If you’re a hardline Marxist-Leninist or Rosa-backstabbing SuccDem, you already know what it’s like to advocate for left-leaning policies on the
internet. And by left-leaning, I really mean anything
to the left of Reagan. It’s just a constant barrage of Venezuela,
Animal Farm, and human nature. Just a waterfall of memorized talking points
internalized since birth and spat out like the world’s wrongest fountain. Even the tamest of tame SuccDems are getting
hit with the Venezuela line, which shows just how far right everything has gone. If you’re one of those people who instinctively
reject any idea of socialism or communism and just yell out some overused line to “debunk”
it without engaging in a discussion, you’re probably not gonna like this video. I don’t even really know what you’re doing
here, just go write that comment about helicopters and how Vladamir Stalin killed 100 trillion
people. There is a specific type of person I’m trying
to reach, however. It’s that person that understands that capitalism
is flawed, but simply can’t bring themselves to support communism or socialism simply because
they’ve been indoctrinated since birth with the holy lines, "“But what about human nature tho?” The biggest obstacle to being a leftist is
dealing with all these “gotcha remarks.” But once you take a step back from the flood
of Vuvuzeula, you’ll realize that all of them. ... Don’t make much sense. The problem is that a lot of people simply
haven’t heard responses to all these anti-communist arguments, which is why I’m going to do
the world a favor by debunking all of them and hopefully none of us will ever have to
deal with these arguments again. Oh who am I kidding... (CUT OFF) SovietFeed Presents: DEBUNKING EVERY ANTI-COMMUNIST ARGUMENT EVER SOCIALISM IS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES STUFF Admittedly, this first “argument” is more
of a misconception than anything else and surprisingly it tends to come from people
who are new to the left, and well sometimes people who are just misinformed. Cenk: “So what socialism means is the government
does some things and the private industry does some things, right? So the private industry does Coca-Cola, Nike,
makes your shoes. Government does other things like your police
departments, your fire departments, your military. So you like the military? Oh what a socialist you are! No. Just, no. Basically, the argument goes that socialism
is whenever the government does anything, so everything related to the government is
socialist. Following this logic, libraries, welfare,
fire departments, garbage removal, streetlights, policemen, the military, the CIA, FBI, and
prisons are all socialist. Hopefully everyone can agree libraries are
good, but grouping these things with the military, police, and prisons is ridiculous. The police is the same institution that shoots
unarmed black men, incarcerates a massive amount of the population, and gets away with
murder. This type of talk comes from people who want
to normalize socialism to normies by showing them that *technically* the United States already
has socialism! And while I agree that normalizing socialism
is good, at the same time it’s not good to basically deprive it of all meaning. So what is socialism? Well, it’s common ownership of the means
of production, distribution, and exchange. Related to that is communism, which is a stateless,
classless, and moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production. But wait, wasn’t the Soviet Union and all
those other places communist? How could they be when there was still a state? Well, they were run by communist parties,
so they are in the sense that they were trying to achieve it, but strictly speaking they
hadn’t achieved a communist society. That’s enough definition squabbling, for
the sake of streamlining the video, I’ll just call any country that advertised itself
as “communist” or “socialist” as a communist or socialist country, even if it’s
a bit of an oxymoron, considering the definition, (so please don’t flame me in the comments
this is supposed to be an introductory video I know you're already typing) COMMUNISM WOULD CREATE A HIVEMIND DYSTOPIA! The image that comes to most people’s mind
when communists or socialists talk about wanting more equality is that of a bland, boring dystopia
where everyone is forced to be equal. Communism would essentially force everyone
to become part of a hivemind, or at least that’s how the general idea goes. However, the idea that more equality means
suppressing the talented elite to the common level of the masses is just wrong. When communists say we want more equality,
they mean freeing the masses so they can unleash their suppressed talents. After the October Revolution, there was a
flourishing of art, culture, and creativity. The futurist movement, legalization of divorce
for women, and the growth of cinema were exciting developments compared to the Tsar’s regime
over the masses of the people. It turns out liberating millions of people
from the clutches of capital creates an exciting, artistic society, not one where everyone is
forced to be a hivemind and conform to some incorrect, abstract idea of equality. Meanwhile in capitalism, schools prepare students
for a lifetime of work, while workers have to become mindless drones in jobs that a majority
of them hate. Any sort of excitement or interest is usually
reserved for the rich and powerful, while the rest of us go on with our boring lives. People worse off have to deal with the growing
