Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "What is a Marxist Libertarian? (Pt. 2) | Brendan O’Neill | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

  1. Marx was an extremely arrogant man (as you would have to be to want to remake society to suit your vision of a utopia). He was also very stupid. The most basic freedom a man can have is the right to profit from his own labour. Marxism removes that right. The individual is subservient to the state, rather than the state serving the individual. And as all things are justifiable for the good of the state, all injustices against the individual by the state are justifiable. Which why every communist state has always been (and will always be) an authoritarian shithole. Marx correctly recognised the danger of allowing too much power to get into the hands of the wealthy 'boss class' (no big accomplishment, as better men than him had recognised this long before him). But his answer to that age old problem was focus power into the hands of an even smaller elite: The political class. Those who run the state. Now, under Marxism, as well as running government, making the laws you must live by, setting economic and foreign policy etc, the political class employ you, sets your wages, tells you where to live, tells you what you can read, what entertainment you can watch, and what news you get to hear. What could go wrong, right? Obviously, Marx couldn't just come out and say that. It's basically authoritarianism, and he had to sell his idea, after all. So he simply rebranded the Marxist State as 'The People'. Job done! And this little trick has allowed Marxists to claim they are the will of the people, even as they work to undermine democracy around the world, as they always have done. But if they don't recognise the will of the people in a democratic system, then at what point do we think they'll recognise it once they're in power? That's why it's better to watch what Marxists do, rather than listening to what they say they'll do.
    4
  2. Don't bother watching it. It's basically as you would expect. The key moments were '...I encourage everyone to read the communist manifesto. See! It promises nice things!'
    4
  3. Clearly impossible for him. As he still calls himself a Marxist.
    2
  4. In a capitalist system you are free to work for who you please. Or work for yourself. You are free to invest the profits of your labour how you please. And others are free to join you. The results speak for themselves. Those who are lucky enough to live in the capitalist west enjoy higher living standards and greater freedoms, rights, and privileges then ever before in human history. https://youtu.be/th25DDFZh_U
    2
  5. Jason smith And how much support do you think communists would have had in the past if they had told the truth of what they intend?
    2
  6. Deluded fantasist. ''...I encourage everyone to read the communist manifesto!'' What? How much support do you think they would've got if they had told the truth of what they intended?
    1
  7. Why are we expected to believe Marxist are any less likely to exploit the masses than anyone else? After all, if history proves anything, they are far more likely to do this than the capitalist system they wish to replace.
    1
  8. Kikasitsu Not sure how a 24 minute youtube video by someone who calls themselves 'Libertarian Socialist Rants' is supposed to disprove historical fact in regard to the disastrous failures of communism. I might also point out that if you were South Korean, you would most certainly think the Korean war was a 'Good War'. As it saved you from the horrors of the North Korean economic model. And that economic model (Juche) is pretty close to, if not exactly alike, the communist model. Hence regular famine and the most authoritarian of authoritarian regimes. But as you're not Korean, I'm guessing empathising with Koreans is beyond you. But then your little list of wars says nothing about capitalism. It wasn't designed to. Rather than keeping on topic (which would be hard for you to do, knowing the history of Marxism), you instead focus on the foreign policy of one country, the US. Simply repeating the meaningless Marxist mantra of ''the WORKER’s Ownership over the means of Production'' won't magic away the vast imperfections of Marx's ideology. It's lies anyhow. Under communism, the worker doesn't 'own the means of production'. He doesn't own anything. All Marx does is redefine the word 'ownership'. How can you not have noticed? Presently, if you wish to 'make preserves' as a day job, you're quite free to do so. You'll have to find customers. Make good preserves people want to buy. And not expect society to pay you simply because you like making substandard preserves. In other words, if you think that Marxism is an economic system that would allow you to piss about 'expressing' yourself all day at the expense of others, you're a fuckin idiot. Yes, you are a cog in a machine. And that machine runs the things you take for granted. The basic things you don't even think about, like the sewage system you use, or the power grid. It keeps the streets clean and empties your garbage. Good luck finding someone who see's that as a hobby. There is no economic model that would allow you to only do things you want to do. Not capitalism. And not Marxism. Doing things you don't want to do is all part of the human condition. But as my link showed, innovation can make those things easier and quicker. And if you want innovation, then you need the capitalist system.
    1
  9. I refer to you as being a cog in the machine in the fact that you will be REPLACED by someone that is even more desperate than you. You are simply assuming the worst of capitalism, and the best of Marxist theory (but not practice). Despite the fact that reality has proved otherwise. History tells you that Marx didn’t work (of course it didn’t...) BECAUSE OF OUTSIDE FORCES AROUND IT This is the massive flaw in Marxism. In order for it to supposedly work, everyone must sign up to it. But this is simply a lie to blame others for the failure of Marxism. One that often leads to show trials of those accused of being 'enemies of the people', saboteurs, enemy agents, etc. Stalin had his show trials, and the Chavez regime in Venezuela does pretty much the same. The horrors of the Soviet Union were inbuilt defects of the system they used. As was the horror of Mao's China. Making excuses for those regimes is basically the same as denying the horrors of nazi Germany. And if selling your ideology means having to deny the unnecessary deaths of millions of people, your ideology is worthless. And again, Churchill's policy towards India is nothing to do with capitalism. And no, I don't find it odd that we moved from fighting the evils of nazism to fighting the evils of communism. Kim Il-song was promoted to leader of North Korea by the Soviet Union. Who, of course, supported and encouraged his invasion of the south. When I saw that Top 10 list, I looked DEEPER into this list, and quickly realized that the Rabbit Hole was far deeper than I expected it’d be This sentence alerts me to the fact that you are very likely a conspiracist. This would explain your erratic arguments, failure to keep on topic, and denial of historical fact. In which case, you should perhaps check out this link... https://youtu.be/pk3StrCq9XI
    1
  10. And what has any of that got to do with capitalism? You're talking cold war politics. Just as during world war 2, western democracies considered Stalin the lessor of two evils when set against Hitler, in the fight against the spread of communism the free west were far from picky about the allies they made. But again, that is not a criticism of capitalism. But you can be thankful that the west ultimately won, and the soviet empire collapsed.
    1
  11. So only a capitalist economic system needs resources? What powers Marxist economics? Bullshit? SOCIALISM is “The Worker’s Ownership over the means of Production.” No it isn't. They don't own anything. FASCISM is the reactionary means of Capitalism when it’s under threat. And yet is was the capitalist west that went to war with nazi Germany, not the Soviet Union.
    1
  12. I'll assume that's ''...you the worker has a say in how things should work or be handled'' But that's not the same as the worker owning the means of production, is it? And that was your claim. That's Marx's claim. But its a lie. The worker doesn't own anything! So what if Hitler despised Marx? Is that supposed to be some kind of vindication of Marx? And I don't see how a supposed plot against FDR in 1934 is a criticism of capitalism.
    1