Coming back to this debate after a couple of years and looked up to this guy’s channel. To nobody’s surprise, his most recent upload is “Caleb Maupin is innocent”.
@@saharasara542 Well I can't imagine a guy who said "I'd probably be DETHRONED" was genuinely leftist. This is one of the wildest discussions I've ever seen.
"Why would you do this?" A part of me feels a deep pain when Vaush feels disappointment or betrayal from the person he is talking to. Seems to break his heart tbh.
It's idolatry. Maybe something can be learned from these people, but the most important thing to learn is that they're human and may have been as wrong and ugly as the rest of us.
@Nuclear Confusion Nah, people who memorize quotes to ""prove"" they read are the actual brainlets. At the end of the day, if you are proposing an idea and you can't defend it with anything more than "Marx believed in this too", most normal people won't care for your opinion.
Back in the day when i made the mistake of using twitter, every time a tankie got mad at me they’d start taking like an anime villain for some reason. “Truly, a foolish and undialectical take...but perhaps its not a surprise, coming from a western radlib! Ha-Ha! Color me surprised! Of course, it is quite a tragedy so many ‘leftists’ _REFUSE_ to read Lenin, but perhaps the proletariat is better off without them...” Shit was tight
WilfordBrimley The music playing in the background also needs to be something classical, strings and/piano or organ, preferably with a choir. The music reaching it's peak as they adjust their glasses with a smirk.
Marx, when replying to the question "will everyone be members of the government": "Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune" This """Marxist's""" reply: "Nah dude, the proles are too dumb to be active in decision making." Lenin: Every cook should learn how to govern. This """Leninist""": Just let daddy Stalin worry about the big problems for you. Hold on, I have to attend my daily bootlicking session.
@@Morfo182 That quote is so far removed from its context it's meaningless. Lenin insisted on policies that brought trade unions into management in order to educate them for the eventual removal of the need for bureaucracy. When they instituted the Supreme Economic Council, 30 out of 69 (nice) was directly handpicked by trade unions, the council was overseen by oversight committees handpicked by, and made up of, trade union members, as well as trade unions overseeing economic output and organisation on the ground level along with regional economic organisations. This stands in stark contrast with what this person is proposing, based on his claim "would you let an average worker govern or an expert?", this comment presupposes that an average worker doesn't have the capacity to govern and we shouldn't work to this end, which directly contradicts Marx and Lenin's willingness to bring workers into management of state and economic affairs with the goal of complete self-governance. He also supports Stalin, who reversed the policies of economic control instituted during the Lenin period. You can't support Stalin while calling yourself a Marxist or a Leninist, which makes it frustrating that Stalinists insist on being called Marxist-Leninists.
@@Morfo182 You seem to be arguing that we need to transition to "self-governance". What you fail to understand is that self-governance **is** the transition. Lenin says in *The State and Revolution* that the suppression of the majority for the minority takes a complex, brutal state machine, while the suppression of the minority for the majority (dictatorship of the proletariat) would need a simple machine, one where, instead of a standing army, we'd have a self-motivated army, much like the Paris Commune. Marx says in *The Civil War in France* that with the commune "there is nothing socialist about them except their tendency", ie, the communal form of governance **isn't** socialism, but a transition to it. The transitional state, for Marx as well as Lenin, has self-governance, a "voluntary centralism" (as Lenin called it) where the only bureaucrats are elected and recallable at any time, for the eventual goal of whithering the need for such bureaucrats. Don't trust everything FinBol tells you. Try reading Marx and Lenin for yourself.
Started going down hill when the caller made that Napoleon comment around the 47:00 minute mark. Are these types actually considered to be leftists? cause after the Napoleon thing that caller started making some appalling talking points. Both my eyebrows raised at the talking points involving proletariats and peasants made by this, not sorry but fucking clown what the hell was guy on after.
@@cmoney25801 Well, he denied a that USSR was a hell run by paranoid Satan but also said that he is not fan of Stalin thus he is not stalinist technically🤔
@@indigofrog1337 damn, with the 20 million killed logic, Trump and biden combined to kill 600k Americans. Kinda hard to use "20 million" killed as a realistic argument especially when using very suspicious and seemingly over exaggerated numbers, which seem to range anywhere from 3 million to 40+ million. The wide range of suspicious numbers aside, counting famine deaths, or likewise covid deaths, as intentional killings in the same vain as political killings, which still do seem very high under Stalin, with estimates being somewhere over 100k, is pretty misleading.
Matt The USSR directly opposing Anarchist Catalonia & the Catalonia Communists fighting on the ground against the Anarchists, that allowed the Fascist Nationalists to get some major victories, is not well understood among State Communist proponents. In other words, they just don’t talk about that.
What do you make of the critique that if an anarchist state cant sustain itself from outside threats then it is a failure? Vaush sorta touched on it but I cant reach him and I just want to know.
@@julymagnus493 Also I have not personally heard a good argument from an anarchists about how to sustain complex systems for the betterment of the people without hierarchies or regulation. Eg. Producing Chemotherapy drugs or waste water treatment.
“We are not above them, we are them.” If the person arguing against Vaush could just recognize that simple fact it would clearly change the entire way they approach societal management. Seriously impactful statement.
This actually started off okay and got progressively more and more deranged as the mask slipped. "Lunatic tankie" is being too generous since by the end he basically outed himself as a nazbol.
He was a lunatic the entire time, tbh. Literally ignoring the actual goals of socialism in favor of fancy terms that a bunch of dead people used over 150 years ago in a completely different context from us.
@@Soleilune1995 Maybe the reason why we look at what Marx and Lenin said what socialism is do to the fact most historians use the marxist definition of socialism? Just sayin'
@@genityishere6968 And that's a real problem, because it means true socialism will never actually be achieved. We'll just keep getting inefficient dictatorships over and over again, because no one ever dared to question the usefulness of the strategy. And they will keep failing, because socialists don't want to be critical of "socialism" for some reason. Improvements have to made. Doing the same thing again and again, and failing every time, is insanity. Marxist-Leninists have ruined socialism.
"I might have shit clothes, shit food, shit medical care, shit housing and I might have no freedom of speech whatsoever cause who knows if my neighbor or co-worker will rat me out to NKVD, but damnit at least I am not living in a CAPITALIST country." Basically this guy.
When your understanding of "peasant" is 4chan 1337 talk and don't understand the historical functional differences between peasants and other proletariat, you say stupid shit like Ian.
>Citing Grover Furr Whew lad Edit: Ok so I can't seem to make any more replies in this thread for some reason, every comment I make doesn't get posted so I'm gonna copy and paste my comment as an edit on this one as a last resort: >Yeah that's not an argument. If you want to actually point out something said in the document and explain why it's wrong, go ahead. But going "grover furr therefore wrong" is a cope. Or maybe I'm not trying to engage in an argument lmao, these are youtube comments not the fucking house of lords. Though I'm curious, do you have this sort of attitude to every other crackpot, debunked, conspiracy-theorist "professor" regarding any topic, or is it just towards the ones who you dogmatically worship? Like, if someone said "lol imagine citing Richard Lynn" do you then go "Hmm well actually that is not an argument, if you want to point out how the data about Sub-Saharan Africans having an IQ lower than 70 is wrong then go right ahead, but going "Richard Lynn therefore wrong" is a cope".
This sums up my problem with the left. It took me so long to actually switch to leftism because there are so many tankies and weirdos that argue entirely based on vocabulary and semantics rather than substance. “Communism didn’t fail because the USSR had no capitalists.” Okay, but a small class of people maintained ownership over the means of production. “Okay but that’s not capitalism so it’s perfect.” Like this guy doesn’t understand that you can argue about definitions, but why the fuck would you argue about that over results?
Because how would we be able to meaningfully talk about something as important as the history of the USSR if we refuse to define the basic terms of such a discussion? What would you get out of it, other than „muh USSR bad“ or „muh USSR glorious“?
We would talk about the well-being and standard of living of the citizens, which in the USSR were objectively horrible, rather than faff on with definitions
Finn Gardiner But this is just not true. Apart from the famine in the 30s and then WWII the well-being and the standard of living were not bad. Most people on earth had it worse.
@@johnsinclair4621 Yeah and the whole argument is that almost every other country went through industrialization where living standards increased without needing to be like the USSR. The problem is that this guy seems to only have a problem with capitalism and not it's key property; an authoritarian workplace.
@@Zimx02 , your post history makes your bias clear, and that's fine; fight for your beliefs. However, you need to pick your battles wisely, because the dipshit in this call is a great way to even make those on the left flirt with the idea of moving right.
After consuming wayy to many debates on youtube I've reached the verdict that a person loses a debate as soon as they neglect the necessity of semantics. Saying "that word doesn't mean what I need it to mean" means your position is founded on a weltanschauung that is not coherent with reality.
@@DemothHymside Almost entirely untrue, the random guy was far better versed in leftist thought I mean Vaush makes the unironic take that the peasants were the proletariat, showing a lack of understanding of not just theory, but the class divide, atomization, and unionization.
@Midnaitz The... transition? What transition? Are we just waiting for states like China to up and decide that they've been authoritarian for long enough, their work is done, bye-bye? It could literally only happen if the state were run entirely by people who live and die with zero attachment to power and status.
@@mioszs1830 Oh? And yet you haven't refuted anything with either theory or facts, so no, you have no idea what you're talking about. Put up or shut up, because vanguardism has actively failed every single time. The formation of an elite ruling class has always led to tyranny. Authoritarian communist states have never once "transitioned out" of class hierarchy, because they are inevitably led by people who live and die by self-interest.
10 minutes in: "the title seems a bit too harsh on him, i disagree but i wouldn't call him a lunatic." 1 hour and one stalin defense later: "nah lunatic is accurate"
Oh god I hate debating tankies “you’re the real authoritarian” “Well, actually the people that believes your way did bad things sooo, I’m absolved of my Stalin worship”
WOW. I'm kind of new to leftist theory, and I have never heard an authoritarian left argument happening real time. Im so used to alt right talking points, im used to the outright bigotry but jesus christ the remix hit me harder than I thought it would. This shit is absolutely insane.
Max12321 oh well last time I watched Animal Farm was in high school, which is like a shitload of time ago for me. The quote was close enough. I don’t really care though what u think I sound like.
@@maximusstirnimus5210 "When you quote one of the greatest socialist works in English literature you sound like a lib" Wow, okay, that's a bad take friend
1:10:43 best part. ive been watching Vaush for a while to gain more of a more socialist perspective, theres a lot i disagree on with Vaush, but there are definitely things i do agree with and this moment right here has given me massive amounts of respect for the guy. personally, im not that socialist, but i respect Vaush for what he is trying to do. im grateful for people like him.
"I don't like Stalin, I just think we should acknowledge the things he helped the USSR accomplish." "But also, Trotsky was a trader who kept criticizing Stalin after he stole power and chased him out of the USSR, so he kind of had it coming." Yeah, totally not a Stalinist...
It’s not that totalitarianism is completely an empty word, but when in a discussion it’s important to define words. The word dictatorial itself would actually be categorically incorrect, the central committee voted Stalin down repeatedly
@@leftismtoday6072 Totalitarianism is a term in political science specifically adjusted to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. It makes completely sense to differentiate between authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships. In my opinion the only problematic aspect is that people sometimes believe the ideologies behind the totalitarian system (USSR and Nazi Germany) are equally bad, which is not true.
totalitarianism is a ideological construct of the Cold War, which should defame socialist countries. it is supposed to equate them with the nazi-regime. The concept of totalitarianism does not capture the goals and motivation of political systems and only focuses on the external forms of oppression and persecution of groups.
@@jan_malte Can't you just accept that both states were totalitarian dictatorships, with the same core tendencies, but different ideologies and motivation? Just to be clear: this is not about whether or not the Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship. Because it fulfills every characteristic political scientists adscribe to totalitarianism. This is about semantics. Comparing 2 regimes is not setting them equal. I don't think socialism as an ideology is even comparable to national socialism, but the two states operated in a very similar fashion. I'm so certain that you guys are apologetics who don't care about proper terminology and just want the people to not call the USSR totalitarian.
@@xXWorldgamefunXx what is your goal here? i think you just want to write off previous attempts at implementing socialism, so you can fail at trying again and again. i think the ussr and other attempts were meaningful and we should criticized them, so we can learn to do better in the future. calling them authoritarian or totalitarian is destracting and needlessly contrarian
@@TheTheThe_ The one on praxis? I think it is fine, but I think that a follower does not need to read theory, but a theorist does. He made a video on the USSR being socialist.
I think a lot of the problem with this guy's arguments in the beginning was that he couldn't see that an-syns don't think their ideology is the end of history like liberals do today
It’s very infantile (no memes intended) to stonewall because I have different viewpoints than someone else, but unfortunately it seems common among debates with big E Celebs
@@leftismtoday6072 Nobody had a problem with you until you started defending genocidal freaks my dude, you can be an ML all you want but people are GONNA have a problem when you go full-tankie. "I wish people would just hear my ideas out" is the same thing N@zis say, I don't see how you don't understand the similarities. You have pretty good vids though, I actually did check a few out. Just keep away from the whole "kulaks deserved it" "Stalin did nothing wrong" stuff and people will be a lot more charitable and nice to you.
I am from Russia and I im really disappointed. I thought tanckies were some deranged lunatics, but no, they just must have talked to my grand dad too much.
