Truly living up to their tankie label.
Capitalists are also more than willing to kill innocent people to further their goals. Their goals are profit, though. Defending them in this context just makes it look like your advocating for profitable murder.
Because humans can totally exist in perfect harmony under anything but capitalism. Pack it up fellas, this one’s solved inherent evil in human nature!
No one genuine ever said it was perfect. Just better.
Even removing capitalism in society, communism still killed people for reasons outside of capitalism versus communism. Plenty of prisons and labour camps in various communist countries can attest to that. Tankies are willing to kill just to impose their will. Having “better society” as excuse has nothing to do with, they just want power.
You’re right. There are definitely unsavory actors acting under the banner of communism, whom in an ideal world would be dealt with. Historically, many of thrm have been capitalists trying to secure an increase in profit, however. I’m NOT a tankie, I’m an anarchist, in fact. However, all one has to do is look at history (real history, not propoganda. Actual numbers.) To see that communism’s infamous death toll is actually much, much lower than capitalism’s even when adjusted for whatever factor you can think of. For an accurate, well-researched piece with plenty of nuance and primary sources that deals with this matter explicitly, I reccomend the book ‘Blackshirts and Reds’. It’s a fascinating breakdown of how capitalist propoganda has deeply distorted our view of history, especially when it comes to both fascism and communism.
Not to defend capitalism (I would be more in favour of anarchism provided that certain conditions have to be met first), but I would say that communism only killed less because it is a newer ideology. It is only 150 years old, give or take, with it’s practical existence lasting for 76 years. If we are considering mercantilism as capitalism (both are still looking for maximising profits), then in over 300-400 hundred years it’s logical to say that capitalism killed more, by virtue of how long profit seeking has been part of human economic policies.
And since we are talking about economic policies, barring the death camps, practically speaking, if communism went for as long as capitalism has, it could catch up with the number on death tolls, considering that communist centralisation of agriculture and ignoring experts caused similarly human-induced famines. A lot of people kinda forgot about Lysenko and his deliberate sidelining of knowledge and experience of farmers and scientists, causing poor harvest and many people starving to death. And I probably don’t need to remind everyone what Mao’s war on sparrows caused on China’s agriculture. Moreover, even after Stalin’s death and Lysenko out of the picture, USSR-- and many Soviet satellite states-- have been on ration for many years. USSR struggled to up the agricultural production in spite of being a vast country with abundant fertile lands.
Those are both issues caused by issues that capitalism is subject to as well! Authoritarianism, stupidity and ignorance… Sadly, any working society must be capable of managing these issues. Statistically speaking, as far as the sources I’ve seen have showed me, capitalism tends to cause more death and suffering than communism. One needs only compare the state of Soviet countires before, after, and during the USSR to see that quite plainly represented.
I’m an anarchist
Imma stop you right there …
If the very word ‘anarchism’ is outaide your comfort zone, then yes I suppose I won’t be able to be very productive for you.
If you do find yourself curious though, I’m always happy to talk politics, and always open to seriously considering and empathizing with other points of view from my own! Even capitalism 😆
If I had a dollar for every time I heard an anarchist cry for the police when things go south I’d have enough to buy a few books on how to avoid anarchy. I’ve seen and read enough. Thank you for offering.
‘How can we convince people to move away from a capitalist society?’
‘by murdering them ofc’
I am convinced that many of them are not into communism, they just want power.
They’re looking for simple answers to complex questions. Capitalism being bad is obvious, but they then make the simple jump to say the opposite of capitalism must be good. Anyone who disagrees is simply subject of “western propaganda” or just racist and they can discard any counter point.
Humanity desperately needs to move away from capitalism, if it wants any chance of survival. Either that or we install a Universal base income system.
were never getting the trek version , which is when they shed capitalism in the future after the 3rd ww(and only use it on a case by case base for many other races that still uses it)
They also had replicator technology… kind of the main ingredient there.
true, also tech from other species that made it possible.
I agree. I am actually becoming more inclined towards socialism sans the totalitarianism. We might have a chance once we start taxing AI and robots. After all, our data are stolen to train AI.
Socialism nor communism are supposed to have any amount of totalitarianism… The people who think they do are ignorant fools listening to the capitalist propaganda.
