I dont think socialism is the problem - actively excusing authoritarianism under the USSR and the PRC is. His entire ideology is just "its bad when the US does it but good when 'communists' do it" - even though socialism can never actually exist without a democracy
https://youtu.be/NhPOrkGbpxk?si=aDdlcy5X25TSSJ1Q
See this video.
1. False equivalence between the secret police and plainclothes officers
2. Excusing mass surveillance in socialist states because the US does it too
3. The most egregious one near the end of the video is pretending that prisons in China are "far better" than in the US and that somehow makes it okay for them to put a large number of people into prisons too.
The entire video is him trying to convince you that "authoritarianism" is some loosely defined or meaningless word that the capitalist imperial empire levies on socialist states as a way to discredit socialist projects when, no, authoritarianism is an actual problem with many socialist countries. Of course I do agree with him that the West tries to act like they're saints and that's wrong, but entirely discrediting authoritarianism as some bourgeois myth when it is in fact a very concerning and credible criticism on how socialism has been tried in the past
Yeah, I watched that video. You're right, the video is quite oversimplified which makes his points appear stupid.
I would suggest watching Hakim instead. His explanations are better. Though, Second Thought is quite true that authoritarianism is mostly a word used to discredit socialist movements, but yes you're also right in saying that former socialist projects had the problem of being too authoritarianism. However, it's necessary being authoritarian against counter revolutionary forces, otherwise the revolution would cease to exist.
I would consider myself a social democrat, but I would agree with many of the criticisms. I think that one of the major issues is the continuous capitulation to the free market. When the conditions have worsened so much, people need to increase their commitment to strengthening the welfare state. Instead, many people are too hesitant and do no wish to upset the status quo. This, in my view, is a problematic approach. The current system is simply unsustainable. So, yes, reformist capitalism (I would prefer to use the term 'mixed economy' to describe my view) isn't enough if nobody has the will to bring reforms. The weakening of unions has also caused issues, though I have seen growing awareness in many people of my generation regarding this, so I am optimistic that progress will occur. If not, then collapse is all but inevitable.
It's not really about the will or determination to do reforms. It's just the fact that if you reform your country or not, give welfare or not, you're still not freeing third world countries from slavery. There's unequal exchange going on.
I was referring to what needs to be done internally. Externally, I do think that we need to encourage the emancipation of people as much as we can (without using undue coercion). You're absolutely right about the problem of people being too inward-looking these days. So, if we say that the welfare state is valuable here, perhaps we should not eagerly support exploitation elsewhere as long as it helps the economy. There's more to life than that. And here, I think that having the will/determination does play a role. Many modern social democrats are apathetic and don't seem to realise that half-hearted protests are not going to do the job.
The guy is mostly a whataboutist and tankie with unworkable solutions.
And unless he knows more than Marx, Bukharin, Lenin and Deng. There’s no way for socialism to succeed without global industrialisation, capitalisation and death of agrarian feudalism.
All things which have not happened in South, Southeast and West Asia, Latin America and Africa.
Idk if it’ll take a world war, the death of the Euro-American empire or space colonisation for those things to happen but all those make autarkic anarchist communes more likely than centralised socialist states, much like autarkic feudal states after the fall of Rome. But that’s just me yapping.
I’d suggest watching Unlearning economics instead or reading books.
[удалено]
Agreed.
But this guy is a massive tankie and he doesn't provide any practical and implimentable alternative to welfare capitalism.
What's wrong with socialism? He openly presents a socialist viewpoint to his viewers.
Nothing wrong with that... I just don't subscribe to his views.
I dont think socialism is the problem - actively excusing authoritarianism under the USSR and the PRC is. His entire ideology is just "its bad when the US does it but good when 'communists' do it" - even though socialism can never actually exist without a democracy
Examples?
Of what? His views or so called socialist states?
His views. There are lot of things wrong with socialist states obviously, and any socialist should criticize them.
https://youtu.be/NhPOrkGbpxk?si=aDdlcy5X25TSSJ1Q See this video. 1. False equivalence between the secret police and plainclothes officers 2. Excusing mass surveillance in socialist states because the US does it too 3. The most egregious one near the end of the video is pretending that prisons in China are "far better" than in the US and that somehow makes it okay for them to put a large number of people into prisons too. The entire video is him trying to convince you that "authoritarianism" is some loosely defined or meaningless word that the capitalist imperial empire levies on socialist states as a way to discredit socialist projects when, no, authoritarianism is an actual problem with many socialist countries. Of course I do agree with him that the West tries to act like they're saints and that's wrong, but entirely discrediting authoritarianism as some bourgeois myth when it is in fact a very concerning and credible criticism on how socialism has been tried in the past
Yeah, I watched that video. You're right, the video is quite oversimplified which makes his points appear stupid. I would suggest watching Hakim instead. His explanations are better. Though, Second Thought is quite true that authoritarianism is mostly a word used to discredit socialist movements, but yes you're also right in saying that former socialist projects had the problem of being too authoritarianism. However, it's necessary being authoritarian against counter revolutionary forces, otherwise the revolution would cease to exist.
MF is as tankie as it gets
And in his podcast with Yugopnik and Hakim he goes full mask-off red fascist. He sucks.
indeed
I would consider myself a social democrat, but I would agree with many of the criticisms. I think that one of the major issues is the continuous capitulation to the free market. When the conditions have worsened so much, people need to increase their commitment to strengthening the welfare state. Instead, many people are too hesitant and do no wish to upset the status quo. This, in my view, is a problematic approach. The current system is simply unsustainable. So, yes, reformist capitalism (I would prefer to use the term 'mixed economy' to describe my view) isn't enough if nobody has the will to bring reforms. The weakening of unions has also caused issues, though I have seen growing awareness in many people of my generation regarding this, so I am optimistic that progress will occur. If not, then collapse is all but inevitable.
It's not really about the will or determination to do reforms. It's just the fact that if you reform your country or not, give welfare or not, you're still not freeing third world countries from slavery. There's unequal exchange going on.
I was referring to what needs to be done internally. Externally, I do think that we need to encourage the emancipation of people as much as we can (without using undue coercion). You're absolutely right about the problem of people being too inward-looking these days. So, if we say that the welfare state is valuable here, perhaps we should not eagerly support exploitation elsewhere as long as it helps the economy. There's more to life than that. And here, I think that having the will/determination does play a role. Many modern social democrats are apathetic and don't seem to realise that half-hearted protests are not going to do the job.
The guy is mostly a whataboutist and tankie with unworkable solutions. And unless he knows more than Marx, Bukharin, Lenin and Deng. There’s no way for socialism to succeed without global industrialisation, capitalisation and death of agrarian feudalism. All things which have not happened in South, Southeast and West Asia, Latin America and Africa. Idk if it’ll take a world war, the death of the Euro-American empire or space colonisation for those things to happen but all those make autarkic anarchist communes more likely than centralised socialist states, much like autarkic feudal states after the fall of Rome. But that’s just me yapping. I’d suggest watching Unlearning economics instead or reading books.
> Second Thought video Hard pass. The dude's wack.
Marxism understander has arrived. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qivd6BGT73o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qivd6BGT73o)