ecological disasters that are literally killing them and destroying their homes, while the
rich profit from ignoring any sort of sustainable solution. Maybe all this talk about a communist “dystopia”
is really just another example of capitalism projecting itself? COMMUNISM KILLED 100 BAZILLION PEOPLE! I’ve already dealt with the topic of death
counts, specifically concerning Stalin, in a previous video. Needless to say, when scholars looked at actual
archival evidence released from the Soviet Union, they found that death counts were actually
much lower than what was previously estimated. The paper “Victims of the Soviet Penal System
in the Pre-War Years” found that many of the previous estimates of historians were
based on “guesses, rumors, or extrapolations from isolated local observations.” I’m not going to go into too much detail
because I cover it in the full video, but the point is, the death count of communism,
which includes Stalin, tend to be overblown and exaggerated to gain more attention. A lot of the “100 million” stuff comes
from the Big Black Book of Communism, which was deliberately bloated to come to a nice
round number. Methodology for these things is also highly
suspect as sometimes they can go as far as counting someone who stubbed their toe in
a communist country another “victim of communism.” *In the arms of the angels, fly away from
here* “Wow, I can’t believe communism would
do this” This conversation about victims of communism,
of course, ignores the millions of death under capitalism from poverty, hunger, exposure,
and imperialist war. We have more than enough resources to give
food, water and treat curable diseases for everyone in the world. It’s capitalism that refuses to provide
these things because they aren’t profitable. ANIMAL FARM “Uh, excuse me sir, but I read this one
fictional book about a farm and anthropomorphic furries and it shows that revolution will
always fail.” George Orwell’s Animal Farm has probably
done more to poison the discourse on communism than any other book. Yes, even you. The most obvious reason is that it’s usually
taught in schools, with students being forced to swallow everything with an uncritical mind. For those of you not in the loop, Animal Farm
is basically a short book with direct comparisons to the Soviet Union using farm animals, eventually
showing a devolution to a brutal dictatorship of the pigs, which is totally what Marx was
advocating. It’s annoying to talk about any sort of
leftist policy and just get “ANIMAL FARM” yelled at you. Like these people suddenly become experts
on socialism and the Soviet Union after reading it. I feel like it’s getting to the point that
people forget Animal Farm... ...is fiction. It's not a real thing. It completely ignores the material reality
that the Soviet Union had to face, namely the invasion of 14 capitalist nations that
defined its policy going forward. It also has sweeping reductions of history,
combining Marx and Lenin into the same character, completely missing Lenin’s important contributions
to the revolution and instead pinning them on the character representing Trotsky. His complete misrepresentation of Soviet history
begins to make sense when we realize that he himself had never even visited the USSR! In addition, Orwell himself was a racist and
a snitch. While hypocritically complaining about “big
brother,” he reported communists to the secret police and provided them with lists
of names, where, in typical mayo fashion, he calls Paul Robeson, a black internationalist,
“anti-white” while also being bigoted against Jews and homosexuals. At the height of WWII, in a strictly anti-communist
society while the Soviet people were fighting to the death against the nazi hordes, Orwell
somehow thought he was brave by speaking out against the Soviet Union, when in reality
he was just another tool of the bourgeoisie. Hopefully it’s clear that Orwell is not
the greatest source on communism and that learning history from a book that literally
calls itself a “fairy story” is not a replacement for an actual history book. If you have criticisms of the Soviet Union
or communism and cite The Little Mermaid, sorry to say but I’m not going to take you
seriously. NO FOOD LOL The fact that communist countries had famines is mocked again and again, but it ignores
the fact that after these famines, countries like the Soviet Union and China accomplished
food security for the rest of their existence. A study called “Economic Development, Political-Economic System, and the Physical Quality of Life” compares socialist and capitalist countries
based on different levels of development, looking at the physical quality of life of
both. Data for the study was taken from the World
Development Report of the World Bank. Shockingly, it found that daily per capita
calorie supply was actually higher in socialist countries than those of capitalist ones. Contrary to the much proclaimed, “no food,”
the average socialist citizen was receiving MORE food than their capitalist counterparts. By the way, this same publication also shows
that not only did socialist countries have a higher calorie supply, they also had lower
child death rates, higher life expectancy, population per physician, population per nursing
person, adult literacy, and secondary education. In fact, the Physical Quality of Life Index,
which is a composite and derived measure, shows just how superior socialist countries
