The Official Youtubers Thread

[jwb]

It is whatabotism because saying capitalism bad as a response to the critique that the supposed successes of central planning are just theft and genocide is a deflection. It's irrelevant that britain starved people in india. You're just getting into the pissing match of who killed more which is once again a distraction from the actual point.

When you are trying to propose an alternative to an abusive system you really need to do better than "well you genocide too!" In doing so you've completely ceded the moral high ground you were using to attack the existing system in the first place.

[The Batlord]

It's not a whataboutism because, again, I'm not defending or arguing for the USSR. I'm pointing out that capitalism can kill millions in a short period of time the same as socialism, which you had stated wasn't the case. We can throw the Belgian Congo in as well.

It's at best fixing your statement and at worst trivia.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

It's not a whataboutism because, again, I'm not defending or arguing for the USSR. I'm pointing out that capitalism can kill millions in a short period of time the same as socialism, which you had stated wasn't the case. We can throw the Belgian Congo in as well.

It's at best fixing your statement and at worst trivia.

I didn't say anything about capitalism not being able to cause famines that kill a lot of people in a short period of time. I said that the central planning richard wolff refers to has killed millions of people every single time it was tried so the only innovation here is that you speed up industrialization via genocide. The fact that other genocides/famines have happened without said industrialization in other parts of the world is once again irrelevant. The point is he's pointing to the ussr as a success story of central planning so whether you claim to be defending the ussr or not, by responding to my criticism of his ussr example with a talking point about British colonial exploitation of india is once again whatabotism and just a distraction from the actual point. The bottom line is either you think rapid industrialization is worth killing off millions of peasants via starvation or I don't. If you don't then pointing to the rapid growth of the ussr is a moot point.

[The Batlord]

Again, I'm not a tankie who supports the USSR or China and I think people who do might as well be fascists but you said

Pointing to a model that was even more efficient at brutalizing and oppressing their own population as a success story for central planning is once again dishonest if you don't acknowledge said brutality and if you do acknowledge it then it's just not a good argument. You're supposed to be proposing something better than capitalism and instead you're pointing to something that was just as if not more brutal and exploitative but they just did it quicker and with a higher death toll in a shorter amount of time.

And I'm saying that capitalism has in fact acted in similar ways with vastly high body counts and portraying capitalism as in fact being less of a killer is not correct and whether or not you intend to imply that it implies that one is preferable to the other whereas I would say that Soviet style socialism and capitalist imperialism both tend to murder lots of people. One just tends to commit mass murder within a country's borders and one tends to commit mass murder as an export.

[jwb]

Let's cut to the chase... Are you saying you think soviet 5 year plan style industrialization is either preferable to capitalism or at the very least not less preferable? Because if not you are wasting your time here.

I'm trying to avoid the genocide olympics style pissing contest but iirc the single largest famine in human history that killed the most people in the shortest period of time happened in China during the great leap forward.

But that's not even my point... My point isn't that they killed the most people, its that their economic alternative to capitalism merely relied on the already existing global capitalist markets to use exports that they robbed from their own population to raise money to buy industrial machinery that was also produced by capitalist countries!

So they actually didn't alleviate any of the abuses you're pointing to under capitalism. The imperialism and exploitation continued. The only thing they added to the mix was a new way to kill millions of people.

So yeah.... My point is and always has been that these policies are genocidal so pointing to them as a success story is implicitly endorsing genocide. Whether wolff claims to support the ussr or not. Like you, he says he doesn't. But then he says he isn't it impressive how fast they grew! That's the grift here and that's what I'm taking exception to.

I actually think it's more logical to be a tankie and just say the means justified the ends than it is to keep deflecting with "but capitalism..." There is actually a semi decent argument to be made that without the 5 year plan the soviets would've been completely strategically ****ed. But again that requires biting the bullet on the genocide.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by jwb

Let's cut to the chase... Are you saying you think soviet 5 year plan style industrialization is either preferable to capitalism or at the very least not less preferable? Because if not you are wasting your time here.

I'm trying to avoid the genocide olympics style pissing contest but iirc the single largest famine in human history that killed the most people in the shortest period of time happened in China during the great leap forward.

But that's not even my point... My point isn't that they killed the most people, its that their economic alternative to capitalism merely relied on the already existing global capitalist markets to use exports that they robbed from their own population to raise money to buy industrial machinery that was also produced by capitalist countries!

So they actually didn't alleviate any of the abuses you're pointing to under capitalism. The imperialism and exploitation continued. The only thing they added to the mix was a new way to kill millions of people.

So yeah.... My point is and always has been that these policies are genocidal so pointing to them as a success story is implicitly endorsing genocide. Whether wolff claims to support the ussr or not. Like you, he says he doesn't. But then he says he isn't it impressive how fast they grew! That's the grift here and that's what I'm taking exception to.

I actually think it's more logical to be a tankie and just say the means justified the ends than it is to keep deflecting with "but capitalism..." There is actually a semi decent argument to be made that without the 5 year plan the soviets would've been completely strategically ****ed. But again that requires biting the bullet on the genocide.

I'm saying exactly what I've said. Both economic systems have no scruples about murder. I really don't know why you're getting so bent out of shape.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by elphenor

every nation has relied on "socialism" (a command economy) to get to the point where they can exploit other nations in what we call a "Free Market"

there isn't an element of the US economy that didn't use extraordinary protectionist measures and government initiative to thrive

it simply does not happen that "freedom" magically generates wealth...it's just a justification for inequality

You understand there's a massive difference between collectivized agriculture and protectionism? There are only a handful of communist countries that have actually resorted to collectivization to rapidly industrialize and those are the examples we're discussing. That didn't happen in the US or western europe and it hasn't happened in many of the developing countries around the world. In the major examples where it has happened under soviet style models of command economies, the death toll for these policies has been staggering.

Protectionism is not a command economy. Restrictions on markets is not a command economy. You're conflating terms here and also probably overstating the efficacy of things like protectionism. There are pros and cons to that kind of policy like anything else and too much protectionism can stifle economic growth the same way that unmitigated free trade can lead to things like outsourcing and other externalities.

[Mindy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZWr4ue2lQU

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zooOchqDkE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g9InbMwF0o
2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

[jwb]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I'm saying exactly what I've said. Both economic systems have no scruples about murder. I really don't know why you're getting so bent out of shape.

It's really not about giving capitalism some sort of moral high ground it's just a question of efficacy. Industrialization always has growing pains associated with it it's just the sort of rapid industrialization the soviets did has a direct cost associated in terms of human lives. So if you don't think that cost is worthwhile then it's not really a good example of how command economies can grow faster. They can grow faster by incurring a cost that many would say isn't worth the growth. So it's a non starter.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by jwb

It's really not about giving capitalism some sort of moral high ground it's just a question of efficacy. Industrialization always has growing pains associated with it it's just the sort of rapid industrialization the soviets did has a direct cost associated in terms of human lives. So if you don't think that cost is worthwhile then it's not really a good example of how command economies can grow faster. They can grow faster by incurring a cost that many would say isn't worth the growth. So it's a non starter.

Well not intrinsically. If you look at the actual history of all these famines they're more due to wild incompetence rather than knowingly paying some price. Go look up ideas both the Soviets and the Chinese had about planting seeds and it's just nonsense about how genetics is counterrevolutionary, seeds grow and develop characteristics through solidarity or some ****. Just a lot of hubris from megalomaniacs who aren't willing to admit they don't know what the **** they're doing while trying to reconstitute an entire country. Even the holodomor was made worse than Stalin even intended cause he was a dip****.