Topic: A Brilliand Critique of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Socialism In General (Read 393 times)

Let me spell it out since both of you have problems with reading comprehension and English. I said "I don't just understand the left, I actually took the time to learn the source material, philosophical origins, and goals of all of these movements."

I did not say "I know the unified goal of all of the left", which is the question you are asking me to answer. I don't even believe the left have one unified goal. They do however have one unified result...

Dude what are you even crying about?

you're the one making a global claim saying Socialism is bad.

you're the one we're waiting for.

He is leaving wide open the possibility he will get into a an 8 page diatribe about the vast differences in various forms of leftism, and why all his Postmodernist deconstructivism is just so nuanced I just simply don't get it.

ALL OF THE LEFT? A unified goal? Not a generalization at all. Also not an incredibly dumb loaded question, no, of course not.

I might as well have a debate with an evangelical on my differing opinions of Jesus. Neither of you care about facts, you only care about reassuring your existing bias.

Fact:

You claim you know "the leftist goals"


Yet you refuse to reveal what are those goals:


Hence leaving wide open the possibility (mind you it's just a possibility of course, I'm not saying you could possibly make a mistake dear me) that you don't quite understand the goals of "the left".

Let me know when you have some facts

Damn it! It was Option 1...

Well, better guess next time

Of course it's strange that TECSHARE said both:


And


Which is litteraly: "I have learned the goals of all these movements" and "I can't tell them though".

Could it be... A contradiction?

No. Must be the world that is wrong, couldn't be TECSHARE.

Let's roll the numbers again:

Option 1: "I don't have to justify myself to you leftist cucks"
Option 2: "Look at this moron jumping to help his stupid friend" (cause of course if we share some ideologic points we're friend, that's a well known fact)
Option 3: "You're taking things out of context, it not that I don't know just that it's not the subject and your again using your [chose a logical fallacy] to prevent having to engage a real debate"

I'd go for Option 3 this time! Make your bets!

PS. You broke your quote 

Oh, look who it is, the Frenchineer here to enable his ideologically aligned pal with dumb predictions after a refusal to answer a loaded question. Don't worry buddy I will get back to spanking you later.



Tell me, why do I owe you an explanation of an ideology you clearly don't even understand? So we can go round and round in a meaningless debate about "what leftism is" to you. I already know what you think leftism is, and you are wrong. Me telling you what it really is just to have you pretend you know better is asinine. Furthermore the generalization of the goals of ALL THE LEFT? Could you possibly generalize any more? Not a loaded question at all.

And wait for the denial.

Option 1: "I don't have time to explain your own political goal to you, this is completely out of the subject"
Option 2: "Stop dodging the discussion and actually try to provide some proof of your stupid belief"
Option 3: "And here is against the leftist with their [pick your logical fallacy] again"

I'd bet option 2, but that's just my guess.

Welp. So much for that.

The goal is irrelevant. The results are not. I don't give a shit about your opinions of the fine nuances of different types of leftism. The fact is they all lead to the same results.

What is the goal of all leftist movements? 

So your defense is the left can be genocidal, therefore the non-genocidal left are some how better by default? Um. No. I am not blind to "these facts". You know what is sad is I probably know more about leftist ideology than you do as a supporter. I don't just understand the left, I actually took the time to learn the source material, philosophical origins, and goals of all of these movements. All the so called distinctions you point out are meaningless. They all result in the same downward spiral of economic and social collapse.

Problem is that this TV show is actively destroying and killing whatever it wants whenever it wants.

No one would care so much about US if US wasn't "taking care" of the world so much.

Please, recall your soldiers, close your borders, stop spreading both your culture and your economy by force and I promise you we'll stop bothering you so much.

If that meant you would stay inside, I'm pretty sure most Western countries and people would love to pay for the Wall. For the rest of the world, the problems aren't the illegals, the Russians or the Chinese. The problem is the USA.

https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/
(Map is set here as an illustration, not as a reliable data set.)