are to capitalist countries in terms of quality of life. The discussion section of the study goes on
to say, “Historically there is some evidence that the discrepancies between capitalist
and socialist nations have reflected varying social policies. All the socialist countries have initiated
major public health efforts. These initiatives have aimed toward improved
sanitation, immunization, maternal and child care, nutrition, and housing. In every case, the socialist countries also
have reorganized their health care systems, to create national health services based on
the principle of universal entitlement to care. These policies have led to greater accessibility
of preventative and curative services for previously deprived groups. Expanded educational opportunity has also
been a major priority of the socialist nations, as publicly subsidized education has become
more widely available. Literacy campaigns in these countries have
brought educational benefits to sectors of the population who earlier had not gone to
school.” “Wow. What a dystopia. How dare these socialists improve sanitation,
nutrition, housing, and education. This is George Orwell’s nightmare!” I also want to add that if you’re skeptical
of that study I showed, the CIA itself acknowledged that American and Soviet citizens eat about
the same amount of food each day, but that the Soviet diet is more nutritious. Hopefully that completely satisfies anyone
who still thinks that everyone starved under communism. COMMIES WANNA TAKE MY STUFF? In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx states,
“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private
property.” Many people have taken this to mean that communists
don’t want anyone to own anything, even to the point of sharing our toothbrushes communally. “Hey it’s my turn” “Oh ok, here you go” “Open wide...” *VORE* But anyway, if you actually read the Manifesto,
literally one second earlier from that quote, Marx says himself, “The distinguishing feature
of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois
property.” How communists use private property in this
context is different from the common definition. Communists don’t want to take away your
toothbrush or things that you possess, those are personal property. Private property are things used to make more
money and give power to those that own them, like a factory, banks, offices, and infrastructure. The abolition of private property means taking
those things from private hands and putting them into the hands of the community. To sum it up, communists don’t want to take
away your personal property, just the private property of the ruling class. WON'T EQUAL PAY DISCOURAGE INNOVATION? “But under communism, wouldn’t a janitor
be paid the same as a doctor? Doesn’t that discourage innovation?” Just like every single argument against communism,
this one completely misunderstands what it is. What the question misunderstands is that socialism
(which was what is probably meant) doesn’t mean everyone is paid the same, just that
everyone has common ownership of the means of production. And as I’ll cover in the next section, there
are more things than just money that incentivize humans. As for innovation, just ask yourself which
country went to space first? Which country industrialized at a rapid pace,
turning from a backwards semi-feudal country to a world superpower? If you look for innovation in socialist countries,
there’s plenty there. Historical examples of socialism like the
Soviet Union have provided free healthcare, education, and subsidized housing that foster
an environment for learning. On the other hand, capitalism gives you extortionate
prices for healthcare, thousands in student loan debt, and rent payments to your parasitic
landlord. Imagine how many possible scientists or visionaries
have died before they could achieve anything because they were unlucky enough to be born
in a poor family under capitalism. If it conflicts with profits, capitalism also
often ignores and discourages science like in the case of oil companies denying climate
change. Any innovation that does take place is usually
for the benefit of capitalists, not us. Ask yourself why, when a new machine or program
that can replace workers gets created, workers get laid off? The answer is that capitalists are calling
the shots and want to cut costs to make sure they can make as much profit as possible. Under socialism where there is common ownership
of the means of production, this type of innovation wouldn’t result in layoffs, but rather pay
raises and less working hours. Why would the workers fire themselves? George Lucas: And, I used to say this all
the time, when people back when Russia was the USSR. They would say “Oh but aren’t you so glad
that you’re in America? Well, I know a lot of Russian filmmakers and
they have a lot more freedom than I have. All they have to do is be careful about criticizing
the government. Otherwise they can do anything they want. And so what do you have to do? You have to adhere to a very narrow line of
commercialism. BUT WHAT ABOUT HUMAN NATURE THO? “Communism will never work because of human
nature. Humans are too greedy and lazy to do stuff
unless we had a monetary incentive like we do in capitalism.” Well let’s see. What other incentives could there be besides
gaining money and power to get people to do stuff? I don’t know, what about survival, bettering