Man, this guy going on about "Stalin industrialized real fast n good" is missing the point of the entire exercise of socialism, as Stalin bought the machinery with western russian and (surprise) UKRAINIAN GRAIN. One harvest fails and "oopsie, lmao people go hungee" with no attempt made to rectify it meaningfully.
Yeah, because implementing "real socialism" would just magically make food appear out of nowhere and bad weather patterns go missing. It was industrialization that ultimately put an end to famines in Russia.
@@euso2008 not disputing that, what I am disputing is this idea of the rapid Soviet industrialization being some magical achievement of papa Joe's infinite paternal knowledge.
@@pladderisawesome If your point is that fanboyism of political leaders isn't constructive, I agree with that. I also oppose the idea that Stalin was leading the country all alone. Accomplishments under his rule weren't a result of 'just' him, as well as his failures.
Parsifal parsi fal didn’t listen to much because I’ve heard him talk plenty. I’d say he’s outspoken and stubborn but has done some good things for our community.
He was referring to maximize profits and ensure longevity of the co-op, which would lead to these problems. This is why I prefer decentralized planning.
Not even a tankie but I am out here shilling for LT. Everyone should try to understand the basics of why Stalin did what he did before completely dismissing Marxism-Leninism. Read Blackshirts and Reds by Parenti.
@Stale Bagelz How is that a meaningful difference in a market? It sucks for us so we won't do that, so the coop will not survive in the market, which also sucks for us.
Are we really pretending that socialism hasn’t progressed as an ideology since Marx? I understand he’s the father but to dismiss modern socialist ideals is foolish
Tankies still import the concept of "lumpen proletariat" from an era in which illiteracy was widespread within the class called to lead the revolution. Vaush is absolutely right in seeing the use of that concept nowadays as an authoritarian tendency
@@do_care919 I would argue political literacy is just as bad in america today as under tsarist russia, so it's not without merit to talk in that manner
@@do_care919 because from a political perspective, not being able to read, and refusing to read, are functionally the same, and you get the same kind of people. Very religious, adverse to change, very patriotic, ect
I don't think he's casting any aspersions on baristas, any more than he is people who work on oil rigs. His point is that nobody is innately better than anyone else.
I'm only 20 minutes in, but so far I'm learning more about the soviet union, central planning and non centrally planned anti-capitalist projects than anything else has ever taught me
@Siuz If Vaush was somehow opposed to people learning about these things, you'd really think he would have... done anything. He literally just let him lay things out.
Well i’m glad friend. That’s why I came on. You can watch channels like Hakim, Endymion, and DemocraticSocialist01 if you wish to learn more about those topics. It’s definitely worth it.
Kamden Kenerly I mean he did just yell and talk over him it’s funny because Vaush was the one who kept changing subjects forcing this convo to become about defending the USSR/Stalin.
@Tomislav Puklin Well yes, of course! The problem is that tankies do shit like denying the Holodomor instead of just pontificating about how the free housing ensured people weren’t homeless and that city planning made travel convenient and cars not absolutely necessary
@Tomislav Puklin That's also true, there's a very LARPy aspect to it, it's like online tankies and fascists are somehow still in the 1930s/40s ideological war
@Tomislav Puklin That dude was literally defending Stalin, and Stalin was bad indeed. And what do you mean with "the social norm that USSR bad"? It was a a bad country, period. That´s like a Neo-Nazi complaining about the social norm that "Holocaust bad". Just because you can learn from the USSR doesn´t mean you have to glorify it, which this guy did. If this guy was a neo-nazi defending Hitler, would you also be like "well actually, it´s more useful to study and contemplate why Hitler and the Nazi party did what they did rather than saying "Hitler bad"?
@@qaiser648 but there was no Holodomor (deliberate man-made famine)? Even right wing historians like Stephen Kotkin acknowledge that it wasn't a deliberate famine. Wheatcroft and Tauger have discussed at length the primacy of the weather conditions in 1932 that caused the famine.
Dismantle all hierarchy that cannot justify itself. Question all authority. True freedom and true egality must strive to have neither master overhead nor servant below.
@@roywiseman How it is powering up the state powers when the idea is powering up unions? It won't be state growing, it will be, actually, unions getting political power (and as a result, growing democracy) compared to current corporations leaders having power, negotiating with the government. All government needs to do is not prevent unions from forming and subsidize them with privileges to counteract the prejudice towards them in the business and banking sphere at the beginning of this system formation. How does that give any power to the government? It's not the state seizing means of production, it's state giving more and more opportunity for people to seize means of production.
@@roywiseman "Because in 100% of situations where this is tried, what happens is that" All the places where socialism happened it was a revolution, violent revolution. The result of that is overthrowing the power from one leader to another. And they need to give their power up for the people and refuse it. What I am talking about incremental empowerment of the people without proletariat elites seizing government. "you are talking about the IMPOSITION of control by Socialist governments to enforce this, right?" Nah, I am talking about creating a good environment for forming unions, giving them the power to dictate the rights of the worker to a certain extent, that their rights are being respected, and there are good opportunities for workers to buy out business from their owners, especially if they go bankrupt. "So, it IS the state seizing the means of production, by the imposition of insanely massive seizure of power from the owners of companies and supposedly redistribution to the worker" Not allowing to overwork, underpay, don't allow the massive firing of people, especially during crisis days like these, isn't the "insanely massive seizure of power". "you have all the ability to do this now." Many corporations fire people for making unions (like Amazon), banks have prejudice towards collectively owned business, corporations don't experience any repercussions for oppressing unionization. There is a bunch of reasons why "You can make unions today" isn't so nice and easy and the government needs to help make a playing field even for unions to start up.
@George Sand "No longer are we faced with Marx's famous choice of socialism or barbarism; we are confronted with the more drastic alternatives of anarchism or annihilation." I think we should focus our efforts towards converting the working class, including soldiers, police, and others who work for the state. We should convince them of how their material needs can be greatly improved by leftwing policies. As our movement grows we must organize the workforce along the lines of unions, while simultaneously running leftists for political office on the local and state level, and also helping the poor and disenfranchised in our communities via leftist groups. That's just the first step though, getting us into a position of real power and influence.
@@roywiseman >Vaush and all frothing at the mouth Socialist/Communist nutbags say: they WANT a violent revolution IIRC Vaush doesn't want a violent revolution, but he thinks that it is possible, that some changes won't be possible without revolution. I am up for trying as hard as it possible going through incremental change policies and then figuring out what to do next. >so, unions are FORCED on Amazon, and according to you, the means to production is SEIZED from Jeff Bezos and given to the workers No, not letting workers form unions will be prosecuted, just like companies are prosecuted regards to protected class rights violations. And I am not advocating for seizing means for production, at least not before previous steps were met and showing promises that this type of collectivized business can be successful in a large mass, not as exceptions as of right now for reasons I gave. The power of unions, that I am talking about, is more about making sure that workers have their rights not violated, not influencing CEO to follow different business decisions outside of things, that won't be directly related to workers. >As long as horrific nutjobs like Bernie Sanders and AOC are on the rise, the US will reject your left-wing violent revolution fascism Which policies, do you think, are fascists that they try to push? Not really trying to check your facts, I am just not that much familiar with them, since I am not living from the USA, the only thing about Bernie that I know that he is pro medicare for all without private insurance available. And AOC doing some stuff against the prosecution of migrants. >It's all trans-activism and fascist-like Feminists and raving lunatic Social Justice. What's wrong with trans-activism? And I agree, there is a decently big group feminists, especially on the liberal side with hardcore engrained second-wave feminists ideals, or terf degenerates, are fucked up. > I think it'll take the Left in the US maybe 16 years to recover from this madness Isn't Bernie campaign actually proving, that support of the left today in the USA is the highest in the history of the country?
Just the sheer number of times this guy says “peasant” tells you pretty much all you need to know here. Who even uses that word anymore? Why are we talking about peasants? We’re trying to move beyond even having a peasantry, right?
the only time it's relevant to use the word "peasant" is in a historical context, esp wrt urbanite "communists" who excluded rural areas and their populations from the definition of "proletariat" & how they literally stunted their own revolutions by turning the rural workers against them
Vaush, good job on going hard on this guy once he revealed his power level. We don't want these people in our club, and I'm glad you made that very clear.
Kazuhira Miller Vaush himself advocates for market socialism and liberal values? That’s what OP was referring to when he mentioned ‘our club’? Are you a tankie?
@@BruceLe3 I'm a Marxist. Not a "tankie". I support actually existing socialism which goes through the abolishing of commodity form, thus, markets. Vaush is a liberal. Socialism doesn't have commodity form and free markets, and can never have it. No matter how many times he whines "idc what old dead guys wrote 200 years ago" he doesnt understand that they wrote that for a reason. Through their own analysis. Vaush's analysis is sitting on his 400 pound ass all day, playing video games and disrespecting every single person asking him to educate himself.
@@kazuhiramiller7491 When all you do is throw insults at Vaush and misuse terms like "liberal" to mean "people I disagree with"... M-L is not synonymous with tankie, but my dude, that is some tankie-ass talk.
the guy isnt explaining the vanguard party well. its not that workers are too illiterate to rule themselves. The vanguard party organizes the EDUCATION and training of everyone so that they meaningfully participate in the revolution. But he's not wrong that the revolution does initially need leadership. EDIT: wow he goes full Tankie
To my understanding, the vangaurd still demands complete discipline of divided groups in order to form an "iron willed" force of revolution. The education part happens in the beginning, only to be absorbed into the party. I wouldn't define as leadership as more just chain of command. And as anarchist, I don't support that.
Also any vanguard is going to attract opportunists who view it as a means to attain greater power and influence also violent revolution tends to lead to a fragmented dis unified nation in which the opposition peaceful or not is usually violently suppressed. Also the vanguard represents the interests of the vanguard not the influences of the people.
Political consciousness cannot be brought to the workers from inside the sphere of economic relations. The role of the Vanguard Party is to act as the social brain of the proletarian moment. Read "What is to be done?" or watch my video titled "The Revolutionary Party According to Lenin"
@@spectreamericana1221 Any political philosophy which devolves into an oppressive authoritarian state in most cases when it is implemented is a failure. By social brain you mean enforce the will of a certain group of elite intellectuals.
You can tell the challenges Vaush has is his focus on what he would like to see happen next which is more achievable vs what his ideal society would look like. It's a tough balance which can lead to inconsistent conversations.
That's because he's a utopian socialist. He doesn't understand materialism and has more of an idealistic viewpoint, as a lot of the middle-class suffers from. He made this very obvious with his statement on how people seem to care about, "social issues," more and only use economics as an extension of that. It's an entirely idealistic mindset one can only attain through the luxury his class station provides.
@@anaccount5194 He's actually being pragmatic when he focuses on what he believes to be achievable in the present. His understanding of materialism in society is why his stance on what we should do next is free market worker co-ops. If he didn't have any idea of materialism then he would simply speak on behalf of what he sees as the end game. It's the lack of talking about his broader world view and it coming up in bits and pieces is what's making conversations inconsistent and has nothing to do with the luxury of his class status.
Tankie: talks about abolishing the commodity-form , the law of value Also Tankie: apologizes for Stalin, mastermind of the anti-Marxist credo, “socialist commodity production”
I'm only halfway through this but is there a point where this guy actually starts acting like a "lunatic"? Or even a point where Vaush starts treating him like one? Cause so far this has been pretty civil. I'm gonna guess the title is just irony for the sake of click bait. But I'll continue on and see if things liven up. EDIT: Ahhh... there's the lunacy.
I think that socialists should repress the political agency of anti-socialists because they would vote for anti-socialist politicians. Please change my mind.
@@commissarcardsharp marxism.halkcephesi.net/trotskyism/trotskyizm%20revisited.htm There's also the video of Trotsky walking freely in Italy under Mussolini, which is kinda suspicious.
Love that this guy genuinely sounds like some kinda disney villain at points. You can actually see Vaush's soul die as this debate goes off a fucking cliff.
"You say X about the Soviet union, but Marx said..." Marx died 40 years before the formation of the Soviet union. Nothing that Marx said has anything to do with what the Soviet union literally was.
Well, I call myself a Marxist. I generally will follow the theories of Marx unless they are proven wrong. Marx gave a categorical, historical and scientific classification in how societies function, and whether they follow a capitalist or communist mode of production. That’s all i’m repeating jere
@@leftismtoday6072 Please just delete your channel. I have to defend socialism all the time and you are objectively hurting our cause. You think Stalin was good because he used slave labor to industrialize the USSR? Fuck you
Ya, for right-wingers that go absolutely nuts over Soviet Russia - I've seriously heard people say Stalin murdered "hundreds of millions of their own people", something that wasn't even possible to do by the numbers - the obvious question is "So Tsarist Russia was better?" The main difference between Stalin and the Tsars was that the industrial revolution was a force multiplier in allowing Uncle Joe's paranoia to be as murderous as he wanted as populations around the world were baby-booming to - essentially - replace all those killed by WW1 and 2. The same for Hitler, though Nazi Germany rose under different circumstances. I mean, are we to believe a Rasputin-led Russia would have been any less blood-soaked if he'd had the same tools at his disposal?
The example of the Cybersyn project is very dishonest. The project involve the workers of the nationalized factories by giving them more power in the production process, Allende wanted to use the technology to interconnect the workers and the citizens in the democracy and daily management of policies and the conomy (think of an early E-democracy). The USSR centralized the economy on an economic board that took every decision, the citizen have very little to no participation in production management because of the one man model, etc. I still have my doubts about how this project could have help the worker in his road to socialism, but can’t determined it because it was destroy by Pinochet and a great part of the research was reduce to ashes. Even though saying it was like the Soviet Union is very far fetch and dishonest.