The countries that call themselves socialist or communist are distinctly NOT in most cases. They’re just the same old asshole ruling class userping the language of socialism/communism to trick dumb people in to maintaining support.
Kind of like how the US calls itself “the land of the free” despite being built on slavery and ethnic cleansing of natives, now with the highest prison population in the world…
If some country is calling themselves something… ALWAYS press X to doubt.
Socialism nor communism are supposed to have any amount of totalitarianism…
Any organisations need some level of authority to maintain order. But if we are talking about totalitarianism which means controlling every aspects of individual lives including who to marry, how many kids to have, how should you plant crops, what to think, what to say etc., then that it is a problem that shouldn’t be tolerated.
Eh… debatable on “authority” being the required attribute. Responsibility is certainly a better word for what an ideal society would look like for many informed anarchists, as far as what many people think of as “authority” now.
Also, “authority” does not have to be something that is given without guard rails or time limits. The authority to arrest and imprison people can exist in a society without full time police, for example. No single person needs to be granted authority as a de facto thing.
I would be much more in favour of anarchism, but I think there needs to be a global wide cultural shift first to happen. Counterparts on the other side of the planet has to be on the same page first before anarchism would take root. But realistically, at the moment, there are far too many diverse expectations and values to allow mutual understanding. Talk to a Somali, Egyptian, Bolivian or Korean about anarchism and you would probably get a confused eyebrow raised on what it means, or even hostile response. I think the lines of communications and technology have to dramatically transform first, to allow organic cultural exchanges and mutual development towards anarchism.
Yea, far, FAR too many morons believe in the “virtues” of a “strong man” leader for actual anarchism to work in current day, sadly…
Y’all both sound like children.
“Going high when they go low” isn’t a sound strategy when someone threatens to kill. This underestimation and softness is what leads to the authoritarianism on either side. Nothing wrong with dipping one’s hand into the mud once in a while without fully bathing one’s self into the mud. Even Slavoj Zizek advocated for having a “soft dictator” like Franklin Roosevelt to counter extremism.
Slavoj Zizek also advocated for voting for Donald Trump in 2016 and says that “transgenderism is incompatible with Freud”, so his advocacy doesn’t count for much AFAIAC.
Wasn’t Freud massively debunked?
Well, Freud was the first to say (or at least the first to popularise) ideas that - in retrospect - should be obvious, like that human behaviour is motivated by unconscious drives, or that past trauma influences your current behaviour. However most of his theories about how the unconscious works were basically unfalsifiable and based on nothing more that his own interpretation of what he’s noticed about his own patients (though to be fair, I think that’s mostly the case for most of psychology). I think a lot of the early psychology of Freud, Adler, and Jung is quite enmeshed with the philosophy of Nietzsche (who said some truly wild about human nature without providing a single source) and remains more popular than it should be for that reason.
I don’t know about his comment on transgenderism, but Slavoj advocating to vote Trump is more about shaking up the liberal status quo to wake them up and actually do a better job, rather than him supporting Trump, and also to do away with Democrat Party’s mantra of “vote blue no matter” and their proud label of “lesser evil”. Come Trump 2.0, his reasoning proved to be prescient and correct. The Democrat leadership are fighting harder to stop the progressive Zohran Mamdani taking power as New York Democrat mayor, than actually stopping the Republican fascist agenda. As we speak, the Democrat betting on the “voting blue no matter who” is starting to crumble from the POV of voters as outsider progressives are slowly gaining ground.
I don’t think his reasoning was prescient and correct, though.
If Trump wins, both big parties, Republicans and Democratics, would have to return to basics, rethink themselves, and maybe some things can happen there. That’s my desperate, very desperate hope, that if Trump wins—listen, America is not a dictatorial state, he will not introduce Fascism—but it will be a kind of big awakening. New political processes will be set in motion, will be triggered.
he will not introduce Fascism
Neither party rethought anything (your point about Mamdani shows just how little the Dems have rethought) and now the US is rounding people up to put them in camps.
And re. the transgenderism/Freud comment, I think it mostly serves to show that he puts way more stock in Freud than he should, because Freudian psychology is largely a load of wank.
(Yes, the use of a sexually based pejorative to disparage Freud was deliberate. Please appreciate my clever joke.)