another person’s life, passion, satisfaction with your work, curiosity, boredom, an output
for creativity, necessity, and companionship? What do you think happened before capitalism
came about? Did people just sit down in caves and die
from hunger because they didn’t have any monetary incentive? “I’m hungry, wanna go gather some berries?” “Are you going to pay me money?” “What’s that?” And speaking of pre-capitalism, humans spent
hundreds of thousands of years living in a primitive form of communism where we lived
communally. Incentives to work and human nature aren’t
static things, they’re shaped by the mode of production that we live under. If we look at history, there are huge differences
in human behavior throughout the world and to simplify it all down to a monolithic human
nature is ridiculous. As the famous saying goes... “To look at people in capitalist society
and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where
pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough.” BEAT IT AND MOVE TO NORTH KOREA WITH YOUR IPHONE, COMMIE SCUM! Interestingly, since it’s difficult to attack
the basic ideas of socialism and communism, like economic democracy and worker empowerment,
anti-communists have to find another way of shutting these ideas down. You know what I’m talking about, “if you
like socialism so much, why don’t you move to North Korea? Or, "If you’re a socialist, why do you own
an iPhone and a Karl Marx body pillow?" Hey! Insult me, but leave him out of it! Don’t worry Karl, the bullies are gone. So these arguments about socialist hypocrisy
almost always never bother to address the actual ideas of socialism and serve only to
attack the person talking. It’s a slimy tactic that doesn’t actually
mean anything. The train of thought goes as follows. Socialists are against capitalism. iPhones are made in capitalism. And then their galaxy sized brain combines
these two ideas to synthesize that therefore socialists are hypocrites. The problem is that using this logic, you
literally can’t criticize any system at all because you’re a hypocrite for living
in it. “I don’t think I like living in slave
society very much.” “HAHA BUT YOU’RE EATING FOOD YOUR MASTER
GAVE YOU” “I don’t think I like living under feudalism
very much.” “HAHA BUT YOU’RE USING TOOLS MADE UNDER
FEUDALISM” “I don’t think I like living under capitalism
very much” “HAHA BUT YOUR PHONE AND COMPUTER WERE MADE UNDER CAPITALISM” No matter how you spend your money under capitalism,
someone is going to get exploited. That’s what “there is no ethical consumption
under capitalism” meme means, because no matter what, your consumption will always
be unethical in some way. What anti-communists are really saying is
that if you’re a socialist and own anything, you’re a hypocrite. Which is such a great way to shut down discussion. The only way to satisfy these people is if
you live in a makeshift hut in the woods, but even then they would complain that you’re
breathing air in a capitalist society. Not to mention that capitalism doesn’t make
anything, labor does. Capitalism and socialism only determine who
has control of the means of production and gets paid. And as for the other argument, “If you like
socialism so much, why don’t you move to [insert vaguely socialist country here]?” My response is, if you like capitalism so
much, why don’t you move to the slums of capitalist Brazil? Hypocrite. HORSESHOE THEORY A common argument against the far left is
that, if you think about it, the far left is actually as bad as the far right. I mean, one side advocates social justice
and economic equality while the other side advocates for ethnostates and the subjugation of races of people. Jokes aside, there’s an unironic strain
of people who believe in horseshoe theory, that the far left is just as bad as the far
right because both use violence and stuff. Such compelling evidence. Of course, horseshoe theory completely ignores
any sort of deep analysis of communism or fascism. But, but what about the nazi party? Nazi stands for national socialism, so doesn’t
that mean they were the same as the communists? Yes that’s true, but both the German nazis
and Italian fascists purposely made sure to appear leftist to appeal to the people and
muddy the waters. Apparently they did a good job because “centrists”
are still falling for it to this day. If we look at fascism itself, we can see that
it’s actually closer to capitalism than it is to communism. Fascism began when capitalists needed to revitalize
profits, but were stopped by those pesky unions. So capitalists funded fascism in Italy and
Germany and once in power those same fascists suppressed communist parties, labor unions,
lowered taxes on the rich, outlawed strikes, privatized state-owned companies, and generally
supported business. The word “privatization” was literally
coined to describe fascist policies. To argue that fascism is left wing or the
same as communism would be to ignore who supported fascism and what fascism did. In reality, instead of a horseshoe, I would
argue ideology is more like a fishhook, with the far right sharing more in common with
the centrists, who are ready to support fascism as soon as profit levels drop. COMMUNISM ALWAYS RESULTS IN A TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP! This is another reason that fascism and communism
are always incorrectly depicted to be “two sides of the same coin.” In fact, it’s the central idea in a bunch