I dont always agree with or like Vaush but his very strong anti tankie views and politics make me not really care. I appreciate that side of him immensely, as it's something handwoven away by a majority of other leftists. He seems to be one of the only ones who recognizes tankies as the threat that they are
This is what got me to finally start following him, especially after how the broader left had some really BS takes on Russia and Ukraine and started parroting some tankie stuff. Some of them have gotten better but Vaush has consistently recognized what is at stake, the threat Russia poses, etc and through watching these older vids it's not just consistent through the last couple yrs but since at least 2019/longer. The left needs to recognize that the fashies are a threat to us getting normies/moderates to recognize the danger of the extreme right and tankies are a threat to us self cannibalizing and purity testing our way into oblivion. Vaush and his audience have helped restore my morale and faith in lefties!
I think it is important to realize that liberalism went through the same kind of heavy fisted policies. Look up the purges in the terror and the Napoleon. Napoleon helped end feudalism. They didn’t intend on side lining the workers councils. War and the need for industrialization commanded heavy handed policies.
@@rosaconnolly3485 I'm skeptical that liberalism would have succeeded that much without the American Revolution. Cromwell was a failure. Robespierre was a failure. The July revolution of 1830 in France instituted a king. The 1948 Spring of Nations was mostly a failure, except perhaps in France, which created a short-lived 4 year old republic that got coup'd. It wasn't until 1971 that a proper long-lasting republic cropped up in France - and even then as an alternative to a communist coup, the Paris Commune. And yet the Dreyfus affair was basically the birth of proto-fascism in Europe. The most humane example of liberalism in Europe is probably Great Britain, and even now it's a constitutional monarchy.
The first 45 minutes of this debate felt pointless. It's just alternating between a clash of definitions, and then the fundamental clash of theory vs consequentialism without proper engagement because the debate barely ever moved to actual policy or theory points rather than "but Marx said X is defined as Y". Neither side was properly represented - Vaush made a lot of factual assertions about the USSR and LT just did not bother to contest any of them. Can't really say Vaush "wins" if the points weren't actually challenged. Without citations or any actual challenges to his arguments I have no clue whether Vaush's points are defensible simply from this debate and viewers come away from it knowing basically nothing new and their views unchanged. Getting wrapped up in theory works for LeftComs because they obsessively read that theory and know it well even if they're usually insufferably smug about it, and they can weaponize theory far more effectively than this. LT really be pretending that he wasn't trying to get a rise out of Vaush in the last 18 minutes by arguing in bad faith and transparently misconstruing what Vaush was saying. My stream of consciousness in Discord when watching it on LT's channel after a tankie sent me a link: ---------------------- 10 minutes in and the formalities and definitions sounds pretty decent from both sides so far LT really be exhaling into the mic though 13 minutes in there's a clear clash of theory vs consequentialism 20 minutes in, the only contentious thing is Vaush saying Marx was not a statist Someone complained about that in the video comments Marx's ideal society was a communist society it's easy to use that to say he wasn't a statist even though he supported the use of a transitory state, he saw it as still imperfect (though better than capitalism ofc) I think it's due to the distorted definitions of statist among leftist infighting that makes it contentious Vaush could've probably elaborated a bit more on that 20:00 - 30:00 is kind of underwhelming LT doesn't really seem to address factual concerns over the USSR as hard as I'd expect from a USSR-positive leftist Vaush is stating things about the USSR that I expected LT to leap at and demolish the propaganda or whatever not really happening So Vaush's factual assertions are left unchallenged and unconfirmed 32:20, Vaush claims the US has had bad presidents but nothing close to Stalin when the US did have Andrew Jackson, who openly pushed for and supported genocides of Native Americans and killed a fair few of his opposition in duels that's not quite there but doesn't really justify "nothing close" Unchallenged by LT, though it's a minor point so not a big deal 33:00 - 35:00 really exemplifies the fundamental clash between LT and Vaush's outlook So far it's been disappointing It's only been Theorist vs Consequentialist dressed up in proxy issues The engagement is minimal because LT is relying too heavily on Marx and theory in trying to respond to a point that is explicitly consequentialist Basically just butting heads 36:18 is fucking stupid LT: "sO yOu'Re aGaiNsT taXeS?" ancap-tier response 37:00 - 39:30 Vaush's central point here is that while the USSR was not capitalist under strict Marxist definitions, societal power relations did not substantially change apart from being facilitated by state apparatus rather than through purely capital/market apparatus. LT's response is extremely lacklustre, using definitions strictly so that "capitalism = bad" and "non-capitalism = good", which doesn't respond to Vaush's point. 40:00 - 46:00 nothing really of interest, both kinda just talking at each other about theory some insightful points about the need to prioritize pursuit of goals rather than perfect adherence to theory 46:00 - 50:00 discussion on vanguardism, LT's responses are again underwhelming again by missing the central point of Vaush's arguments, especially on CNTFIA and the Black Army, doing a transparently stupid "no u" at 49:30 - 49:40. LT is not properly expressing their ideas in sufficient detail or precision to properly challenge Vaush's points and that doesn't necessarily mean Vaush is right 53:25 I am fucking blown away the monumental "wtf" of this take from LT on unjust hiearchies says that the subjectivity of "unjust" is "authoritarian" that is plainly not what authoritarianism is regardless, that doesn't serve LT's argument all in all, at the 1:00:00 mark and LT has been for the most part unpersuasive apart from the comment on peasants at 59:00-1:00:00 and some other times I think the Marxist-Leninist side is not properly represented here and where LT might be demonstrably right it is constrained by the need for reference to a third-party source due to complexity and time constraints, and even considering that there is no guidance for viewers to go and find texts on the subject 1:00:00 - 1:02:30 comment on the argued distinction of peasantry and proletariat is interesting 1:05:00 i see the debate falling apart alright there's probably nothing to be gained from watching the last 12 minutes Vaush is getting incredulous and LT is being dismissive [the tankie friend tells me Vaush used autism in an ableist way] from what I've seen Vaush is also on the spectrum only just caught that empty criticism for this specific use of it especially since it was being said in the context of "I am autistic so I am having trouble parsing your statement" LT is clearly making bad faith jabs to get a rise out of Vaush in the last 10 minutes first 60 minutes was a disaster because the engagement was shit last 15 minutes are shit because Vaush gets mad and LT stops taking it seriously
There is a significant difference, in fact. Peasants only tribute a portion of their labor to the owner of the land they work and subsist on the remainder, like feudal serfs. Proletarians have to depend on the wage from selling their labor in order to obtain the necessities of survival at all.
danman1950 I have never seen a truer statement than this one, in a time and place where any kind of leftist is passionately hated, it becomes even more depressing that leftists in this platform hardly get to unite. As leftist, why honestly give a shit about our superficial differences? We just need to agree on a common goal in abolishing corruption, exploitation, and imperialism. But when there are already sharp differences in morality, it does become a problem. Especially with bad faith tankies who fetishise the USSR.
I guess us leftists just need to have a common goal and work together, regardless of our differences, but we need to get the tankies and wokescolds out of our movement as they’re bound to ruin it
@@RevOptimism I think both fetishising USSR and outright hating it for everything are equally bad. It is just unnacceptable to say anything about USSR except bad things in USA cause otherwise people feel like betrayal or embarrasment due to absolute brainwashing of americans during the cold war. Leftists in USA are just afraid of losing support simple americans who believe USSR was hell on earth that's why they try to distance themselves from it.
"Are you describing horseshoe theory right now?" "That would only be the case if you were an actual leftist my friend." DAMN Vaush bringing the heat with that one
Vaush, peasants and the proletariat were different classes. The proletariat are wage laborers, whereas the peasantry consisted of serfs. Marx offers the following distinction: “The serf sells only a portion of his labour-power. It is not he who receives wages from the owner of the land; it is rather the owner of the land who receives a tribute from him. The serf belongs to the soil, and to the lord of the soil he brings its fruit. The free labourer, on the other hand, sells his very self, and that by fractions. He auctions off eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his life, one day like the next, to the highest bidder, to the owner of raw materials, tools, and the means of life - i.e., to the capitalist. The labourer belongs neither to an owner nor to the soil, but eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his daily life belong to whomsoever buys them. The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his labour-power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class, unless he gives up his own existence. He does not belong to this or that capitalist, but to the capitalist class; and it is for him to find his man - i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class." Edit: So the peasantry isn't comprised solely by serfs, but consists generally of people who work on property owned by lords or landlords and get to keep a portion of their yield, which they subsist off of. This differs from the proletariat, which engage in wage labor.
This is a distinction without a difference they still exist as an exploited class who require similar means of liberation. Their interests probably aren’t that much different
@@wiggy009 except there is a difference in their relationship to production. You're taking on a very reductionist view. Yes, both groups are exploited, but the ways in which they are exploited, and how to remedy their exploitation, are not necessarily the same. The difference, therefore, matters.
Mattjmjmjm the fact that serfs hardly exist anywhere if at all in the modern world illustrates how irrelevant much of this shit is. Left communists can have a field day jerking themselves off with obscure theory knowledge while Vaush tries to be pragmatic.
I have to disagree with Vaush on some points. First of all, when he claimed the average proletariat doesn't have the means to start a movement/revolution, Vaush got defensive and called him an authoriarian, while at the same time making the argument that someone that would lead a movement would probably be a worker. He didn't imply people are dumb so we need leaders, but vaush strawmmaned immediately into this. Workers aren't magically going to lead a movement. It's about the importance of theory. It pains me that Vaush is a major in sociology and didn't read Marx. I don't know how it is in America but in my country sociology have Comte, Weber and Marx as the basis for it. I'm sorry but Vaush is sounding like Destiny everytime he adresses USSR into Stalin = Hitler argument. And then he proceeded into saying the guy misinterpreted Lenin while never reading a single line of Lenin himself. I don't know... I always agree with Vaush on almost all things but his lack of theory and relying almost entirely on rhetoric is starting to catch up. And saying co-ops can stand agaisnt predatory top down corporations is just not true at all.
No he didn't Strawman. The caller literally went on about how the peasants und the stupid workers need to be lead by a Vanguard Party. He didn't meant only thought leaders he outright said to be an technocrat. He wants a few elits to have all the power and Vaush correctly states that this would only replace an old unjust power system with a new one. I agree that Vaush should reed more theory but to disregard his criticism about this as he needs to reed more theory is stupid
@@mrdatrox4167 nah he never worded in that way. But Vaush strawmanned into this. Don't get me wrong i disagree with him, he had bad points. And even with all these problems, Vaush couldn't engage properly due to his historical and theory limitations. Vaush was using literal lib talking points to dismiss him, and that authoritarian call out was utterly pathetic.
Didn't Marx want the eventual abolition of the state? I think Marx believed that gradually over time, society would evolve to a point where it didn't need a traditional state. Democracy will be needed no matter what state our society is in. Citizens should have power and a say in how everything is run. I'm so over the "people are too stupid to make their own choices" shit from tankies.
It's amazing this guy thinks market socialism isnt socialism even though it is by very definition simply worker ownership of the means of production but he thinks the state capitalism of the USSR is socialism lmao
@@commissarcardsharp I believe you have gotten these definitions a little mixed up. What you are providing is the fairly standard definition of Communism (which is a spectrum of Socialist ideologies and economic models under the Socialist umbrella). Market Socialism is when the workers and/or the people own the means of production (Socialism) and (a portion of) the goods and services are provided either directly via a market exchange, or based on market mechanics and opposed to central planning. (And don't forget that State Socialists exist) It is also important to note just how extensive the Market Socialist spectrum is, from the free market co-operative models associated with Hodgkin (the first Socialist economist), Proudhon, etc. to syndicate, anarcho-collectivist and guild-socialist models, and yes, you can even find State Socialists who argue that the state owned means of productions should sell the goods on a market. I think it can be really important to check out the writers outside of the Marxist canon, as the extent of Socialist thought, and how the workers/people manage their economy when private property is abolished, is very diverse - and there is a lot to learn (or at least contemplate) from essentially every notable theorist/movement.
@@commissarcardsharp They have been discredited? How? By who? You are redefining Socialism to make the terms contradictory, essentially you are defining your viewpoint into existence. I'd be worried if I had to result to that. The fact that elements of Socialist modes of production exists under capitalism makes complete sense. Elements of capitalist production existed under Feudalism. This does not discredit Socialism (or rather, the standard definition of Socialism). As your name literally includes the term Communism I am also very surprised you wish to redefine Socialism in this way.
@@commissarcardsharp Marx having a opinion or making a counter case to Market Socialism doesn't discredit it, nor make it a contradictory term, how could it?
@@commissarcardsharp Also: There is no significant difference between owning your own means of production and being forced to sell your labour to others?! And that is Scientic in your view. Sometimes when the term "Scientific" is thrown out along with blatant absurdities like that it is hard to take it seriously. Don't just arbitrarily by whatever Marx or people interpreting/building on Marx states reality is.
@@commissarcardsharp I don't recall if I have read this before, will go through it soon and get back to you. Sadly, listening to Engels and Marx try to tarnish other Socialist movements is often like listening to Jordan Peterson trying to tarnish Marxism - i.e. completely out of its depth, extremely generalized and clueless/deceptive about the actual contents. I'd really recommend reading the source material whenever they make dismissive points/remarks as it is almost always built on a strawman.