To be honest, a lot of people including me did not expect Trump to go full fascist. His first term was described as fascist-lite at best and many wrongly thought he will continue with that approach. Of course, we were wrong and paying for it dearly.
Going back to the main point of the discussion. Zizek may have been wrong about Trump’s fascism, but his point overall about shaking up the status quo is correct. It is wake up call for implementing actual reform and reflection. Practically it did not happen in the way that Zizek and others may have anticipated, but it is still clear that the sign of times is meant for engaging practical and reform solutions towards betterment of ordinary folks. If you talk to many conservatives and on the right, many of them actually agree that wealth inequality is a problem and don’t believe in trickle down economics. Many on the right are actually willing to vote left if the left offers tangible solutionsbto bread and butter, or kitchen table issues. As we speak, Zohran Mamdani is getting popular support for his common sense policies. AOC and Bernie Sanders are continually drawing record crowds in their national tour even in Republican states.
This is a sign that what Zizek mentions about shaking things up by electing outsiders to prompt soul searching is working among ordinary voters, even if both Democratic and Republican party elites are not doing so because why would they.
Is it actually prompting any soul searching, though? To be sure, those who were already inclined toward supporting The Squad™ are now getting more vocal about it, but we’re also seeing a huge amount of people actively cheering the government on for rounding people up and putting them into cages and sending people to prison camps without due process. (I can’t find the source, I’m sorry, but) I saw something recently that said well above 60% of USians support government policies that help the poor, but that drops to about 30% if you call the same policies “welfare”. [Edit: found the source here.]
I think Zizek’s qualified support for Trump’s first term was a gamble that the US would then look at the consequences and then resolve to have to grow up and start taking politics more seriously. And I think that gamble was silly, both because of how the US currently is, and because of how often that hasn’t worked in the past 100 years. And that, amongst other reasons, is why I generally take what Zizek has to say with a pinch of salt.
A lot of people not just Zizek recognise that voters want to do away with neoliberalism. Zizek though was hoping that encouraging Trump to take office will make Americans mobilise and be more politically active for grassroots change, which Americans used to be good at. We are kinda seeing it now with No Kings protest and Mamdani getting Democratic primary. But on the one hand, I do admit that Zizek’s European background probably influences his narrative, because much of Europe has proportional representative government and ranked choice voting. He is kinda speaking from a high horse since his country could afford voting for third parties without practical repercussions.
Nonetheless, it doesn’t really matter if America has PR and ranked choice voting, Zizek’s point is to make Americans take more grassroots approach which they used to be good at doing. Over one hundred years ago, third parties do get substantial votes and get into house of representatives to influence the government, because people were more politically active and engaged. Reining in monopolies during the Gilded Age was successful because of people banding together and supporting candidates who support them.
OMG no one cares!
deleted by creator
Screaming out loud that it’s ingroup / outgroup tribalism.
The fact that you aren’t killing tankies and fascists on-sight is why they keep coming back like roaches to threaten vulnerable people, so this is partially your fault for being a impotent pacifist group of pearl-clutchers that only complain online all fucking day.If you have a termite infestation, do you let them stay in your house? Do you bargain or negotiate with them? No, you fumigate them into near genocidal fury of they will eat the insides of your home until it collapses on top of you in your sleep and kill you.Edit: i don’t think pacifism works, but i wont stop you from believing you think impotently waggling your finger at
Republicansconservatives/regressives/racists/religious xenophobes/patriarchy/oligarchs/incels/proudly ignorant people, complaining online in echo chambers, hoping that police will protect you against gun owning fascists, and politely protesting does anything.Are you advocating for murder or is this just deeply unfunny sarcasm?
I’m saying that I’m a moron and you shouldn’t listen to me.
Please delete or edit your comment. No advocating violence
Ok, done.
It’s not a matter of pacifism, it’s a matter of ToS and not appearing to be a hypocrite. We’d appear hypocritical if we criticise their constant calls for murder with our own.
Though, I personally believe that if you boil society down to its base, it’ll reveal itself to be entirely fuelled by violence.
also fuck off with the us defaultism. no one mentioned republicans or the third-world nation of the us.
also fuck off with the us defaultism. no one mentioned republicans or the third-world nation of the us.
Ok fixed.
