https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_qEyQw6eiI

stalin was a great man

how can you save the world without it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU6zPnUhd_U

.agree

guns aren't banned in cuba lol

cuba's private gun ownership rate is low but it's still higher than about 74 countries

juan peron was a true radical centrist

his analysis of the indian situation is utterly facile, like everything he tries to talk about

no he needs to stop being an idiot

he needs to examine the specific policy changes that led to the shift we have seen in India's economy since the early 90's and their effects

especially as you could provide strong counterexamples

like with Japan growing rapidly under heavy state intervention and experiencing anemic growth after liberalization

or how in Chile poverty skyrocketed and growth was stagnant during Pinochet's administration and after his laissez faire policies were scaled back by the succession of center left governments that came after Chile started growing and poverty started dropping

or how most Russians are poorer today than they were 20 years ago under socialism

the specific reasons why India has grown is because of a change in trade policy and loosening of burdensome private sector regulations in an economy reliant on the private sector

they still pursue dirigiste policies to a degree

jordan peterson is so desperate to paint post-modernism and modern progressivism as being marxist

why do you think that

is it because of oppressor/oppressed memes

what does "application of Marxist theory to social structure" mean

you could do the same thing with early liberals who were an influence on marx's class theory

the core of what you're getting at is that an anlysis of power dynamics = marxism

which is silly, the core of marxism has to do with a materialist interpretation of historical development and the role class struggle plays in this development

i don't think superificial similarities between polemics constitutes these ideologies being the same

so when oldschool liberals like adolphe blanqui were writing about how there are two "classes", those who live by their own labor and oppressors who live on the labor of others

could you not just use the same example you have used with marxism and progressivism here

just replace the parasites with white men and those who live by their own labor with minorities

yes and adolphe blanqui was a classical liberal

many classical liberals had similar ideas

they were a big influence on marx

ideologies can evolve and marxism has evolved a lot

it is just that right wingers have not been able to demonstrate that modern progressivism and post-modernism as a whole represents an evolution of marxism

at least not anymore so than marxism would constitute an evolution of classical liberalism

what does that mean

how are intersectionality and feminism marxist

yeah marxist feminism is a thing

liberal feminism is also a thing

neither of these things make feminism as a whole marxist or liberal

who are some examples of prominent marxist feminists

angela davis is probably the most popular marxist feminist

that i am aware of

i don't think marxist feminists have the same reach of these sorts of rainbow capitalist feminists whose rhetoric has been taken on by third way politicians like clinton and trudeau

also on the professor comment i would like to point out that students tend to be more radical than their professors, the narrative that the radicalism of college students represents some sort of gramscian march through the institutions is not well substantiated imo

why though

like what

well first of all wealth redistribution isn't inherently marxist and marxism is not about "equality of outcome" and marx explicitly wrote that equality of outcome would not exist under socialism

i suppose a classless society would be more on the money, though this was something utopian socialists who were harshly criticized by marx advocated for as well

well marx criticized utopian socialists from a historical materialist perspective

sure and i mean liberals and fascists don't disagree on everything

liberalism and fascism are still distinct ideologies

i don't disagree with liberals on everything but i'm still opposed to liberalism

yeah but what i'm saying is that advocating for a classless society isn't inherently marxist

i usually just say socialist

without adjectives

well i'm not a progressive

but anyways

i do agree that there are progressives who are anti-capitalist and you could say there is overlap between progressives and marxists, however, would you say that the majority of "SJW" types are anti-capitalist or marxist?

answer that question before u go

actually pinochet was a communist

because starvation = gommunism xD

i think steven crowder is aggressively ignorant and i would be surprised if he had a three digit iq

conscripting women is dumb

>pinochet fanboi memeing about communism and food

xd

meanwhile socialist countries actually have greater levels of food security at similar levels of development (along with pretty much all indicators for quality of life) 🤔

are you talking about the UMAPs or what

they were a form of alternative civilian service that hasn't been in use since 1968

countries like switzerland, austria, finland, and israel have alternative civilian service programs

how can you have newer stuff when there are only like two socialist countries now

i mean there are some edge cases you could argue

venezuela has a capitalist economy

and the "ask the people who lived under it" stuff is dumb

the soviet union and even stalin are held in high regard in russia, armenia, moldova

over 70% of hungarians said life under socialism was better

same with serbians

i'm sorry but capitalism isn't socialism

norway is closer to being a socialist country than venezuela

they are failing for similar reasons to why they did in the 80's

norway has a bigger public sector than venezuela

what do you mean they don't know any better

they literally lived under socialism and then lived under capitalism and liberalism for 15 years

scandinavian countries aren't socialist

and neither is venezuela

i agree mal

you can gave a large public sector within a capitalist economy

but by what metric could you consider venezuela to represent the collective ownership over the means of production and not norway

norway is closer because they have a bigger public sector, less of their labor force are employed in capitalist employer-employee relationships than in venezuela

why not

they've expropriated a very small portion of the private sector

in fact venezuela's public sector was bigger in 1997 before chavez was elected than in any year during his tenure

that's dumb as fuck

violating property rights in certain scenarios doesn't make them closer to being socialist, you have to look at the actual mode of production

it could be used as a way to move toward socialism

they are basically irrelevant

when you are describing the mode of production as it currently exists

by certain scenarios i mean they haven't like banned private property or expropriated the overwhelming majority of it