Well how would you summarize your experience. Did you actually have free housing like the tankie discussed. Did you feel like you were under an oppressive system? Was the education biased and in support of Stalin? Im very interested about what it was truly like for an average person.
The way this guy speaks about the vanguard party reminds me of how religious people speak about their beliefs. Like holy shit, this gives me flashbacks of my SUPER religious past
So what's the definition of tankie supposed to be? I remember when Vaush defined it he was explicitly not referring to all MLists, but here you say those two terms are interchangeable. I'm confused.
Vaush, you were right about the communes in China being a sham. They were sites of Party surveillance and state control. Private households were coercively abolished, and people were forced to join these communes. Real messages put out by Party officials included: “Now we’ll see whether you follow the socialist or capitalist road. If you follow the socialist road, sign up here to join a commune.” “Our village has two cooperatives; you have to join one or the other.” “Anyone who refuses to join is taking the road of the landlords, rich peasants, capitalists, and Americans.” These communes controlled access to food and other basic needs. As the “providers” of all basic necessities, officials could enrich themselves while increasing control of the daily lives of villagers at the most basic level.
Tankies are entertaining. An argument between that guy and a full blown Natsoc would be lit (that is if they didn't find a common ground and both go Nazbol).
Commie blocks are actually quite good, I live in one currently and they are still in a good condition (they were supposed to be decommissioned 20 years ago), much better that buildings made in 1990s/2000s. And in many places these were set up in large, walkable neighborhoods with plenty of green and services. Soviets did ONE thing right. PS. Not a tankie.
@Cashel A. Nelson "Stalin was evil mustache man and there is no difference between USSR and nazi germany" The only two types of people who unironically say this are a.)Fascists trying to make themselves look less bad,by equating themselves to Stalin and the USSR b.)Capitalists who are trying to dismiss the accomplishments of the soviet union by spouting CIA propaganda Anyways nice try,but anyone can see you're not a leftist my friend
Mariangeles Baldé Oh yes, make sure to continuously refuse education to black students like the protestors in Tiananmen Square, lol. China post Mao is capitalist, anyway.
The reason Tankies hate trotsky so much is because his works threaten their strongman leader Stalin, and how his book the revolution betrayed calls out their tankie bs
Or they don't like how ridiculous his ideas were. Even Lenin criticized his anti union stance www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm
@@commissarcardsharp I read it and don't see what the point is since you gave no context. Why don't you try making an argument? Lenin thought Trotsky was a clown.
That moment when Vaush looks at the camera 4:54, I don't know exactly what was on his mind, but if I had to guess. "Buckle in boys we're in for a ride."
A T I don’t want to replicate the USSR, or Stalin. I myself am a very progressive person. I just want to examine what the USSR did right and did wrong. I myself even admit I would probably be thrown in prison living in the USSR, but that doesn’t mean we should throw away the biggest socialist nation to ever exist.
Leftism Today TL; DR: “Holodomor?” Nazi narrative. While a famine *did* occur in ‘32, the “Genocide” half was all Nazis. Khrushchev was a liar that threw Stalin under a bus (accusing him of things he didn’t do...) The removal of ethnic groups was something that *needed* to be learned from. (History bit to be learned from...) Better treatment for LGBTQ people... (another history but to learn from...) Gorbachev was, is, and forever shall be a raging dick. (Ditto Yeltsin.) Nazis were “patrioted” in BOTH the U.S. and Canada, and given new identities... (which explains why there’s a Far-Right agenda today...) List will go on as things slowly drip from the annals of history.
@@leftismtoday6072 No but you probably should throw away the nation that put socialism back a century by making the entire world vehemently despise the concept. As opposed to, yknow, justifying oligarchal totalitarianism. Just a thought?
"Who is going to go out and educate people on socialism, it's not going to be the capitalists it will be the vanguard party" Bro. The point is to do that BEFORE the revolution. To build a democratic consensus on the need for a socialist system, and knowledge of what that will entail so that you don't need the educated elite to take control of its implementation, something which inevitability they fail to do because of the corruptive forces of power, and self interest.
31:05 - The Bolsheviks actively dismantled the "Soviets", i.e. workers' councils within three months. Bolshevism is a intrinsically anti-democratic ideology. 35:45 - The livelihood of people being increased is not a good moral argument for an economic system. This argument is made by defenders of capitalism as well. Chomsky's counter-argument: The livelihood of slaves increased from the 17th into the 18th century. The livelihoods of German people increased under Nazi Germany (obv not of the rest of the people). Is that an argument for slavery or nazism? Oof. 1:06:00. ML's are not lefties. Even with Lenin its questionable whether he was left-wing.
Coming back to this debate after a couple of years and looked up to this guy’s channel. To nobody’s surprise, his most recent upload is “Caleb Maupin is innocent”.
Holy shit. Wild stuff.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "but was the ussr reaaaaallly that bad tho?(;" hahahahaha
Wait, this guy has a channel?
@@saharasara542 Well I can't imagine a guy who said "I'd probably be DETHRONED" was genuinely leftist. This is one of the wildest discussions I've ever seen.
"Why would you do this?"
A part of me feels a deep pain when Vaush feels disappointment or betrayal from the person he is talking to. Seems to break his heart tbh.
Timestamp?
Mr Wavy 1:05:40 1:06:50 1:09:25
Aleksander Whyte ay
@@klip8726 tankie: ok im an altrighter i guess
Vaush: wait why :(
LMAO
People who cite their favourite political figures like they're citing a holy text creep me out
"But the great Newt Gingrich said.."
Fuck.
It's idolatry. Maybe something can be learned from these people, but the most important thing to learn is that they're human and may have been as wrong and ugly as the rest of us.
fundamentalism is ugly
@Nuclear Confusion Nah, people who memorize quotes to ""prove"" they read are the actual brainlets.
At the end of the day, if you are proposing an idea and you can't defend it with anything more than "Marx believed in this too", most normal people won't care for your opinion.
Ugh, that rhetoric gives me the creeps
Stalin assasinated Destiny in this debate
Workers are dumb. lol
@@Some0neElse. I'm just glad that you'll never have a shred of power.
SomeOneEls
Ok totalitarian boi.
@@Some0neElse. what do you mean workers are dumb
@@Hello-jf7go
He thought that the backbones of every Society is dumb, and that a Capitalist boi who sips lemonade all day are smart, actually.
Back in the day when i made the mistake of using twitter, every time a tankie got mad at me they’d start taking like an anime villain for some reason.
“Truly, a foolish and undialectical take...but perhaps its not a surprise, coming from a western radlib! Ha-Ha! Color me surprised! Of course, it is quite a tragedy so many ‘leftists’ _REFUSE_ to read Lenin, but perhaps the proletariat is better off without them...”
Shit was tight
All that speech needs is a slow upward pan onto them as they adjust their glasses that glow with glare.
WilfordBrimley The music playing in the background also needs to be something classical, strings and/piano or organ, preferably with a choir. The music reaching it's peak as they adjust their glasses with a smirk.
@@Tundra0stalker Sounds wonderful.
WilfordBrimley Shit tankies are literally those asshole smart kids from any Anime.
Spicy Lemon Yes.
Marx, when replying to the question "will everyone be members of the government": "Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune"
This """Marxist's""" reply: "Nah dude, the proles are too dumb to be active in decision making."
Lenin: Every cook should learn how to govern.
This """Leninist""": Just let daddy Stalin worry about the big problems for you. Hold on, I have to attend my daily bootlicking session.
@@Morfo182 That quote is so far removed from its context it's meaningless. Lenin insisted on policies that brought trade unions into management in order to educate them for the eventual removal of the need for bureaucracy. When they instituted the Supreme Economic Council, 30 out of 69 (nice) was directly handpicked by trade unions, the council was overseen by oversight committees handpicked by, and made up of, trade union members, as well as trade unions overseeing economic output and organisation on the ground level along with regional economic organisations.
This stands in stark contrast with what this person is proposing, based on his claim "would you let an average worker govern or an expert?", this comment presupposes that an average worker doesn't have the capacity to govern and we shouldn't work to this end, which directly contradicts Marx and Lenin's willingness to bring workers into management of state and economic affairs with the goal of complete self-governance. He also supports Stalin, who reversed the policies of economic control instituted during the Lenin period.
You can't support Stalin while calling yourself a Marxist or a Leninist, which makes it frustrating that Stalinists insist on being called Marxist-Leninists.
@@Morfo182 You seem to be arguing that we need to transition to "self-governance". What you fail to understand is that self-governance **is** the transition.
Lenin says in *The State and Revolution* that the suppression of the majority for the minority takes a complex, brutal state machine, while the suppression of the minority for the majority (dictatorship of the proletariat) would need a simple machine, one where, instead of a standing army, we'd have a self-motivated army, much like the Paris Commune.
Marx says in *The Civil War in France* that with the commune "there is nothing socialist about them except their tendency", ie, the communal form of governance **isn't** socialism, but a transition to it.
The transitional state, for Marx as well as Lenin, has self-governance, a "voluntary centralism" (as Lenin called it) where the only bureaucrats are elected and recallable at any time, for the eventual goal of whithering the need for such bureaucrats.
Don't trust everything FinBol tells you. Try reading Marx and Lenin for yourself.
>implying Lenin was any better that Stalin, empty rhetoric notwithstanding
@@johno5182 How well did Lenin's views from the book translate into real life? How many people died under Lenin's watch and on his orders?
@@legion999 Lenin throw his own theory under the bus.
45 mins in: "This is a pretty reasonable conversation. I wonder why it's titled that"
60 mins in: "HOO BOY"
very same lmao
Funny how if you press a tankie long enough you find yourself eventually debating a nazbol huh?
@@dynamicworlds1 that's it, generalise them all just like they do with anarchists
Stop infighting comrades
Started going down hill when the caller made that Napoleon comment around the 47:00 minute mark. Are these types actually considered to be leftists? cause after the Napoleon thing that caller started making some appalling talking points. Both my eyebrows raised at the talking points involving proletariats and peasants made by this, not sorry but fucking clown what the hell was guy on after.
In the last 20 minutes of this video, this guys mask completely fell off
Holy fuck yeah he did. And the guy had the balls to say he wasn't a tankie after unironically defending Stalin.
Radzig get your sword back mate
@@cmoney25801 Well, he denied a that USSR was a hell run by paranoid Satan but also said that he is not fan of Stalin thus he is not stalinist technically🤔
@KazuTrash I totally agree with you. I meant "USSR as hell run by paranoid Stalin" is from Vaush point of view.
@@ascendedbro1828 i don't under this comment at all. Do you agree with the dude or think he's a lunatic?
vaush: i think youre a stalinist. are you a stalinist?
this guy: well, marx defines "you" as-
What is wrong about Stalin
@@stabloona468 a lot of things
@@indigofrog1337 he did things wrong, for sure, but he was also the one who built socialism in the USSR. Leftists should uphold Stalin
@@stabloona468 I don't give a shit if he 'built' socialism in the USSR, his leadership killed 20 million of his own people
@@indigofrog1337 damn, with the 20 million killed logic, Trump and biden combined to kill 600k Americans. Kinda hard to use "20 million" killed as a realistic argument especially when using very suspicious and seemingly over exaggerated numbers, which seem to range anywhere from 3 million to 40+ million. The wide range of suspicious numbers aside, counting famine deaths, or likewise covid deaths, as intentional killings in the same vain as political killings, which still do seem very high under Stalin, with estimates being somewhere over 100k, is pretty misleading.
Alexa play "leftist unity" from jreg
Oh tankie, can't you see?
@@frocco7125 what?
@@christain9696
You're standing in the way of leftist unity.
Rocco Anders ohhh tankie
Literally was singing that song in my head while watching this
I cant believe he has the gull to bring up anarchist Catalonia as a failure of anarchism when completely ignoring the USSR's role in destroying it.
Yeah, i felt kinda insulted by that one both as catalonian and spaniard.
Matt
The USSR directly opposing Anarchist Catalonia & the Catalonia Communists fighting on the ground against the Anarchists, that allowed the Fascist Nationalists to get some major victories, is not well understood among State Communist proponents.
In other words, they just don’t talk about that.
Anarchism is still pretty strong in their culture, like it's not taboo like it is in the US
What do you make of the critique that if an anarchist state cant sustain itself from outside threats then it is a failure? Vaush sorta touched on it but I cant reach him and I just want to know.
@@julymagnus493 Also I have not personally heard a good argument from an anarchists about how to sustain complex systems for the betterment of the people without hierarchies or regulation. Eg. Producing Chemotherapy drugs or waste water treatment.
“We are not above them, we are them.” If the person arguing against Vaush could just recognize that simple fact it would clearly change the entire way they approach societal management. Seriously impactful statement.
Very good point on this.
"Hey guys maybe we should do this thing to help improve our current society?"
Tankies: "But dead guy didn't write that in book 200 years ago"
YOUR BRAIN IS FULL OF SHIT IF YOU HAVE ONE
I hate when people make something like Marx a dogma. That is no different from any religion.
Well most of the things Vaush advocate for only exist because of ‘that dead guy’ and his work. I don’t see many followers of Robert Owen nowadays.
that's not a tankie take, that's a leftcom take
"Oh, you're a capitalist? Well, heh, have you read Adam Smith?"
This actually started off okay and got progressively more and more deranged as the mask slipped. "Lunatic tankie" is being too generous since by the end he basically outed himself as a nazbol.
nazbol? how so?