of other arguments like “Communism is always implemented incorrectly” or “Communism
only works on paper.” “If communism only works on paper, it’s
a good thing I live in paper.” Anyway, these three arguments are essentially
the same thing, so that’s why I’m mushing them together into the same section. The idea that communism is inherently authoritarian
is misleading, because it only developed these things after capitalism tried to crush it. In 1918-20, fourteen capitalist nations invaded
Soviet Russia to overthrow the communists with the years of the civil war intensifying
the Bolshevik’s siege mentality. The same pattern of imperialist, capitalist
countries invading to protect capital can be seen in other countries that try to move
beyond capitalism. The Spartacist Uprising in Germany was suppressed
by the SuccDems with fascist paramilitary forces in 1919, Catalonia was crushed by fascists
in the Spanish Civil War in 1939, Cuba in 1961 suffered from an invasion and afterwards
decades of terrorism from the U.S., Chile in 1973, Nicaragua in 1986, the Vietnam and
Korean Wars, and so much more. As we can see, capitalism will stop at nothing,
even going as far as supporting fascism, if it means stopping communism from threatening
the flow of capital. The reality is that revolutionary countries
are not going to be allowed to develop a socialism that is unhindered. Instead, what we see is a sort of “siege
socialism,” with the authoritarian measures being adopted just to fight back the onslaught
of the West. In the whole context, we see that the “totalitarianism”
of communism is not a natural development, but an unnatural one caused by the constant
barrage of capitalist terrorism. So when communist states fail to defend themselves
from the capitalist massacres and genocides, then capitalists laugh and pin the blame on
communism’s inherent weakness. But when communist states do defend themselves,
when they implement strict security measures to protect their people from capitalist death
squads, then the capitalists run away crying, decrying the commies for being power-hungry
monsters who were just authoritarians seeking to seize state power all along. So if communism is bad and weak when it fails
to defend itself, but it’s also bad and authoritarian when it does defend itself,
then when would communism ever not be depicted to be villainous? The answer is never, because no matter what
communist states do, it’s always spun to be bad. This...is not an argument. It's a dogma. COMMUNISM TAKES AWAY POLITICAL RIGHTS! This argument goes hand in hand with the totalitarian
one before. The idea goes that communist governments are
oppressive and that the poor and downtrodden are prevented from exercising the democratic
rights they had before. The truth, however, is much less dramatic. Democratic rights hadn’t existed in these
countries before communism arrived, Poland was a rightist dictatorship, Russia was a
czarist autocracy, Albania was an Italian fascist protectorate, Cuba was a U.S.-sponsored
dictatorship, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, were all fascist regimes. These countries had known little democracy. If you’re actually curious about democracies under communism, check out this video detailing how Cuba’s democratic system works, needless
to say it's much better than the system we have in capitalist countries. So while capitalists are willing to use virtue
signal “political rights and liberties” in communist countries, they will brutally
crush it if the people actually support the communist “regimes.” Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union,
the people held a referendum, in which the vast majority of people wished to preserve
the Union. Of course the political will of the people
should be ignored if they go against capital’s interests, and it went ahead anyway. If you want to discuss political rights being
taken away in communist countries, there’s no better time than during the overthrow of
communism. Yeltsin, the US-supported capitalist president
of Russia, disbanded the Russian parliament along with every other elected represented
body, abolished Russia’s Constitutional Court, banned labor unions from political
activities, outlawed parties, and attacked the parliament building, killing around 2,000
people. Yeltsin’s popularity rating right before
the election campaign of 1996 was 8 percent. It got so bad that the US had to rig the elections
in Russia to ensure his victory, ironic considering today’s situation. *RUSSIANS!!!!!!* The same pattern existed in other former communist
countries, with Marxists enduring political suppression and elections being rigged to
prevent the people from voting to bring back communism. Whenever communists won victories in fair
and open elections (judged by outside sources) like in Albania and Bulgaria, they were forced
to step down from the pressure of capitalists. All this virtue signaling about political
rights from capitalists goes away when the people themselves want communism back. Hmmm. LOL COMMIES ARE BAD WITH ECONOMICS Wow, look at that. Bread lines for the hungry people under communism. How shameful, this is obviously proof that
communism doesn’t… WAIT A SECOND these are pictures from the
Great Depression, a failure stemming from capitalism, not communism! Although it’s a common stereotype that communists
are bad with economics, it’s because they often get the short end of the stick. Many countries faced decades of maldevelopment
