There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

«‹›34 »

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS2Bsq5PDmU

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 19:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 12:21

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

I don't have a particularly original post here but if you're going to compare your ideal communism ("it would've worked out this way if it weren't for Stalin") you should compare it to an ideal capitalist society, not capitalism as it's actually practiced.

Same goes in reverse. You'll hear anarcho-capitalists compare their ideal libertarian system to communism as it was actually practiced. But you should compare like things to like things.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 19:47

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

And when Russia transitioned to Capitalist system under enlightened Liberal rule that all turned around for them.

Oh - OH NO~

To be fair that's Russia and while the 1990s+ mortality rate is shocking, demographers can't really explain it:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/09/02/dying-russians/

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 23:25

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Homework Explainer posted:

you can provide evidence and contextualize your position nonstop

but if you don't nod and say yes the soviet union was a hitler demon country where humans were thrown into a meat grinder for sport, that also somehow became a global superpower in less than half a century, you're the same as a holocaust denier

so i'm gonna go ahead and only talk about socialism in the 21st century now, what with that being the century in which we currently live

The Soviet obsession with being a "superpower" would prove to be their undoing. It was a massive half-century case of hubris the Chinese communists knew was a big fat case of stupid.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 23:34

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

I think people would be far skinnier in a communist society.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 01:21

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Jewel Repetition posted:

My second biggest argument, is pizza.

I regret nothing.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 01:23

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

I'd just want to point out that the U.S. oil industry is getting hammered, too. The difference being that the American economy is not a rentier state dependent on a single, highly risky commodity to keep the whole country afloat. (That's just North Dakota, Alaska and, to a lesser extent, Texas.)

If there's any conspiracy theory that has some truth to it, it's probably Saudi Arabia conspiring to choke off shale production and prevent its spread to other parts of the world, and to hit Russia and Iran (the latter which is undergoing rapprochement with the U.S.). The Chavistas had good intentions and benefited from high oil prices for a decade and now their luck has run out. Whoops. So what are they gonna do now?

Here are a few possible options:

Option A: Give up power.

Option B: Get thrown out of power.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Feb 13, 2016

# ¿ Feb 13, 2016 22:35

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

1mpper posted:

and you speak as if the administrations of chavez and maduro aren't made possible, in fact only made possible, by the outpouring of popular support. poverty reduction and other social programs have improved life immensely in the country for the vast majority of people, and those "material consequences" are what have kept their support among the people strong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyfriipc61A

# ¿ Feb 14, 2016 00:32

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

The flip side is that the elections showed how the hyperbole about a Chavista dictatorship was just that: hyperbole. The government was willing to allow an opposition victory.

Debates about Venezuela are extremely polarized, and it's a fact that the PSUV had a lot of popular support ... until recently. The opposition won a bunch of Chavista strongholds including Hugo's home state. It wasn't just the bourgeoisie getting its act together -- most Venezuelans are fed up and want to live in a normal country.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2016 00:38

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Homework Explainer posted:

tbh venezuela is demonstrative of the inherent instability of democratic socialism, as chile was before it. but that doesn't mean the psuv deserves to die

Marxism-Leninism solves this problem by abolishing democracy. But if you take democracy as a given then you gotta expect you'll ... lose elections.

Que horror!

# ¿ Feb 14, 2016 00:47

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

The history of Liberal and Rightist rule in Venezuela is characterized by just as much corruption, if not moreso than the PSUV. They had practically an entire half-century to leverage oil wealth into a healthy economy and enriched themselves instead. There's no guarantee that the opposition will be any less corrupt than the PSUV.

I accept that. But what should Venezuelans do? Stick with the status quo? It's a reasonable position to take, but "they're just as corrupt as we are!" is not a very optimistic or inspiring message. I think the PSUV needs to spend some time in the opposition for awhile.

It'll be good for them.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2016 01:22

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Enjoy posted:

The Tsar and his ministers?

Anastasia screamed in vain.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2016 06:54

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JauB3k4-tZQ

# ¿ Feb 20, 2016 11:08

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Nameless_Steve posted:

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is one of the most retarded ideas in history. The idea that an authoritarian state would just fade away into anarchist paradise ignores everything we know about human beings and power politics. Violent revolution rarely results in peaceful, stable states with one major exception.