@@axnasim he did not, he just said "whatever" to an enraged vaush that wasn't willing to listen to arguments anymore
@@hansmuller4338 Wasn't willing to listen to "arguments" defending fucking Stalin lmao.
@@hansmuller4338
Pretty sure that the NazBol comment was about Tank's views on immigration.
Do you people even watch videos?
No, he outed himself as a Nazbol when he leaned into horseshoe theory.
“I’m not authoritarian, because I’m not saying I’m GENETICALLY superior...I just think I belong in a class above you that should control your life.”
This
What's wrong in that?
@@icantdoitnike you have 0 self awareness. I think you should talk to a psychiatrist.
timestamp?
That’s not the point of vanguardism lol
Me at 55 minutes: Lunatic seems a little excessive
Me at one hour: Oh.
Never forget that Tankies and Nazbols are so politically adjacent that they overlap.
He was a lunatic the entire time, tbh. Literally ignoring the actual goals of socialism in favor of fancy terms that a bunch of dead people used over 150 years ago in a completely different context from us.
@@dynamicworlds1 how would you know?
@@Soleilune1995 Maybe the reason why we look at what Marx and Lenin said what socialism is do to the fact most historians use the marxist definition of socialism? Just sayin'
@@genityishere6968 And that's a real problem, because it means true socialism will never actually be achieved. We'll just keep getting inefficient dictatorships over and over again, because no one ever dared to question the usefulness of the strategy. And they will keep failing, because socialists don't want to be critical of "socialism" for some reason.
Improvements have to made. Doing the same thing again and again, and failing every time, is insanity. Marxist-Leninists have ruined socialism.
"I might have shit clothes, shit food, shit medical care, shit housing and I might have no freedom of speech whatsoever cause who knows if my neighbor or co-worker will rat me out to NKVD, but damnit at least I am not living in a CAPITALIST country."
Basically this guy.
Pretty much every communist supporter ever.
That literally sounds like vaush lmao
I cringed every time he said "peasant"
Especially when he started talking about education level
Class definitions have not changed since 1868, apparently.
Laura Jarrett The peasants are not the proletariat, vaush has just never read any theory ever. He was right.
When your understanding of "peasant" is 4chan 1337 talk and don't understand the historical functional differences between peasants and other proletariat, you say stupid shit like Ian.
@@isaacw1752 absolutely irrelevant anyways. “Peasants” don’t exist in the modern day in almost every country
@@kaydenl6836 and? they were talking about the russian revolution, when most people were peasants?
Stalin only killed Trotsky after he was forced to flee the country at the threat of death in this debate
Pied Piper Please explain to me how this was not utterly based.
@@superman49 twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/status/1255958696435363840
>Citing Grover Furr
Whew lad
Edit: Ok so I can't seem to make any more replies in this thread for some reason, every comment I make doesn't get posted so I'm gonna copy and paste my comment as an edit on this one as a last resort:
>Yeah that's not an argument. If you want to actually point out something said in the document and explain why it's wrong, go ahead. But going "grover furr therefore wrong" is a cope.
Or maybe I'm not trying to engage in an argument lmao, these are youtube comments not the fucking house of lords. Though I'm curious, do you have this sort of attitude to every other crackpot, debunked, conspiracy-theorist "professor" regarding any topic, or is it just towards the ones who you dogmatically worship?
Like, if someone said "lol imagine citing Richard Lynn" do you then go "Hmm well actually that is not an argument, if you want to point out how the data about Sub-Saharan Africans having an IQ lower than 70 is wrong then go right ahead, but going "Richard Lynn therefore wrong" is a cope".
Zaephou Lol instead of looking over his evidence and attempting to debunk it you just uttered a one liner. This is ice pick cope.
@@superman49 the irony is savory.
criiiinge !!
This sums up my problem with the left. It took me so long to actually switch to leftism because there are so many tankies and weirdos that argue entirely based on vocabulary and semantics rather than substance.
“Communism didn’t fail because the USSR had no capitalists.”
Okay, but a small class of people maintained ownership over the means of production.
“Okay but that’s not capitalism so it’s perfect.”
Like this guy doesn’t understand that you can argue about definitions, but why the fuck would you argue about that over results?
Agreed.
Because how would we be able to meaningfully talk about something as important as the history of the USSR if we refuse to define the basic terms of such a discussion? What would you get out of it, other than „muh USSR bad“ or „muh USSR glorious“?
We would talk about the well-being and standard of living of the citizens, which in the USSR were objectively horrible, rather than faff on with definitions
Finn Gardiner But this is just not true. Apart from the famine in the 30s and then WWII the well-being and the standard of living were not bad. Most people on earth had it worse.
@@johnsinclair4621 Yeah and the whole argument is that almost every other country went through industrialization where living standards increased without needing to be like the USSR. The problem is that this guy seems to only have a problem with capitalism and not it's key property; an authoritarian workplace.
Guy: "I'm an academic"
Vaush: "This is how academia defines this term".
Guy: "Words have no meaning".
That's not what happened.
@@Zimx02 , your post history makes your bias clear, and that's fine; fight for your beliefs.
However, you need to pick your battles wisely, because the dipshit in this call is a great way to even make those on the left flirt with the idea of moving right.
After consuming wayy to many debates on youtube I've reached the verdict that a person loses a debate as soon as they neglect the necessity of semantics. Saying "that word doesn't mean what I need it to mean" means your position is founded on a weltanschauung that is not coherent with reality.
@@DemothHymside Almost entirely untrue, the random guy was far better versed in leftist thought I mean Vaush makes the unironic take that the peasants were the proletariat, showing a lack of understanding of not just theory, but the class divide, atomization, and unionization.
@Ma Rk woah, so you're telling me this guy has a comprehension of theory on an academic level meanwhile vaush's is purely off the cuff? crazy
When you're a communist but you spend an hour arguing for why actually we need classes.
@Midnaitz The... transition? What transition? Are we just waiting for states like China to up and decide that they've been authoritarian for long enough, their work is done, bye-bye?
It could literally only happen if the state were run entirely by people who live and die with zero attachment to power and status.
@@FelisImpurrator man you have no idea what you're talking about
@@mioszs1830 Oh? And yet you haven't refuted anything with either theory or facts, so no, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Put up or shut up, because vanguardism has actively failed every single time. The formation of an elite ruling class has always led to tyranny. Authoritarian communist states have never once "transitioned out" of class hierarchy, because they are inevitably led by people who live and die by self-interest.
@Midnaitz there is no transition
@@FelisImpurrator
Why does what China does half way across the world affect us at all?? What happened to "America First"??? 🤔
10 minutes in: "the title seems a bit too harsh on him, i disagree but i wouldn't call him a lunatic."
1 hour and one stalin defense later: "nah lunatic is accurate"
Same
Read Blackshirts and Reds by Micheal Parenti
Your profile picture made me think I got bbq sauce on my phone
Spectre Americana Parenti is an authoritarian apologist
Papi Chulo no, just no
Oh god I hate debating tankies
“you’re the real authoritarian”
“Well, actually the people that believes your way did bad things sooo, I’m absolved of my Stalin worship”
I'm not sure how you get around to debating tankies when you've been dead for like, 100 years.
@@beancheesedip8337 who’s been dead?
@@BlueTyphoon2017 Peter Kropotkin
WOW. I'm kind of new to leftist theory, and I have never heard an authoritarian left argument happening real time. Im so used to alt right talking points, im used to the outright bigotry but jesus christ the remix hit me harder than I thought it would. This shit is absolutely insane.
Yeah libertarianism is very important
Vaush: You're defending an oligarchy
Guy: I wouldn't call it that....
Vaush: you're defending totalitarianism
Guy: That's an empty word
no kidding, this guy seems like a stereotypical sassy cartoon villain justifying his actions to the paragon protagonist
That's an empty word
Translation: I don't wanna debate anymore
The caller wants a society where “all pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others”
The original quote is "all animals", also, when you quote animal farm you sound like a lib.
Max12321 oh well last time I watched Animal Farm was in high school, which is like a shitload of time ago for me. The quote was close enough. I don’t really care though what u think I sound like.
@@spongebobsteveocov1769
Fair enough
It’s “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” the pigs were the animals who were “more equal”.
@@maximusstirnimus5210
"When you quote one of the greatest socialist works in English literature you sound like a lib"
Wow, okay, that's a bad take friend
I have a friend whos a tankie and this guy sounds supsiciously familiar...
You have friends?
Be weary of your back once the revolution comes.
@@BobuJones what revolution m8 I didn't get the memo
Probably not me. I have a generic California accent and monotone voice so it could be anyoneZ
What?
1:10:43 best part. ive been watching Vaush for a while to gain more of a more socialist perspective, theres a lot i disagree on with Vaush, but there are definitely things i do agree with and this moment right here has given me massive amounts of respect for the guy. personally, im not that socialist, but i respect Vaush for what he is trying to do. im grateful for people like him.
"I don't like Stalin, I just think we should acknowledge the things he helped the USSR accomplish."
"But also, Trotsky was a trader who kept criticizing Stalin after he stole power and chased him out of the USSR, so he kind of had it coming."
Yeah, totally not a Stalinist...
I was thinking "what's so bad about this guy?", but then he said "totalitarianism is an empty word." Wtf?
It’s not that totalitarianism is completely an empty word, but when in a discussion it’s important to define words. The word dictatorial itself would actually be categorically incorrect, the central committee voted Stalin down repeatedly
@@leftismtoday6072 Totalitarianism is a term in political science specifically adjusted to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
It makes completely sense to differentiate between authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships.
In my opinion the only problematic aspect is that people sometimes believe the ideologies behind the totalitarian system (USSR and Nazi Germany) are equally bad, which is not true.
totalitarianism is a ideological construct of the Cold War, which should defame socialist countries. it is supposed to equate them with the nazi-regime.
The concept of totalitarianism does not capture the goals and motivation of political systems and only focuses on the external forms of oppression and persecution of groups.
@@jan_malte Can't you just accept that both states were totalitarian dictatorships, with the same core tendencies, but different ideologies and motivation?
Just to be clear: this is not about whether or not the Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship. Because it fulfills every characteristic political scientists adscribe to totalitarianism.
This is about semantics.
Comparing 2 regimes is not setting them equal.
I don't think socialism as an ideology is even comparable to national socialism, but the two states operated in a very similar fashion.
I'm so certain that you guys are apologetics who don't care about proper terminology and just want the people to not call the USSR totalitarian.
@@xXWorldgamefunXx what is your goal here?
i think you just want to write off previous attempts at implementing socialism, so you can fail at trying again and again. i think the ussr and other attempts were meaningful and we should criticized them, so we can learn to do better in the future. calling them authoritarian or totalitarian is destracting and needlessly contrarian
There are like 3 MLs I've come across who do a lot of heavy lifting to make me not think the entire ideology is just people like this.
Lmao that's so true
@@TheTheThe_ Is Hakim of them. I would love for Vaush and Hakim to be in a debate.
@@inovakovsky
Hakim's new video is a little cringe but yes he's mostly fine. I don't think Hakim does debates though
@@TheTheThe_ The one on praxis? I think it is fine, but I think that a follower does not need to read theory, but a theorist does. He made a video on the USSR being socialist.
@@inovakovsky
Vaush V Hakim would be great
The minute he said he was "kind of" a technocrat, it all started to unravel. Vaush's face when he said that really does say it all.
Scoffing at technocracy without deconstructing it properly just shows you're a kakistocrat (which a stupid troglodyte like Vaush is).
It's unfortunate because in the beginning, they were presenting a reasonable problem with anarcho syndicalism
I think a lot of the problem with this guy's arguments in the beginning was that he couldn't see that an-syns don't think their ideology is the end of history like liberals do today
I looked at this video 45 minutes in like
"I think this titles a bit mean vaush"
Then it just defended
It’s very infantile (no memes intended) to stonewall because I have different viewpoints than someone else, but unfortunately it seems common among debates with big E Celebs
@@leftismtoday6072 Nobody had a problem with you until you started defending genocidal freaks my dude, you can be an ML all you want but people are GONNA have a problem when you go full-tankie. "I wish people would just hear my ideas out" is the same thing N@zis say, I don't see how you don't understand the similarities. You have pretty good vids though, I actually did check a few out. Just keep away from the whole "kulaks deserved it" "Stalin did nothing wrong" stuff and people will be a lot more charitable and nice to you.
@@mint2573 That's literally just not what happened
"That would only be the case if you were actually a leftist"
dope shit
King shit
I am from Russia and I im really disappointed. I thought tanckies were some deranged lunatics, but no, they just must have talked to my grand dad too much.
Does your grand dad glorify the Union too?
@@roteschwert almost any Russian over 65 glorifies it
Good point.
He tried to hide his power level so hard and got so far...
...and in the end it didn't even matter
Man, this guy going on about "Stalin industrialized real fast n good" is missing the point of the entire exercise of socialism, as Stalin bought the machinery with western russian and (surprise) UKRAINIAN GRAIN. One harvest fails and "oopsie, lmao people go hungee" with no attempt made to rectify it meaningfully.
Yeah, because implementing "real socialism" would just magically make food appear out of nowhere and bad weather patterns go missing. It was industrialization that ultimately put an end to famines in Russia.
@@euso2008 not disputing that, what I am disputing is this idea of the rapid Soviet industrialization being some magical achievement of papa Joe's infinite paternal knowledge.