and exploitation when communism arrived. The devastation of war meant widespread poverty
and misery in Eastern Europe, China, and Russia. Communism rebuilt these countries from the
bottom-up, leaving them in much better shape than when they found them. In contrast to the communists building up
formerly destroyed nations, capitalism destroyed the economies of former communist nations. When capitalism arrived in these countries,
real income shrank around 30 to 40 percent, rent and real estate prices soared, inflation
increased, consumer spending decreased by 38 percent in Russia, poverty and homelessness
was commonplace, death rates from suicide, illness, and infant mortality increased, security
for workers became essentially nonexistent, and unemployment rates went as high as 30%. Keep in mind that before capitalism arrived,
communist countries had full employment, free health care, widespread literacy and education,
along with strong worker benefits. Of course capitalists will say, “The transition
to capitalism and free markets will obviously have a period of hardship, but it’s only
temporary until economic prosperity magically appears.” But guess what, they’ve been saying it for
decades, left to go to the store to go get cigarettes, and haven’t come back since. It only takes a quick look at Latin America
to prove that something’s up. As an afterthought, it’s funny how capitalist
apologists will laugh at bread lines in communism, but ignore the fact that there are already
bread lines under capitalism. It’s called the grocery store. And you actually have to pay for the bread. And those who can’t afford it just starve
to death. Those commies sure are oppressive by handing
out free food, huh? FALL OF COMMUNISM “Sure, maybe these communist countries achieved
all these great things, but doesn’t the fall of these countries prove that in the
end, communism just doesn’t work?” WAKE ME UP INSIDE! It is true that the fall of communism in the
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was a triumph for capitalism. But that happened over a quarter of a century
ago, so let’s see what’s happened since. Since the collapse of communism, the United
States and capitalist powers have attacked and even outright invaded various countries
like Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq (again), Libya, and then smaller interventions between. The social democracy in Scandinavia that you
all love? The main reason it’s so strong is because
communism was literally around the corner. Without communism to blunt the edge of capitalism,
capitalists have been free to exploit workers and are continually rolling back labor rights. Saying the fall of communism proves it doesn’t
work ignores the fact that communism did work. It provided essential services like healthcare
and education for free, full employment, rough income inequality, and inexpensive housing
with a reliably growing economy. Compared to the instability of capitalism,
communism worked far better. The only reason communism in the Soviet Union
collapsed is the West’s effort to bring it down, the strains of the Cold War with
a punishing amount of its GDP spent on the military, the cost of being an anchor to other socialist
countries and movements, Gorbachav’s awful policy failures, and a coup d'etat led by
Pizza Hut. “Look at that smug piece of…” None of these reasons have anything to do
with communism itself. On the contrary it proves that capitalism
doesn’t work because of how far capitalists will go to crush any attempts at communism. As former GDR defense minister Heinz Kessler
said, “Sure, I heard about the new freedom that people are enjoying in Eastern Europe,
but how do you define freedom? Millions of people in Eastern Europe are now
free from employment, free from safe streets, free from health care, free from social security.” YOU'RE JUST SOME LAZY COMMIE LOL TALK TO ANYONE WHO LIVED UNDER COMMUNISM Modern-day communists are often stereotyped
as lazy, good-for-nothing *hwite* college students who want nothing to do with their
lives. Of course, this is all nonsense. Communists can come from any and all backgrounds
and are usually from the most marginalized groups. And if we actually look at what people who
lived under communism think, we can see that a majority of them actually want communism
back. As I mentioned earlier, a majority Russian
actually wanted to preserve the Soviet Union in a referendum before the switch to capitalism. In fact, now a majority of Russians actually
prefer the return of socialism and the Soviet Union after all this time. “Nostalgia for the Soviet Union is strong
among the older generation here. They say that two decades of capitalism in
this declining town have spawned rampant corruption and a lawlessness that didn’t exist before” Just a note to add, these clips didn’t come
from a communist propaganda outlet, it came from Radio Free Europe, which is an anti-communist
Amerikan-funded organization. One comment said it best, “Why are you playing
yourself like this? You're supposed to be an imperialist propaganda
outlet, lol.” Anyway, back to the video. Another poll says “Reflecting back on the
breakup of the Soviet Union that happened 22 years ago next week, residents in seven
out of 11 countries that were part of the union are more likely to believe its collapse
harmed their countries than benefited them.” Here’s another poll that shows a majority
