Grifting or not aside, it doesn't seem like the majority of his fans are demented like what's described IMO. He has mostly the same kind of criticisms of the younger socialist movement that you do.
Holy crap. I don't generally regard the positions bernie or AOC are known for as socialist, as far as i am concerned they are social democrats. Within that my impression is that they are left of center social democrats. Maybe AOC less so than bernie. I don't recall any specific position they've taken that specifically requires the state to take control of means of production (which as far as i am concerned is the actual threshold for socialism). Maybe bernie talked about cooperative type business at some point? Though my criticism there is that it's with very few exceptions a failed business model. It's a pain that socialist can mean whatever depending on who you are talking two.All memes aside, it describes the vast majority of a lot of the younger people in the socialist movement right now . AOC and Bernie are tame as warm milk compared to folks like Vaush or Keffals who are more like a cocktail of battery acid and rusty nails. And then there's Hasan Piker, who's essentially grifting as a socialist on Twitch...
And this is coming from somebody who generally likes Vaush's content
NEVERMIND, back on topic: Republicans are destroying democracy.
Right, but I don't know if that's because his fans are based, or if they just don't give a shit about his actual message and are just political hobbyists. If it's the latter, that means they fit the tweet's claim about not knowing anything about the real world outside of what they learn in uni. I only lumped in Hasan's fanbase with the likes of people like Vaush, Demon Mama, or Keffals because there's overlap because of the socialist title and lack of actual socialist-like behavior amongst them all.
Bernie's a Democratic Socialist. Which isn't the same as a Social Democrat. AOC was and I think still is.kkck said:
tbh I think it's because of white privilege and Bannon being a right winger that he gets off lightly./cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/3E2CWCNML5OZ3KV7MENU4LF5GI.jpg)
Trump ex-adviser Bannon convicted of contempt of U.S. Congress
Steve Bannon, a key associate of former President Donald Trump and an influential figure on the American right, was convicted on Friday of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the committee probing last year's attack on the U.S. Capitol, a verdict the panel called a "victory for the...www.reuters.com
I am surprised contempt of congress is basically a misdemeanor tbh. And up to 30 days each seems pretty tame. Not that any amount of time is jail is passable but you;d think full blown contempt of congress would weight more.
I know that, but I've never really heard them take a position aligning with democratic socialist. That's easily the terrain of folk who want the government to take ownership and planning of production means. Essentially, the most generic piece of shit socialist with a beyond failed ideology that in a fair world would have gone violently extinct 50 years ago. Bernie and AoC are usually known more for taxing the wealthy, universal healthcare or getting money out of politics. Which in a fair world wouldn't even be left wing positions, it'd be common sense. Now, if they actually are democratic socialists then yeah, fuck em. I'll take a thousand fascists' over 0.000001 of their nonsense. I am not pro fascism of course but given the choice fascism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communism.
Don't wanna equate communism and socialism though. You're falling for the same shit conservatives do.
Once you get to the point where you are for the government taking charge and planning of means of production the line gets pretty thin socialism and communism. And that line is by no means the difference between between success and catastrophic failure, they've all failed equally hard and they are all equally catastrophic. Societ union, venezuela, cuba, nowadays argentina with their peronism... Vaguely different formula, vaguely different misery...
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
tbh, most of the time whenever people criticize communism, I see that they actually have no idea what communism is, and they often get it mixed up with capitalism.
In "that" scenario where you can decide how do you want to be killed, the options are two:
what's an example of people confusing capitalism with communism?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
what's an example of people confusing capitalism with communism?
Well you won't find that much in the states. Modern socialists (that is to say, lefty white college kids) are majorly market socialists.kkck said:
*shrugs* I dunno what to tell you then, other than these aren't the kinds of socialist economies that current American socialists are pushing for because all of these had heavy government interference.
Then I'm assuming you touch more grass than most of us do. Or you don't frequent twitter... or you've never heard of the Gravel Institute... or you don't watch twitch politics... or you don't know many white zoomer college kids. I know you're not from the states so it probably looks different wherever you're from, but you absolutely will not hear anyone but the most terminally online folks pushing for straight up communism here.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I mean, sure that seems logical. The issue is the people ACTUALLY critiquing socialism (and not just calling it communism) are usually only cherry-picking things they dislike and ignoring the things they'd be fine with, and it inevitably devolves into slippery slope arguments.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
I mean, I know the definition. Nothing I've said is contrary is against that definition there. While short of communism, it's still pretty much what every failed socialist state (which is to say every socialist state) has attempted and failed catastrophically at. It's failed ideological mumbo jumbo which is basically incompatible with the real world. I've seen in my lifetime businesses that have been handed to workers. Basically using some three bit government excuses to give most company shares to said workers... They were tanked immediately. The workers ended up being regular corrupt morons who wanted to squeeze as much money out of the company. If there even was someone there trying to do things right, he was simply too dumb to manage the business. They had zero notion of them owning that shit and that taking money from it was basically stealing from themselves. I don't see anything wrong with cooperatives but their failure rates are ridiculous. Successful cases exists of course but for the most part they just aren't efficient. Nationalized industries are just endless pits of corruption. You can get a good sense of what this looks like by nationalized oil across central and south america. I wouldn't really support south or central american countries privatizing oil largely because the immediate result would be a substantial portion of the population setting the country both literally and figuratively on fire but the best thing that will happen to them is invariably that either oil runs out or technology makes oil worthless so that the endless pits of corruption that arise from this nationalized industry disappears. While that would also set the region on fire there's at least a chance of something decent coming out of the ashes. On a slightly different I would also argue that socialism is insane from the "take money out of politics" angle. That usually refers to donations and such but if merely donations can corrupt a government then imagine a system where the government has direct control over all the capital that socialism would require for it to be socialism. It's entirely unworkable. It makes donation based corruption basically into childsplay.
The right is pretty consistent with what they mean by "socialism". It's a dog whistle for taxation, which they equate with theft. It's similar to what they mean by "welfare". Usually voters are referring to gov't programs like Medicaid and food stamps, but the higher up the income ladder you go it also stands for unions, voting, wages, Social Security, etc. Essentially anything that helps "poor" people instead of entrenching them in strict hierarchies.
Something about this story smells fishy.
But also, anything they disagree with that doesn't fit any of those that you mentioned.