@@pladderisawesome If your point is that fanboyism of political leaders isn't constructive, I agree with that. I also oppose the idea that Stalin was leading the country all alone. Accomplishments under his rule weren't a result of 'just' him, as well as his failures.
@Gage Acosta stop being narcissistically prideful for five god damn minutes minutes and import some grain
@Gage Acosta Europe, Asia, America even.
i was listening to this on the train and when he said "i don't think avarage worker knows what is best for them" i went "o oh" out loud
I’m the younger guy that told him about you not even lying xD
Why?
Why tho?
DEAD YAMI he's brain dead I'm sorry
Zachary Thoroman because I can talk about whatever I like.
Parsifal parsi fal didn’t listen to much because I’ve heard him talk plenty. I’d say he’s outspoken and stubborn but has done some good things for our community.
“People will choose to lower their own pay in order to increase their money”
Galaxy brain take.
He was referring to maximize profits and ensure longevity of the co-op, which would lead to these problems. This is why I prefer decentralized planning.
Not even a tankie but I am out here shilling for LT. Everyone should try to understand the basics of why Stalin did what he did before completely dismissing Marxism-Leninism. Read Blackshirts and Reds by Parenti.
@Stale Bagelz How is that a meaningful difference in a market? It sucks for us so we won't do that, so the coop will not survive in the market, which also sucks for us.
@@spectreamericana1221 Stalin did what he did because he was a psychopath
@@Amadeus-ni3et yeah im more informed now on what happened I just saw the deaths and didn't see that a month ago
Are we really pretending that socialism hasn’t progressed as an ideology since Marx? I understand he’s the father but to dismiss modern socialist ideals is foolish
Tankies still import the concept of "lumpen proletariat" from an era in which illiteracy was widespread within the class called to lead the revolution. Vaush is absolutely right in seeing the use of that concept nowadays as an authoritarian tendency
@@do_care919 I would argue political literacy is just as bad in america today as under tsarist russia, so it's not without merit to talk in that manner
I agree with everyone in this thread right here.
@@davidc4983 there's no way you are saying this seriously. How can you compare people nowadays with people who can't even read?
@@do_care919 because from a political perspective, not being able to read, and refusing to read, are functionally the same, and you get the same kind of people. Very religious, adverse to change, very patriotic, ect
Lmao vaush saying they’re just as stupid as baristas at Starbucks as I’m watching this on my break being a barista at Starbucks
but youre a based starbucks barista, you dont count
How open minded
Yeah vaush is an asshole
@@krzysztofzych9688 everything vaush has said debunked because he made fun of starbucks barristas
I don't think he's casting any aspersions on baristas, any more than he is people who work on oil rigs. His point is that nobody is innately better than anyone else.
I'm only 20 minutes in, but so far I'm learning more about the soviet union, central planning and non centrally planned anti-capitalist projects than anything else has ever taught me
Siuz lmao what?
@Siuz If Vaush was somehow opposed to people learning about these things, you'd really think he would have... done anything. He literally just let him lay things out.
Well i’m glad friend. That’s why I came on. You can watch channels like Hakim, Endymion, and DemocraticSocialist01 if you wish to learn more about those topics. It’s definitely worth it.
@@leftismtoday6072 Love your content comrade!
Kamden Kenerly I mean he did just yell and talk over him it’s funny because Vaush was the one who kept changing subjects forcing this convo to become about defending the USSR/Stalin.
"lunatic tankie'
implies there's any other type of tankie
@Tomislav Puklin Well yes, of course! The problem is that tankies do shit like denying the Holodomor instead of just pontificating about how the free housing ensured people weren’t homeless and that city planning made travel convenient and cars not absolutely necessary
@Tomislav Puklin That's also true, there's a very LARPy aspect to it, it's like online tankies and fascists are somehow still in the 1930s/40s ideological war
@Tomislav Puklin That dude was literally defending Stalin, and Stalin was bad indeed. And what do you mean with "the social norm that USSR bad"? It was a a bad country, period. That´s like a Neo-Nazi complaining about the social norm that "Holocaust bad". Just because you can learn from the USSR doesn´t mean you have to glorify it, which this guy did. If this guy was a neo-nazi defending Hitler, would you also be like "well actually, it´s more useful to study and contemplate why Hitler and the Nazi party did what they did rather than saying "Hitler bad"?
Vanguardism is just dangerously elitist in my view...
@@qaiser648 but there was no Holodomor (deliberate man-made famine)? Even right wing historians like Stephen Kotkin acknowledge that it wasn't a deliberate famine. Wheatcroft and Tauger have discussed at length the primacy of the weather conditions in 1932 that caused the famine.
Dismantle all hierarchy that cannot justify itself. Question all authority. True freedom and true egality must strive to have neither master overhead nor servant below.
@@roywiseman pragmatically, this can be started with powering up the unions and seeing the possibilities that will open up after that.
@@roywiseman How it is powering up the state powers when the idea is powering up unions? It won't be state growing, it will be, actually, unions getting political power (and as a result, growing democracy) compared to current corporations leaders having power, negotiating with the government. All government needs to do is not prevent unions from forming and subsidize them with privileges to counteract the prejudice towards them in the business and banking sphere at the beginning of this system formation. How does that give any power to the government? It's not the state seizing means of production, it's state giving more and more opportunity for people to seize means of production.
@@roywiseman "Because in 100% of situations where this is tried, what happens is that"
All the places where socialism happened it was a revolution, violent revolution. The result of that is overthrowing the power from one leader to another. And they need to give their power up for the people and refuse it. What I am talking about incremental empowerment of the people without proletariat elites seizing government.
"you are talking about the IMPOSITION of control by Socialist governments to enforce this, right?"
Nah, I am talking about creating a good environment for forming unions, giving them the power to dictate the rights of the worker to a certain extent, that their rights are being respected, and there are good opportunities for workers to buy out business from their owners, especially if they go bankrupt.
"So, it IS the state seizing the means of production, by the imposition of insanely massive seizure of power from the owners of companies and supposedly redistribution to the worker"
Not allowing to overwork, underpay, don't allow the massive firing of people, especially during crisis days like these, isn't the "insanely massive seizure of power".
"you have all the ability to do this now."
Many corporations fire people for making unions (like Amazon), banks have prejudice towards collectively owned business, corporations don't experience any repercussions for oppressing unionization. There is a bunch of reasons why "You can make unions today" isn't so nice and easy and the government needs to help make a playing field even for unions to start up.
@George Sand "No longer are we faced with Marx's famous choice of socialism or barbarism; we are confronted with the more drastic alternatives of anarchism or annihilation."
I think we should focus our efforts towards converting the working class, including soldiers, police, and others who work for the state. We should convince them of how their material needs can be greatly improved by leftwing policies. As our movement grows we must organize the workforce along the lines of unions, while simultaneously running leftists for political office on the local and state level, and also helping the poor and disenfranchised in our communities via leftist groups. That's just the first step though, getting us into a position of real power and influence.
@@roywiseman
>Vaush and all frothing at the mouth Socialist/Communist nutbags say: they WANT a violent revolution
IIRC Vaush doesn't want a violent revolution, but he thinks that it is possible, that some changes won't be possible without revolution. I am up for trying as hard as it possible going through incremental change policies and then figuring out what to do next.
>so, unions are FORCED on Amazon, and according to you, the means to production is SEIZED from Jeff Bezos and given to the workers
No, not letting workers form unions will be prosecuted, just like companies are prosecuted regards to protected class rights violations. And I am not advocating for seizing means for production, at least not before previous steps were met and showing promises that this type of collectivized business can be successful in a large mass, not as exceptions as of right now for reasons I gave. The power of unions, that I am talking about, is more about making sure that workers have their rights not violated, not influencing CEO to follow different business decisions outside of things, that won't be directly related to workers.
>As long as horrific nutjobs like Bernie Sanders and AOC are on the rise, the US will reject your left-wing violent revolution fascism
Which policies, do you think, are fascists that they try to push? Not really trying to check your facts, I am just not that much familiar with them, since I am not living from the USA, the only thing about Bernie that I know that he is pro medicare for all without private insurance available. And AOC doing some stuff against the prosecution of migrants.
>It's all trans-activism and fascist-like Feminists and raving lunatic Social Justice.
What's wrong with trans-activism? And I agree, there is a decently big group feminists, especially on the liberal side with hardcore engrained second-wave feminists ideals, or terf degenerates, are fucked up.
> I think it'll take the Left in the US maybe 16 years to recover from this madness
Isn't Bernie campaign actually proving, that support of the left today in the USA is the highest in the history of the country?
Just the sheer number of times this guy says “peasant” tells you pretty much all you need to know here. Who even uses that word anymore? Why are we talking about peasants? We’re trying to move beyond even having a peasantry, right?
the only time it's relevant to use the word "peasant" is in a historical context, esp wrt urbanite "communists" who excluded rural areas and their populations from the definition of "proletariat" & how they literally stunted their own revolutions by turning the rural workers against them
Vaush, good job on going hard on this guy once he revealed his power level. We don't want these people in our club, and I'm glad you made that very clear.
I don't think these people have ever been part of the Liberal Club
I doubt anyone on the left ever asked to be a part of your "club". You people openly support liberalism and market policies. You arent even leftist.
Kazuhira Miller Vaush himself advocates for market socialism and liberal values? That’s what OP was referring to when he mentioned ‘our club’? Are you a tankie?
@@BruceLe3 I'm a Marxist. Not a "tankie". I support actually existing socialism which goes through the abolishing of commodity form, thus, markets. Vaush is a liberal. Socialism doesn't have commodity form and free markets, and can never have it. No matter how many times he whines "idc what old dead guys wrote 200 years ago" he doesnt understand that they wrote that for a reason. Through their own analysis. Vaush's analysis is sitting on his 400 pound ass all day, playing video games and disrespecting every single person asking him to educate himself.
@@kazuhiramiller7491 When all you do is throw insults at Vaush and misuse terms like "liberal" to mean "people I disagree with"...
M-L is not synonymous with tankie, but my dude, that is some tankie-ass talk.
This debate inspired Vaush to create the moustache theory (aka. the ballsack theory).
I like mustache theory more lmao
What is mustache theory?
@@micromints1735ballsack theory
the guy isnt explaining the vanguard party well. its not that workers are too illiterate to rule themselves. The vanguard party organizes the EDUCATION and training of everyone so that they meaningfully participate in the revolution. But he's not wrong that the revolution does initially need leadership.
EDIT: wow he goes full Tankie
To my understanding, the vangaurd still demands complete discipline of divided groups in order to form an "iron willed" force of revolution. The education part happens in the beginning, only to be absorbed into the party. I wouldn't define as leadership as more just chain of command. And as anarchist, I don't support that.
The Swoletariat hey comrade :)
Also am I having a stroke or did you have a convo with Vaush at some point and it got taken down
Also any vanguard is going to attract opportunists who view it as a means to attain greater power and influence also violent revolution tends to lead to a fragmented dis unified nation in which the opposition peaceful or not is usually violently suppressed. Also the vanguard represents the interests of the vanguard not the influences of the people.
Political consciousness cannot be brought to the workers from inside the sphere of economic relations. The role of the Vanguard Party is to act as the social brain of the proletarian moment. Read "What is to be done?" or watch my video titled "The Revolutionary Party According to Lenin"
@@spectreamericana1221 Any political philosophy which devolves into an oppressive authoritarian state in most cases when it is implemented is a failure. By social brain you mean enforce the will of a certain group of elite intellectuals.
We don't care what the marxist perspective is. I'm sick of needing to fit everything into what a couple of blokes thought 170 years ago
You can tell the challenges Vaush has is his focus on what he would like to see happen next which is more achievable vs what his ideal society would look like. It's a tough balance which can lead to inconsistent conversations.
That's because he's a utopian socialist. He doesn't understand materialism and has more of an idealistic viewpoint, as a lot of the middle-class suffers from. He made this very obvious with his statement on how people seem to care about, "social issues," more and only use economics as an extension of that. It's an entirely idealistic mindset one can only attain through the luxury his class station provides.
@@anaccount5194 He's actually being pragmatic when he focuses on what he believes to be achievable in the present. His understanding of materialism in society is why his stance on what we should do next is free market worker co-ops. If he didn't have any idea of materialism then he would simply speak on behalf of what he sees as the end game. It's the lack of talking about his broader world view and it coming up in bits and pieces is what's making conversations inconsistent and has nothing to do with the luxury of his class status.
Tankie: talks about abolishing the commodity-form , the law of value
Also Tankie: apologizes for Stalin, mastermind of the anti-Marxist credo, “socialist commodity production”
I'm only halfway through this but is there a point where this guy actually starts acting like a "lunatic"? Or even a point where Vaush starts treating him like one? Cause so far this has been pretty civil. I'm gonna guess the title is just irony for the sake of click bait. But I'll continue on and see if things liven up.
EDIT: Ahhh... there's the lunacy.
It creeps up on you, huh?
Yep. I just had the same experience. Hits you like a wrecking ball. 😂
Lol for sure
ah yes, the same people that shut down an anarchist commune coz "m-muh counterrevolutionaries!"
I think that socialists should repress the political agency of anti-socialists because they would vote for anti-socialist politicians. Please change my mind.
I think that Nazis should repress the political agency of antifascists because they would vote for anti fascist policies. Change my mind.
Also, anarchists ARE socialists.
@Handsome Jack Anarchists are based
The USSR provided aid to catalonia, although it wasn’t exactly the biggest, as they had issues of their own. Although I am no fan of the USSR
Nothing happened in August 21, 1940, in Coyoacán Mexico City.