Basically, the only parts Marx got right were the critiques of capitalism. Too bad his proposed solutions suck. It's like the medieval doctor who accurately and meticulously diagnoses your cancer and then prescribes bloodletting via leeches and hard labor.

Marx was an uncannily brilliant and original thinker, and ideas like historical materialism (which is simplistic, but still) are really important to figuring out how things work.

But yeah. People desire power for its own sake, and the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't really work without a party, or committee, to rule the state. And once that happens you have a new class distinction, and a new ruling class which rules despotically. Marx was also enthralled by his own ability to predict the future in a deterministic direction, which owes to his Hegelianism. That is monstrous hubris, and the personality cult that developed around him is ironic considering that Marxists tends to downplay the role of individuals in history.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2016 14:04

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

rudatron posted:

Also Marx himself did not propose solutions, in that there is very little in the way of a 'socialist schematic' laid out by Marx. It was all very abstract for him, and I think even he'd agree with that.

I thought he did, though. The Communist Manifesto?

Which is sort of a mixed bag. There's things like universal education, progressive income taxes, a national bank. Then it's got some crazy stuff like centralizing the means of transport and communication into the hands of the state, abolishing the distinction between urban and rural, etc.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2016 10:32

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Fredrik de Boer leaves blogging. "I haven�t been an activist for over 10 years, but for a long time I still believed in political progress. And one day not too long ago I woke up and realized I just don�t. Not anymore."

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2016/08/18/thats-my-time/

You know, I remember him once ranting about how his progressive opponents -- who were too wrapped up in identity politics -- were destined to burn out and become politically-disengaged conservatives around age 30. Funny that.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2016 15:16

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

I'm not an economist but I can say that joining an actually existing communist party seems mighty unattractive, because in my experience they come across as paranoid cults.

# ¿ Oct 9, 2016 08:27

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Deimus posted:

Yeah, I'll give you that. I think the only attractive economic position we could endorse is a worker Co-op system, democracy in the workplace. That's a controversial (ultraleft) position though.

Even if they're not cults (like I don't think I'd describe the PSL as a cult), the moment I hear the words "democratic centralism" I back away very slowly. I have to agree with the party's decision after they internally decide it? What if the decision is that you can't publicly express disapproval of policies decided under the democratic centralist model? Very quickly everyone is mouthing the same words in unison.

# ¿ Oct 9, 2016 08:55

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Yeah I never could really buy into certain forms of left-wing activism being more of a "white" thing or not, because at least in my anecdotal experience around communists and anarchists, it's wildly diverse racially. More Hispanic than anyone else in my neck of the woods.

If anything, the problem is communist parties attempting to impose their system in a top-down, authoritarian way. And this can apply to racial politics as well. Richard Wright talked about this in his essay on joining (and eventually being kicked out of) the CPUSA way back in the 1930s. He came under tremendous pressure by the party to act in a stereotypical manner befitting his role as a black communist, and also depict African-Americans in a similar way in his writing, which he found insulting.

# ¿ Oct 9, 2016 09:33

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

My best friend has become a tankie help.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 01:01

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 03:26

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

asdf32 posted:

Lol because this is what Marxism is. Capitalism reduced to simplistic form as one guy saw it in the 1860's with an entire set of world altering conclusions drawn from that.

On the other hand modern liberalism is the messiest, least consistent and most complicated human organization structure yet created. Supporters clearly aren't interested in theoretical purity.

I do think Marxists have underestimated liberal-capitalism's ability to basically lurch from crisis to crisis and still, somehow, muddle through. Every time a more hard-edged, red socialism is implemented, there's a rush toward it because unlike liberalism, here's a chance to be decisive and really build something different.

The most recent example of this is Hugo Chavez. If you read the socialist papers around 10 years ago, you'd get the impression that he represented the future. Remember the term "21st Century Socialism," right? And it was hard to argue with his supporters, because Chavez was getting poo poo done and not bothering with what his critics thought, while the United States plunged into a recession and destroyed its own credibility with the Iraq War. But just as quick, the U.S.'s liberal system dragged itself out ... only to land on its face again with the police crackdown at Ferguson, the rise of Donald Trump, etc.