Even if your government is simply keeping ours as pet dogs, it doesn't change the fact that the people are seeing US as the greatest threat to the world.

...the US is like a never-ending reality TV show for the rest of the world...

A lot of the people killed by communists were actually on the left.  Wars were fought over the vast differences you call "microscopic".  Your refusal to distinguish leftist ideology along the political axis of authority blinds you to these facts.  Its why I tried to use the political compass as a visual aid to show you these differences.   Lenin himself stated his greatest threat was that from the left.  I will talk about this in another thread because its off-topic.  I have more to say about AOC but will wait to post after her 60 minutes episode airs in a few hours.

That idiot's still babbling nonsense?

Damn. I figured he would have kicked the bucket by now, although his bucket is thimble sized.

Nin Chompsky's still my favorite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_Chimpsky

Oh wow you mean two groups of Socialists have microscopic amounts of disagreement over ideology? What diversity! Inexplicable only to the willfully ignorant. Anyone with any critical thinking skills still intact can clearly see the connection. It would be rather convenient for pro-socialists to just call every one of the past failures of Communism and Socialism unrelated to "true Socialism", but that is not how reality works. In reality these ideologies have been tried over and over again and inevitably degrade into these totalitarian systems you CLAIM have nothing to do with it.

It is like you are running around having unprotected sex with people while you are infected with H.I.V. and people are complaining they don't want to get AIDS, why didn't you tell them? So you respond, hey don't worry, H.I.V. is not the same thing as AIDS, I don't know what all the kicking and screaming is about!

Let me put it this way. If Nazism became acceptable again and neo-nazis were running around saying "oh but true fascism has never been tried! All those other cases were centralized state power fascism! Real fascism is much different!" you wouldn't be buying that horse shit would you? Of course not, because EVEN IF it were true the risk of having a repeat of the situation is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. Now take into account Communists killed FAR MORE countless millions of people in the most horrible ways, more than nazis ever did. Yet some how they were not the real Communists and this time you will get it right. Communism is ideological ebola that steals and crushes EVERYTHING man kind has, from his property, to his body, his mind, and even his soul. It must never be acceptable ever again.


The Hard Truth About Socialism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RNZ2LjpEl4

None of my friends or associates who live in Socialist, Communism or Marxist societies praise their societies. None.

They want the things we have in America.

They do have some criticisms of Western governments and of our cultures.

The problem with socialist policies is that they appear to be positive to the individual, who rarely considers the effects beyond that point. Good politics =/= good policies.
At times, it's also a matter of culture that dictates the willingness to benefit the country despite free subsidies.

The video is pretty sound but it is about two different things.  It is a very valid argument to suggest DSA are unclear and perhaps many of them are in favor of social democracy rather than democratic socialism.  The differences between the two systems are probably small enough that they can coexist within the context of current american politics.  Slightly different means to the same end.  Scandinavian social democracies achieve worker leverage through powerful unions.  Although workers are not in control (socialism), they have a powerful collective voice which, democratically, provides them with a place at the bargaining table with capitalists.    

At around 8:30 the video makes a inexplicable pivot away from critic of anything put forward by DSA and focuses on the failures of central planning and authoritarian rule for the rest of the video.  

From around 8:30-9:30, the video even explains how Chomsky, "Why not socialism", and the published DSA platform have all rejected these principals (central planning and authoritarian rule) as failure.

So once again, why all the kicking and screaming against something no one wants?

Well the answer to that question can be found at 9:30 when a series of tweets are misrepresented.  The author interprets a 3 word statement "communism is good" as some sort of proof that DSA is covertly endorsing the thing things everyone hates (central planning an authoritarian rule).  This gives the narrator an excuse to spend the next 5 minutes destroying the straw man by explaining how central planning and authoritarian rule are bad.  It really seems like critics of socialism have no other way to critic the ideology.