Trotsky was committing treason and giving intel to the FBI. Snitches get stitches.
Armindo Ribeiro Yeah, but considering this is the Biden channel I wouldn’t be surprised if they jumped to defend that lol.
@@leftismtoday6072 come on, man. We just want you to redistribute that booty.
To Biden.
The Curl I was all on board with you till you brought up Biden.
@@commissarcardsharp marxism.halkcephesi.net/trotskyism/trotskyizm%20revisited.htm
There's also the video of Trotsky walking freely in Italy under Mussolini, which is kinda suspicious.
I never thought I'd hear the word "Stalinist" unironically
feudalism is not a form of mercantile capitalism...
Yeah honestly that part caught me off guard but I rolled with it
Yeah, I was agreeing with this guy for the first part of the video. Vaush needs to brush up on history more.
I've come to realize that AnCaps are just modern feudalists that hope everyone gets along and plays nice.
Mercantile capitalism was based on a feudal society. Both terms describe different aspects of the same time in history.
@@xXWorldgamefunXx man you are really stretching the word "based" m8.
Huh untill about 1h in it seemed reasonable, but then it went the expected way
Tankie: says something batshit insane
Other person: *pushes back*
Tankie: *condescending Joker cackle*
Every fucking time
Love that this guy genuinely sounds like some kinda disney villain at points. You can actually see Vaush's soul die as this debate goes off a fucking cliff.
"You say X about the Soviet union, but Marx said..."
Marx died 40 years before the formation of the Soviet union. Nothing that Marx said has anything to do with what the Soviet union literally was.
Well, I call myself a Marxist. I generally will follow the theories of Marx unless they are proven wrong. Marx gave a categorical, historical and scientific classification in how societies function, and whether they follow a capitalist or communist mode of production. That’s all i’m repeating jere
Leftism Today
Reread the comment, and then come back
@@leftismtoday6072 Yes.
That's got nothing to do with what I said, but those true things are all true.
@@leftismtoday6072 Please just delete your channel. I have to defend socialism all the time and you are objectively hurting our cause.
You think Stalin was good because he used slave labor to industrialize the USSR? Fuck you
Oh, yeah? What experiments did Marx scientifically conduct to observe and measure surplus value?
Trotsky started KFC after fleeing
Noooooo Colonel Sanders is 🅱️ommie!!!!
Vaush: *based historically-accurate portrayal of the worst aspects of Soviet communism*
Him: but Tsar man more bad. 😐
“based “
Ya, for right-wingers that go absolutely nuts over Soviet Russia - I've seriously heard people say Stalin murdered "hundreds of millions of their own people", something that wasn't even possible to do by the numbers - the obvious question is "So Tsarist Russia was better?" The main difference between Stalin and the Tsars was that the industrial revolution was a force multiplier in allowing Uncle Joe's paranoia to be as murderous as he wanted as populations around the world were baby-booming to - essentially - replace all those killed by WW1 and 2. The same for Hitler, though Nazi Germany rose under different circumstances. I mean, are we to believe a Rasputin-led Russia would have been any less blood-soaked if he'd had the same tools at his disposal?
@@SurelyYewJest yeah hundreds of millions is an exaggeration but when the low estimates of your killing are like 9 million youre no saint
The example of the Cybersyn project is very dishonest. The project involve the workers of the nationalized factories by giving them more power in the production process, Allende wanted to use the technology to interconnect the workers and the citizens in the democracy and daily management of policies and the conomy (think of an early E-democracy). The USSR centralized the economy on an economic board that took every decision, the citizen have very little to no participation in production management because of the one man model, etc.
I still have my doubts about how this project could have help the worker in his road to socialism, but can’t determined it because it was destroy by Pinochet and a great part of the research was reduce to ashes. Even though saying it was like the Soviet Union is very far fetch and dishonest.
darksight1000 The reference to cybersyn wasn’t dishonest because at the time they were talking about all past experiments with planned economies.
I dont always agree with or like Vaush but his very strong anti tankie views and politics make me not really care. I appreciate that side of him immensely, as it's something handwoven away by a majority of other leftists. He seems to be one of the only ones who recognizes tankies as the threat that they are
This is what got me to finally start following him, especially after how the broader left had some really BS takes on Russia and Ukraine and started parroting some tankie stuff. Some of them have gotten better but Vaush has consistently recognized what is at stake, the threat Russia poses, etc and through watching these older vids it's not just consistent through the last couple yrs but since at least 2019/longer.
The left needs to recognize that the fashies are a threat to us getting normies/moderates to recognize the danger of the extreme right and tankies are a threat to us self cannibalizing and purity testing our way into oblivion. Vaush and his audience have helped restore my morale and faith in lefties!
At first, I thought this guy sounded pretty reasonable at first, and then he came out HARD with the Stalin apologetics.
And that is the thing. You can have a reasonable talk with a lunatic until you touch on the object of his lunacy.
Feudalism to the moon!
I think it is important to realize that liberalism went through the same kind of heavy fisted policies. Look up the purges in the terror and the Napoleon. Napoleon helped end feudalism. They didn’t intend on side lining the workers councils. War and the need for industrialization commanded heavy handed policies.
@@rosaconnolly3485
I'm skeptical that liberalism would have succeeded that much without the American Revolution. Cromwell was a failure. Robespierre was a failure. The July revolution of 1830 in France instituted a king. The 1948 Spring of Nations was mostly a failure, except perhaps in France, which created a short-lived 4 year old republic that got coup'd. It wasn't until 1971 that a proper long-lasting republic cropped up in France - and even then as an alternative to a communist coup, the Paris Commune. And yet the Dreyfus affair was basically the birth of proto-fascism in Europe. The most humane example of liberalism in Europe is probably Great Britain, and even now it's a constitutional monarchy.
So you like what he say and his ideas, until he wants to talk in a more nuanced way about a historical character you are taught to hate?
The first 45 minutes of this debate felt pointless. It's just alternating between a clash of definitions, and then the fundamental clash of theory vs consequentialism without proper engagement because the debate barely ever moved to actual policy or theory points rather than "but Marx said X is defined as Y". Neither side was properly represented - Vaush made a lot of factual assertions about the USSR and LT just did not bother to contest any of them. Can't really say Vaush "wins" if the points weren't actually challenged. Without citations or any actual challenges to his arguments I have no clue whether Vaush's points are defensible simply from this debate and viewers come away from it knowing basically nothing new and their views unchanged.
Getting wrapped up in theory works for LeftComs because they obsessively read that theory and know it well even if they're usually insufferably smug about it, and they can weaponize theory far more effectively than this.
LT really be pretending that he wasn't trying to get a rise out of Vaush in the last 18 minutes by arguing in bad faith and transparently misconstruing what Vaush was saying.
My stream of consciousness in Discord when watching it on LT's channel after a tankie sent me a link:
----------------------
10 minutes in and the formalities and definitions sounds pretty decent from both sides so far
LT really be exhaling into the mic though
13 minutes in
there's a clear clash of theory vs consequentialism
20 minutes in, the only contentious thing is Vaush saying Marx was not a statist
Someone complained about that in the video comments
Marx's ideal society was a communist society
it's easy to use that to say he wasn't a statist
even though he supported the use of a transitory state, he saw it as still imperfect (though better than capitalism ofc)
I think it's due to the distorted definitions of statist among leftist infighting
that makes it contentious
Vaush could've probably elaborated a bit more on that
20:00 - 30:00 is kind of underwhelming
LT doesn't really seem to address factual concerns over the USSR as hard as I'd expect from a USSR-positive leftist
Vaush is stating things about the USSR that I expected LT to leap at and demolish the propaganda or whatever
not really happening
So Vaush's factual assertions are left unchallenged and unconfirmed
32:20, Vaush claims the US has had bad presidents but nothing close to Stalin when the US did have Andrew Jackson, who openly pushed for and supported genocides of Native Americans and killed a fair few of his opposition in duels
that's not quite there but doesn't really justify "nothing close"
Unchallenged by LT, though it's a minor point so not a big deal
33:00 - 35:00 really exemplifies the fundamental clash between LT and Vaush's outlook
So far it's been disappointing
It's only been Theorist vs Consequentialist dressed up in proxy issues
The engagement is minimal because LT is relying too heavily on Marx and theory in trying to respond to a point that is explicitly consequentialist
Basically just butting heads
36:18 is fucking stupid
LT: "sO yOu'Re aGaiNsT taXeS?"
ancap-tier response
37:00 - 39:30 Vaush's central point here is that while the USSR was not capitalist under strict Marxist definitions, societal power relations did not substantially change apart from being facilitated by state apparatus rather than through purely capital/market apparatus. LT's response is extremely lacklustre, using definitions strictly so that "capitalism = bad" and "non-capitalism = good", which doesn't respond to Vaush's point.
40:00 - 46:00 nothing really of interest, both kinda just talking at each other about theory
some insightful points about the need to prioritize pursuit of goals rather than perfect adherence to theory
46:00 - 50:00 discussion on vanguardism, LT's responses are again underwhelming again by missing the central point of Vaush's arguments, especially on CNTFIA and the Black Army, doing a transparently stupid "no u" at 49:30 - 49:40.
LT is not properly expressing their ideas in sufficient detail or precision to properly challenge Vaush's points
and that doesn't necessarily mean Vaush is right
53:25 I am fucking blown away
the monumental "wtf" of this take
from LT
on unjust hiearchies
says that the subjectivity of "unjust" is "authoritarian"
that is plainly not what authoritarianism is
regardless, that doesn't serve LT's argument
all in all, at the 1:00:00 mark and LT has been for the most part unpersuasive
apart from the comment on peasants at 59:00-1:00:00
and some other times
I think the Marxist-Leninist side is not properly represented here
and where LT might be demonstrably right it is constrained by the need for reference to a third-party source due to complexity and time constraints, and even considering that there is no guidance for viewers to go and find texts on the subject
1:00:00 - 1:02:30 comment on the argued distinction of peasantry and proletariat is interesting
1:05:00 i see the debate falling apart
alright there's probably nothing to be gained from watching the last 12 minutes
Vaush is getting incredulous and LT is being dismissive
[the tankie friend tells me Vaush used autism in an ableist way]
from what I've seen Vaush is also on the spectrum
only just caught that
empty criticism for this specific use of it especially since it was being said in the context of "I am autistic so I am having trouble parsing your statement"
LT is clearly making bad faith jabs to get a rise out of Vaush in the last 10 minutes
first 60 minutes was a disaster because the engagement was shit
last 15 minutes are shit because Vaush gets mad and LT stops taking it seriously
The first half of the conversation was him working up the nerve to break out of his coward'shell
The way Vaush is pressing his hand into his temple when dude was arguing that peasants aren’t proletariats.
I FELT THAT
There is a significant difference, in fact. Peasants only tribute a portion of their labor to the owner of the land they work and subsist on the remainder, like feudal serfs. Proletarians have to depend on the wage from selling their labor in order to obtain the necessities of survival at all.
Peasants weren’t proletariats though
peasants and workers are two different things.... why do you think theres a hammer AND a sickle
@@notmyrealname5473 there both still an underclass tho?
This guy makes me think solidarity is truly dead. I've never felt lonelier being a leftist.
danman1950 I have never seen a truer statement than this one, in a time and place where any kind of leftist is passionately hated, it becomes even more depressing that leftists in this platform hardly get to unite. As leftist, why honestly give a shit about our superficial differences? We just need to agree on a common goal in abolishing corruption, exploitation, and imperialism. But when there are already sharp differences in morality, it does become a problem. Especially with bad faith tankies who fetishise the USSR.
And this is just two types of leftists blowing up. We are more divided than ever. I see a fascist future, unfortunately.
I guess us leftists just need to have a common goal and work together, regardless of our differences, but we need to get the tankies and wokescolds out of our movement as they’re bound to ruin it
@@RevOptimism I think both fetishising USSR and outright hating it for everything are equally bad. It is just unnacceptable to say anything about USSR except bad things in USA cause otherwise people feel like betrayal or embarrasment due to absolute brainwashing of americans during the cold war. Leftists in USA are just afraid of losing support simple americans who believe USSR was hell on earth that's why they try to distance themselves from it.
@@aworldtowin955 you, sir, are 110% based
"I'm not a tankie..."
Vaush: *looks at the camera*
"Are you describing horseshoe theory right now?"
"That would only be the case if you were an actual leftist my friend."
DAMN Vaush bringing the heat with that one
Vaush, peasants and the proletariat were different classes. The proletariat are wage laborers, whereas the peasantry consisted of serfs.
Marx offers the following distinction:
“The serf sells only a portion of his labour-power. It is not he who receives wages from the owner of the land; it is rather the owner of the land who receives a tribute from him. The serf belongs to the soil, and to the lord of the soil he brings its fruit.
The free labourer, on the other hand, sells his very self, and that by fractions. He auctions off eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his life, one day like the next, to the highest bidder, to the owner of raw materials, tools, and the means of life - i.e., to the capitalist. The labourer belongs neither to an owner nor to the soil, but eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his daily life belong to whomsoever buys them. The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his labour-power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class, unless he gives up his own existence. He does not belong to this or that capitalist, but to the capitalist class; and it is for him to find his man - i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class."
Edit: So the peasantry isn't comprised solely by serfs, but consists generally of people who work on property owned by lords or landlords and get to keep a portion of their yield, which they subsist off of. This differs from the proletariat, which engage in wage labor.
