Comments by "Chompy the Beast" (@chompythebeast) on "Reluctantly watching another David Pakman video (Reacting to \"Debunked: Socialism doesn't work\")" video.

"you can claim that, but not demonstrate it." This is a frankly comedic thing to read coming from the guy who just left a comment claiming that the USA is closer to socialist than the USSR was without any citation other than "authoritarianism" lol The USA has the most incarcerated population on the planet, but yeah, when they do it it's FREEDOM not AUTHORITARIANISM
5
@danielvan12 It is beyond parody that you keep appealing to the terror of living in a police state while you are literally living in biggest police state in the history of the world. I'm sure you've got nothing to hide, right, citizen? And I'm no less sure you'd applaud the cops raiding another socialist's or welfare queen's home
5
'Inherently right wing, totalitarian perversions of Marxism'. Wow. Liberal thinking: Right-wing bad, genuine threats to the Free Market™ bad, Castro threatened Capital more than Hitler, therefore Castro = right of Hitler! Why even get in front of an audience and say this sort of stuff if you're gonna be this uneducated? Is it shilling for the man, or is it just sheer, ignorant ego?
5
@danielvan12 You have to know that was a juvenile response. The Soviet Union and Mao's China literally increased the lifespan of billions of people by a matter of decades in less than a single generation, even by UN and CIA numbers. America today, meanwhile, has the lowest expected lifespan of all Western nations. You have no facts, only Red Scare nonsense
4
Because socialist economies do not operate on a so-called "free market", because those are bourgeois, capitalist class-controlled systems. The laws of supply and demand would still physically apply to any economy, but even there, the goal of socialism is to keep that ratio 1:1 in most cases, whereas the Free Market literally collapses if all supply and demand are equal
3
Whatever Stalin did or didn't do and whether they were "brutal" or "ruthless" is quite rather entirely beside the point I was making, and respectfully, hijacking every conversation that he's apparently adjacent to in order to make sure that everyone involved is following the imperialist line on him to the letter isn't "having a conversation," it's quite clearly derailing the conversation
3
It is rather uplifting, but implying that it is vapid of truth would be nothing more than the propaganda of the enemy, itself a form of "hopium"
3
Your numbers are inflated, they ignore the massive good Mao did, but most importantly, this notion that all bad things are done by your ideological enemy inherent to your leading question is exactly what leads to nonsense definitions of socialism in the first place. Mao's failures aren't suddenly not socialist failures, nor are his successes not socialist successes. That kind of nonsense is what leads to Pak saying that Castro was "right wing", which is completely absurd
2