from Holla Forums. However, I've seen people debate over whether Nat ional Socialism is Left-wing or Right-Wing, whether Nationalism is Left-wing or Right-Wing and whether Capitalism itself is on the Left or Right.

Personally I define the Left, broadly and generally speaking as those political, economic and social values and principles with believe equality is morally good, more favorable to inequality or something that ought to be achieved as an ultimate goal, or historical end or telos. Therefore the Right, broadly and generally speaking is those values which believe inequality is either more favorable or morally good. This interpretation seems to be supported by most of the "Leftist" theory and literature that I have read. Certainly Feminists want men to be equal to women, homosexuals to be equal to heterosexuals, non-whites to be equal to whites ect. Progressives and Liberals generally want increased equality between various social groups, such as economic equality through socialism ect. Marxists and Communists seem to want equality by creating a society in which all are equal, and one of the main criticisms they have of the bourgeois is their exploitative nature, the relationship of dominance and submission.

You might disagree with this interpretation, but you can't deny that equality is a major theme running through the whole of Leftist thought, regardless of its countless internal differences.

Capitalism reduce poverty

Capitalism as an economic system can certainly reduce poverty more efficiently than Socialism or Communism, but there are so many external factors involved that comparing different nations like Chile to Venezuela based purely on their economic system, or available resources is absurd. There are many other factors involved. Perhaps Chile has a culture of hard work similar to the "Protestant Work Ethic" so often attributed to the success of Western Nations? Perhaps they have a higher average IQ and a more cognitively robust population? From an abstract a priori position Capitalism is undoubtedly better theoretically, but practically things become far more difficult.

Holla Forumsack, go home.

Define your terms then, if it's so simple.

I did not say it was simple.

I pointed out that your tinfoil statement is blatant propaganda.

Claiming that a word or term is generally difficult to define or that its definition is contentious isn't a conspiracy theory you fucking idiot.

I feel like my video has been posted to right winged class cucks but I have no idea where. There are many more comments than this.

It's probably the AnCap trying to get his fangays to prove you wrong.

And please, don't ever try to debate him. The stuff he writes is even worse than what a common Holla Forumsyp usually writes. Which is, in itself, a red flag.

The thing is that Left and Right are relative terms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_and_right_in_politics

Boards are public access. Someone from Holla Forums could've easily snagged the link and put it in their water purification conspiracy IRC.

Could always do a series reading comments in a funny way al la 'failures of youtube' from MW10T:

youtube.com/watch?v=7rc-nZaHunQ&list=PL7E0C0FC8081E1C74&index=16

Oh jesus that's an amazing idea.

Thanks.

Don't forget to put a simple disclaimer at the beginning quickly explaining what sockialism and cummunism are so people get a context.

That is, if all the comments are going to be this misinformed.

be careful with that anscap.

...

...

i swear, i see him and le happy merchant everywhere

I also recommend watching the whole playlist of the MWT10T ones, for the lolz.

Apologies for accidental sage btw.

Oh shit, got another idea! For some responses, you could use one of the many memes leftypol has made for your qtface and whatnot. This might make it extra hilarious. Who gunna dump those memes btw?

I feel like that might be a bit egotistical, using memes of my own face.

Then again I am extremely egoistical.

make a video about anarchism

THIS

It seems like the kinda thing normie popular youtubers might do.

Oh yea that reminds me I had something in the works for anarchism but in order to make sure my arguments are consistent I need to understand how the black army functioned. The only problem is, it seems like this would require me to read a book on them because no one will explain them to me, and honestly if it takes me forever to read books about my own ideology there isnt much chance of me getting through anything about anarchism any time soon. Just being straight up honest.

Xexizy, Saddam did nothing wrong.

You should read books though. Next thing you know you won't be a lefty anymore. Then again if that happens you probably won't know too much so I guess that could be a silver lining.

Not trying to be harsh btw.

Look at wikipedia lol.

Muke is the ditzy blonde of leftist. ideologues

Well I am reading books, never said I wouldnt. It's just I would rather get a few key facts that I need for my video than learn all the other irrelevant stuff that goes with it.

the black army is what anarchists always bring up whenever marxists claim that anarchism cant defend its self. As my video plays on that argument, I need to understand their response.

They failed, they all got Cheka'd. It's a bad argument

And you can trigger both Anarchists and Tankies at the same time! "The Black Army got rekt" and "The Bolsheviks only succeed because of Trotsky's organizational success of the Red Army"

It's a win win situation, honestly.

I mean I'm no polysci major but somethin' seems off here.

...

Nazis are socialist as much as the dprk is democratic

Finnishbolshevik already did a video on it.

I suppose I'm a sucker for taking things on face value, so would you be so kind as to spoonfeed why they're not to the uninitiated?

shut up first world scum

Socialism is when workers own the means of production, not when the government does stuff.

This, and beside, Nazis privatized a lot.

So wouldn't that technically make the USSR not socialist too, despite it usually being propped up as a keystone socialist victory?

Yep. Both Nazi Germany and the USSR were State Capitalist. There were obviously many differences between the two, but in both places the means of production were owned by the state, therefore neither of them were socialist.

I don't think Germany was even state capitalist, comrade.

Were the means of production not owned by the state?

So what has been a proper socialist movement I could read up on?

USSR didn't achieve socialism. Something closer would be the Paris Commune of 1870.

Here you go:

unitedchans.org/socialism-has-never-worked/

Give it a min to load.

No they privatized a lot of shit

Are you referring to the Nazi Germany State? Then no.

Oh well fair enough I guess I was wrong there then,

I liked it pretty well, but it'd be good if you could be more concise with your explanations, and allow a moment or two of silence to let the audience digest what you've said.

Also, while the soviet theme is entertaining to some (myself included), and tolerated by others, if your intent is to get non leftists interested in leftism, the USSR thematics might seem like "Stalin ebin meme nuffin. The reds will rise again". I mean, lots of people still have the image that socialism/communism = state ownership and military dictatorship.

If you're aiming this at Holla Forums or other non idpol leftists, then you're preaching to the choir.

To be honest I kinda realized this, but the clips went over the commentary so nicely I figured it would be ok.

I did kinda spurge out towards the end though.

Great work, completely agree.

hey buddy welcome to the ancom club :^)

btw, if you want an anarchist perspective on the black free army, read The History of the Makhnovist Movement by Peter Arshinov, who lead the Nabat, and writings by Voline, both of who were on the ground at the time.
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-arshinov-history-of-the-makhnovist-movement-1918-1921
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-15-17#toc1
good luck on your road of learning

ahah yea I guess by the decree of LLA I'm an anarchist now. Oh well guys, Leninism was fun I guess.

Thanks for the links as well, I think I have some pretty good arguments to put into my video if a couple assumptions I have on the black army are true, will read into it and see if they are.

There was something you almost touched on but details left out. In combination with food thrown out by companies and food thrown out by stores from being overstocked and people being picky on aesthetics and food thrown out by individuals in the US and UK around a third of all food is thrown away (if I remember that stat right). There are a few studies on it so you might want to look into the actual numbers.