of former East Germans actually feel life was better under communism. And another that shows a whopping 72% of Hungarians
say they are worse off under capitalism. And another that shows many Czechs say they
had a better life under communism. And here’s another that shows a majority
of Serbs say life was better under Tito. Okay, you get the point. Country after country, you see large amounts
of people and usually majorities that want to bring communism back. What a surprise that a system that benefited
people’s lives is actually popular with the people who lived under it, contrary to
the blatant lies of those in power. *sigh* [Beep Boop Apathy Detected. Initiating Speed Round Debunking] MY GRANDPARENTS' SLAVES WERE TAKEN BY COMMUNISM! Good. MY FRIEND WHO FLED COMMUNISM SAID IT SUCKED “Yes, you there.” “Uh, what is survivorship bias?” [Correct] YOU'RE NOT A REAL COMMUNISM, YOU'RE JUST THIRSTY FOR STALIN'S BUSSY Yes. VUVUZUELA “You foolish commie, have you ever considered
Vuvuzeula?” There it is, the elephant in the room. I’ve avoided talking at length about specific
countries for this video because I simply can’t cover all of them and I would get
a lot of comments saying I forgot to include this country or the other. But Venezuela is a pretty much something that
anyone to the left of Joseph McCarthy has heard, and I do mean it, so I’ll make an
exception this time. Now why is Venezuela in such a bad place? Is it because of “socialism”? No. Venezuela funds public programs by relying
on the money it makes on oil. When the price of oil collapsed, that meant
a lot of its funds for these things did as well. So the root cause of Venezuela’s financial
struggles has to do with the sudden collapse of oil prices, a staple of capitalist markets,
not socialism. Not to mention that US sanctions are wielded
horrifically to cripple the economy and starve the people and that corporations are hoarding
and hiding food from the people kulak-style, chaos, hunger, and strife is inevitable when
you’re the target of American imperialism. And DESPITE this economic chaos, the people
of Venezuela still support the Bolivarian Revolution, Chavez, and the democratically
elected Maduro over the US-backed attempted coup. In fact they probably support it more now
because the US is starving and attacking them. The problem is that with Venezuela being America’s
number one target right now, the corporate media is working overtime to try and print
a lot of misinformation. Like for example, when a news story broke
out about Venezuelans burning aid, it was immediately called out as fake by people with
the *strange ability* called critical thinking. It wasn’t until a few weeks later that the
failing New York Times finally published a piece revealing that, yes, that footage probably
wasn’t real, b-but Maduro is still a dictator guys! Please listen to us! What I’m saying is, with Venezuela being
the target of American imperialism, don’t believe everything you read on the news. Like come on guys, we’ve been through Iraq
and we all know how that ended. Hopefully we can all see why the US is so
interested in Venezuela. WHY IS ANTI-COMMUNISM SO PREVALENT? It’s easy to debunk all these arguments,
but we’ll never get anywhere unless we examine why anti-communism is so prolific. Communism first and foremost is a threat to
property owners, so ruling interests have made sure to pound anti-communist doctrine
into our heads for literally centuries. I gave a little snippet of this idea earlier,
but a full explanation is given by Michael Parenti in “Blackshirts and Reds,” “In the United States, for over a hundred
years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it
became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological
framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point,
they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions,
this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have
demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament
treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this
demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant
the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened
on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist
system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked
freedom.” In this sense, anticommunism is not really
a position to take, but rather an unfalsifiable religious doctrine. And as we know, anything that can’t be proven
false isn’t scientific. *wink* Most people absorb this sort of anti-communist
doctrine by osmosis simply from interacting and living in a capitalist society. They never bother even learning what communism
is, just that it’s “against human nature” and “Vuvealsza” and have you ever read
this book called Animal Farm? Trying to challenge these notions is exhausting
simply because to them, ideas are not at stake, but rather their whole view of reality. In Mark Fisher’s book, “Capitalist Realism,”
he discusses a widespread condition that contributes to this prevailing anti-communism. Capitalist realism, as Fisher describes, is
the sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system,
but that it is impossible to even imagine an alternative to it. As the phrase goes, “It’s easier to imagine
the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism” Maybe it’s not that people are hostile to
communism, just that the very idea of life beyond capitalism is impossible for us to