Good man.
Yes Vaush is lacking some basic knowledge of Marxist theory and history, left communists would have a field day with him.
This is a distinction without a difference they still exist as an exploited class who require similar means of liberation. Their interests probably aren’t that much different
@@wiggy009 except there is a difference in their relationship to production. You're taking on a very reductionist view. Yes, both groups are exploited, but the ways in which they are exploited, and how to remedy their exploitation, are not necessarily the same. The difference, therefore, matters.
Mattjmjmjm the fact that serfs hardly exist anywhere if at all in the modern world illustrates how irrelevant much of this shit is. Left communists can have a field day jerking themselves off with obscure theory knowledge while Vaush tries to be pragmatic.
1:04:42 Lenin literally said don't let Stalin run things, the only reason he kept him around was he was good at robbing banks and shit
Lenin wasn't a Roman emperor who had the final decision on who should succeed him
@@vladislavbg9307 I never said he was or should have been.
@@vladislavbg9307 stalin though sure acted like an emperor
I have to disagree with Vaush on some points. First of all, when he claimed the average proletariat doesn't have the means to start a movement/revolution, Vaush got defensive and called him an authoriarian, while at the same time making the argument that someone that would lead a movement would probably be a worker. He didn't imply people are dumb so we need leaders, but vaush strawmmaned immediately into this. Workers aren't magically going to lead a movement. It's about the importance of theory. It pains me that Vaush is a major in sociology and didn't read Marx. I don't know how it is in America but in my country sociology have Comte, Weber and Marx as the basis for it. I'm sorry but Vaush is sounding like Destiny everytime he adresses USSR into Stalin = Hitler argument. And then he proceeded into saying the guy misinterpreted Lenin while never reading a single line of Lenin himself. I don't know... I always agree with Vaush on almost all things but his lack of theory and relying almost entirely on rhetoric is starting to catch up. And saying co-ops can stand agaisnt predatory top down corporations is just not true at all.
Yeah same, i feel like this was his worst debate to date.
Nailed it
His lack of knowledge in history and Marxist theory made him look quite stupid. The caller had better points on almost everything.
No he didn't Strawman. The caller literally went on about how the peasants und the stupid workers need to be lead by a Vanguard Party. He didn't meant only thought leaders he outright said to be an technocrat. He wants a few elits to have all the power and Vaush correctly states that this would only replace an old unjust power system with a new one. I agree that Vaush should reed more theory but to disregard his criticism about this as he needs to reed more theory is stupid
@@mrdatrox4167 nah he never worded in that way. But Vaush strawmanned into this. Don't get me wrong i disagree with him, he had bad points. And even with all these problems, Vaush couldn't engage properly due to his historical and theory limitations. Vaush was using literal lib talking points to dismiss him, and that authoritarian call out was utterly pathetic.
In this debate vaush declared secession from the union
Didn't Marx want the eventual abolition of the state? I think Marx believed that gradually over time, society would evolve to a point where it didn't need a traditional state.
Democracy will be needed no matter what state our society is in. Citizens should have power and a say in how everything is run.
I'm so over the "people are too stupid to make their own choices" shit from tankies.
Yeah Marx and Engels thought that the only way to abolish classes is to abolish the state.
That's exactly the irony that eludes the auth-left.
It's amazing this guy thinks market socialism isnt socialism even though it is by very definition simply worker ownership of the means of production but he thinks the state capitalism of the USSR is socialism lmao
@@commissarcardsharp I believe you have gotten these definitions a little mixed up. What you are providing is the fairly standard definition of Communism (which is a spectrum of Socialist ideologies and economic models under the Socialist umbrella).
Market Socialism is when the workers and/or the people own the means of production (Socialism) and (a portion of) the goods and services are provided either directly via a market exchange, or based on market mechanics and opposed to central planning.
(And don't forget that State Socialists exist)
It is also important to note just how extensive the Market Socialist spectrum is, from the free market co-operative models associated with Hodgkin (the first Socialist economist), Proudhon, etc. to syndicate, anarcho-collectivist and guild-socialist models, and yes, you can even find State Socialists who argue that the state owned means of productions should sell the goods on a market.
I think it can be really important to check out the writers outside of the Marxist canon, as the extent of Socialist thought, and how the workers/people manage their economy when private property is abolished, is very diverse - and there is a lot to learn (or at least contemplate) from essentially every notable theorist/movement.
@@commissarcardsharp They have been discredited? How? By who? You are redefining Socialism to make the terms contradictory, essentially you are defining your viewpoint into existence. I'd be worried if I had to result to that.
The fact that elements of Socialist modes of production exists under capitalism makes complete sense. Elements of capitalist production existed under Feudalism. This does not discredit Socialism (or rather, the standard definition of Socialism).
As your name literally includes the term Communism I am also very surprised you wish to redefine Socialism in this way.
@@commissarcardsharp Marx having a opinion or making a counter case to Market Socialism doesn't discredit it, nor make it a contradictory term, how could it?
@@commissarcardsharp Also: There is no significant difference between owning your own means of production and being forced to sell your labour to others?!
And that is Scientic in your view.
Sometimes when the term "Scientific" is thrown out along with blatant absurdities like that it is hard to take it seriously. Don't just arbitrarily by whatever Marx or people interpreting/building on Marx states reality is.
@@commissarcardsharp I don't recall if I have read this before, will go through it soon and get back to you.
Sadly, listening to Engels and Marx try to tarnish other Socialist movements is often like listening to Jordan Peterson trying to tarnish Marxism - i.e. completely out of its depth, extremely generalized and clueless/deceptive about the actual contents. I'd really recommend reading the source material whenever they make dismissive points/remarks as it is almost always built on a strawman.
I actually grew up in the 1980's USSR and through the breakup. Interesting to listen to two Americans talk about what I saw and lived through
Well how would you summarize your experience. Did you actually have free housing like the tankie discussed. Did you feel like you were under an oppressive system? Was the education biased and in support of Stalin? Im very interested about what it was truly like for an average person.
It’s a bunch of idiots here, huh?
The way this guy speaks about the vanguard party reminds me of how religious people speak about their beliefs. Like holy shit, this gives me flashbacks of my SUPER religious past
As a Christian ancom, he does remind me of some armchair apologists.
i've heard rumors of the mythical non-tankie ML, i've yet to see one with my own eyes.
I know a few, they usually just want to seperate the national issues and social issues
ML is just another way of saying tankie
I get that feeling, I'm a ML but an ex tankie
(still love the music though)
So what's the definition of tankie supposed to be? I remember when Vaush defined it he was explicitly not referring to all MLists, but here you say those two terms are interchangeable.
I'm confused.
@@darkrider962 One who supported the use of tanks in Hungary.
ML and tankie are not interchangeable terms.
I'm a trotskyist that have lots of stalinist friend, my friends make fun of trotsky but damn... they at least admit that trotsky was murdered
Who cares if he was murdered
@A Scam Involving Corndogs well you don't need to be sorry, it's not like every stalinist were mini stalin who wants to murder me
Begs the question why you are friends with the supporters of a murderer ☺
Trotsky was an inteligent person and a great commander but he wasn't a saint either. However, what happened to him was indeed murder.
Vaush, you were right about the communes in China being a sham. They were sites of Party surveillance and state control. Private households were coercively abolished, and people were forced to join these communes. Real messages put out by Party officials included:
“Now we’ll see whether you follow the socialist or capitalist road. If you follow the socialist road, sign up here to join a commune.”
“Our village has two cooperatives; you have to join one or the other.”
“Anyone who refuses to join is taking the road of the landlords, rich peasants, capitalists, and Americans.”
These communes controlled access to food and other basic needs. As the “providers” of all basic necessities, officials could enrich themselves while increasing control of the daily lives of villagers at the most basic level.
I'm at 1 hour 59, and all the comments are telling me that a massive breakdown is gonna happen in 1 minute. Wish me luck!
>lunatic tankie
this title is redundant
YOUR BRAIN IS FULL OF SHIT IF YOU HAVE ONE
Andrearuch97 chill
@@Andrearuch97 Found the tankie
@@GameGod77 shut up you LIBTARD
@@Andrearuch97 go back to defending the deaths of millions of innocent people under authoritarian regimes which are okay if they aren't racist
I never actually had much exposure to hard-core tankies. Now I have context
Try Finnish Bolshevik and Hakim.
Consider yourself lucky, tankies are physically draining to interact with
Tankies are entertaining. An argument between that guy and a full blown Natsoc would be lit (that is if they didn't find a common ground and both go Nazbol).
Hearing Vaush defend the value of the everyday worker was genuinely heartwarming in this debate ☺️
"We aren't above them, we ARE them." Good line.
the capitalist mode of production is characterised by wage labour and generalised commodity production
Commie blocks are actually quite good, I live in one currently and they are still in a good condition (they were supposed to be decommissioned 20 years ago), much better that buildings made in 1990s/2000s. And in many places these were set up in large, walkable neighborhoods with plenty of green and services. Soviets did ONE thing right.
PS. Not a tankie.
Did you just use Lunatic in your title Vaush? I think you're gonna have to make a 20 minute apology video about this...
Unfortunately the way UA-cam works demands very click baity titles. I don’t doubt he thinks i’m a lunatic though lol
Cashel A. Nelson Too bad I don’t defend Kruschev, Mr. Eurocom
Leftism Today Pedantry is mark of low intelligence. You know what people mean when they call you a tankie you disingenuous shit for brains.
@Cashel A. Nelson "Stalin was evil mustache man and there is no difference between USSR and nazi germany"
The only two types of people who unironically say this are
a.)Fascists trying to make themselves look less bad,by equating themselves to Stalin and the USSR
b.)Capitalists who are trying to dismiss the accomplishments of the soviet union by spouting CIA propaganda
Anyways nice try,but anyone can see you're not a leftist my friend
@Cashel A. Nelson Again my friend you keep pretending Stalin is a fascist,which is at best stupidity or insanity and at worst purposeful malevolence
"B-But but Marx said...."
Marx said get yourself some bitches
* beware this comment section is a tankie minefield * they out in force today
Woo!
TRUUUUUEEEE
We'll stand tall like we did in Tiananmen Square
Mariangeles Baldé I don’t get that reference, what are you talking about?
Mariangeles Baldé Oh yes, make sure to continuously refuse education to black students like the protestors in Tiananmen Square, lol. China post Mao is capitalist, anyway.
The reason Tankies hate trotsky so much is because his works threaten their strongman leader Stalin, and how his book the revolution betrayed calls out their tankie bs
Or they don't like how ridiculous his ideas were. Even Lenin criticized his anti union stance www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm
www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm
@@commissarcardsharp What's the point of this monstrous quote? Trotsky wanting to stay in war communism is incredibly ridiculous btw
@@commissarcardsharp I read it and don't see what the point is since you gave no context. Why don't you try making an argument? Lenin thought Trotsky was a clown.
Lmao this stream is such whiplash, I thought the title was way too harsh given how civil it was going but then the last 20 minutes happened
That moment when Vaush looks at the camera 4:54, I don't know exactly what was on his mind, but if I had to guess. "Buckle in boys we're in for a ride."
i'm 40 minutes in and the guy seems reasonable, i dont agree with him but the title made me think he would be wilin out.
I don’t blame Vaush for framing me that way, unfortunately that’s just how the UA-cam algorithm works. I’ll let him make his money.
@@leftismtoday6072 I don't know man, at the end it seemed to me that you went full authoritarian. I would call that pretty lunatic.
A T I don’t want to replicate the USSR, or Stalin. I myself am a very progressive person. I just want to examine what the USSR did right and did wrong. I myself even admit I would probably be thrown in prison living in the USSR, but that doesn’t mean we should throw away the biggest socialist nation to ever exist.
Leftism Today TL; DR: “Holodomor?” Nazi narrative.
While a famine *did* occur in ‘32, the “Genocide” half was all Nazis.
Khrushchev was a liar that threw Stalin under a bus (accusing him of things he didn’t do...)
The removal of ethnic groups was something that *needed* to be learned from. (History bit to be learned from...)
Better treatment for LGBTQ people... (another history but to learn from...)
Gorbachev was, is, and forever shall be a raging dick. (Ditto Yeltsin.)
Nazis were “patrioted” in BOTH the U.S. and Canada, and given new identities... (which explains why there’s a Far-Right agenda today...)
List will go on as things slowly drip from the annals of history.
@@leftismtoday6072 No but you probably should throw away the nation that put socialism back a century by making the entire world vehemently despise the concept. As opposed to, yknow, justifying oligarchal totalitarianism. Just a thought?
"Who is going to go out and educate people on socialism, it's not going to be the capitalists it will be the vanguard party" Bro. The point is to do that BEFORE the revolution. To build a democratic consensus on the need for a socialist system, and knowledge of what that will entail so that you don't need the educated elite to take control of its implementation, something which inevitability they fail to do because of the corruptive forces of power, and self interest.
31:05 - The Bolsheviks actively dismantled the "Soviets", i.e. workers' councils within three months. Bolshevism is a intrinsically anti-democratic ideology.
35:45 - The livelihood of people being increased is not a good moral argument for an economic system. This argument is made by defenders of capitalism as well. Chomsky's counter-argument: The livelihood of slaves increased from the 17th into the 18th century. The livelihoods of German people increased under Nazi Germany (obv not of the rest of the people). Is that an argument for slavery or nazism?
Oof. 1:06:00. ML's are not lefties. Even with Lenin its questionable whether he was left-wing.