Now, if you read socialist papers, the line is that Trump will lose, but whatever comes next will be worse because liberal-capitalism's fundamental contradictions will have gone unsolved. "We must redouble our efforts at strengthening the socialist tradition and standing against the siren call of lesser-evilism!" But more likely than not, liberalism will muddle through as it always has, because it's just too chaotic to stay pinned down in one place for too long.

While the last big attempt to build a no-nonsense socialism (in Venezuela) imploded catastrophically the moment it hit its first actual crisis. There's a similar attraction on the illiberal, authoritarian right toward Putin, but I'd bet that messy, adaptable liberalism will outlast him, too.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2016 15:24

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Fiction posted:

I'm sure the thousands of people killing themselves when their homes are foreclosed on during the next financial crisis will be satisfied that we tried just tried really hard to stop it from happening without actually changing the economic structure that caused it in the first place

They certainly will not, and that's why liberal systems will produce demands for changing the economic structure. But overall, liberalism's chaos and stupid, blind confidence means it'll likely to prevail over the more efficient, illiberal alternatives. I'd bet, for instance, that India's junkyard democracy will outlast China's authoritarian version of capitalism.

Brainiac Five posted:

I, personally, would not praise an ideology by calling it a cockroach one, but you can do whatever you like.

Praise is a strong word. But what's the alternative?

# ¿ Oct 22, 2016 15:42

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Brainiac Five posted:

India's system has also produced a perpetual low-level Maoist uprising. Liberalism's cockroach survival is only really true in areas where there's a baseline level of prosperity that is seen as normal and which the current situation is merely a disruption of. Japan's decades of stagnation have seen the membership of the JCP grow. In much of the world, communist guerrillas are simply a fact of life, and despite terrorist violence, drug trafficking, and in the case of Shining Path extortion of food and supplies from peasant villages, they have been extremely difficult to squash permanently.

Sure. And who knows? Capitalism and liberalism might not make it out of the 21st century. The climate might be the thing that does it in. But even if you could imagine a worst-case scenario that really wallops the planet, and had to make a bet on a creature with the best chance of survival, I'd still bet on the cockroach.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2016 16:04

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Fallen Hamprince posted:

can't get over how the founder of modern anarchism looks like he has literally never taken a bath

He looks like he's about to shank me.

Though to be fair 19th century anarchists would definitely do that

# ¿ Jun 28, 2017 06:21

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Haha I shat on Karl Marx in the quiz.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2017 13:36

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Urge to Kronstadt rising

# ¿ Sep 2, 2017 13:47

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

*takes your battleships*

*sails around in circles*

U can't catch me haha

# ¿ Sep 2, 2017 13:49

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdFQows7kcs&t=112s

# ¿ Sep 2, 2017 13:56

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

looking forward to seeing a million communists literally in one place

# ¿ Oct 8, 2017 10:41

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

R. Guyovich posted:

dispatches from china, pt. I

at beijing's biggest bookstore, here's what is at the front, right near where the cookbooks and tom hanks biographies would be at your local barnes and noble

that's pretty cool

# ¿ Oct 15, 2017 20:39

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

i build for china

# ¿ Oct 24, 2017 15:36

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

the weird thing is that kotkin is not a communist at all. far from it

# ¿ Nov 4, 2017 04:27

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

https://twitter.com/hegelfan1/status/809450356753068032

# ¿ Nov 4, 2017 05:09

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

GalacticAcid posted:

Kotkin's anticommunist for sure but more saliently he's anti-Trotsky.

Eta, his Volume I is a thorough dismantlement of Trotskyist historiography of the Revolution & Stalin's rise, and his analysis aligns with a more orthodox ML reading - that Lenin led inexorably to Stalin.

Haven't read his books but I want to. Listened to a talk he gave about Stalin, though, and yeah. And that's the interesting thing about it. Trotsky is a chump and Stalin was way more of an accomplished ML thinker than he's been given credit for. But also, if you're an anti-communist, you'd probably like the book too since Stalin wasn't some anomaly.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2017 05:34