even picture. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the eastern bloc, excluding a few examples, actual existing socialism is pretty much extinguished
from the world. Capitalism won, and now we take it for granted
that it’s pretty much all we know. Capitalist realism is so pervasive that even
debunking anti-communism contributes to it. Sure, capitalism may spread poverty, famine
and war, but isn’t that just reality? Isn’t it utopian to even suggest that these
things can be eliminated? In this way, capitalism presents itself as
an unchangeable reality, therefore any action to move beyond it is simply unrealistic. But as with any reality, it’s not the full
story. It’s entirely possible to eliminate poverty,
famine, and war. In fact, we’re well able to do it right
now. Capitalism’s need for ever-growing markets
and infinite resources has depleted our planet and brings us ever closer to environmental
catastrophe, breaking apart the notion that capitalism is the best system we have. Capitalism is going to literally destroy the
entire planet, and we have very little time to do anything about it. We have to realize that capitalism is not
natural. It is literally killing us and the world we
inhabit. We must achieve an alternative or else it
will drag humanity and the planet down with it. CONCLUSION “You foolish mortal! This video is the epitome of whataboutism,
straw man fallacies, and ad hominem attacks! We live in society! Venezuela! iPhones! Animal Farm! Human Nature!” Wait a second... “Hey, no, don’t touch me!” Porky!? I knew it was you all along! “And I could have gotten away with it too
if it weren’t for you meddling ki...errr commies.” “Take him away, NKVD.” “Thank you sir, and please be on the lookout
for any more counter revolutionary activity” I often get told in the comment section of
videos that I’m biased and stuck in my own bubble. And let me just say that...you’re right. But the thing about bias is that it doesn’t
really mean anything because everyone skews everything to their own perspective. The only difference between me and everyone
else is that I’m willing to admit it. Look at it this way. How many times have you heard the claims that
“Communism killed 100 million people” or “Communism always leads to dictatorship?” How many times have you ever complained to
this anti-communist speaker that they were being biased against communism? If your answer to the second question was
zero, then what you’re really mad about isn’t that I’m biased, but that I’m
presenting inconvenient information that goes against your worldview. Too often, skepticism is weaponized against
one side without actually applying it to the other as well. I’m not asking you to accept everything
I’ve argued without doubt, I’m just asking you to apply that same doubt to yourself and
what you think you know as well. Anyway, I know you hardcore leftists in the
comments will be telling me that this video reeks of liberalism and that it’s naive
to believe that arguments, debates, and facts can win people over in this post-Trump world. And that’s actually a pretty good point. I had that exact thought while I was making
this video. I mean, as I explained earlier, the proliferation
of anti-communist sentiment is ingrained in us and it’s almost impossible to imagine
a future beyond capitalism. But maybe it’s the little lib inside of
me that believes that people aren’t just gullible loud speakers of capital. I mean, before I became the plucky communist
I am now, I was just another person spouting off these exact anti-communist talking points. It wasn’t until I stopped and listened to
real communists that my mind slowly started changing. As for this video, I’m reminded of a line
Lenin wrote after years of working on The Development of Capitalism in Russia, “If
the writer of these lines has succeeded in providing some material for clarifying these
problems, he shall regard his labours as not having been fruitless.” Wow, quoting Lenin how pretentious. It’s good to be back. Obviously I probably didn’t debunk EVERY
argument against communism, but I did debunk all the common ones I heard. If you have any arguments I didn’t address,
feel free to comment. I might make a part two if there’s enough
material. Really the big reason I made this video was
because I was tired of making the same exact arguments over and over and over again, and
I wanted a sort of “master video” that debunked all of this stuff in one place. So if you’re arguing with some anti-communist
and they make one or many of the points here, feel free to link this video. And if you’re one of those anti-communists
who were brought here, hey! Stick around for a little bit and I’ll recommend
some stuff to learn more about communism. As I said before, one of the biggest reasons
I became a communist is because I talked and listened to real communists, rather than the
strawman communist we’re told about. So if you have any further questions feel
free to put them in the comments. There are also dedicated subreddits to this
type of thing, so if you really want to engage with communists check out r/communism101 or
r/debatecommunism. In addition, if you want to learn more about
communism, there’s a lot of good resources out there. “Red Menace” and “Marx Madness” are
great podcasts for learning communist theory, “RevLeftRadio” is also good for learning
about miscellaneous communist things. In fact, they have their own version in which
they debunk anti-communist myths. As well, there are a multitude of people on
YouTube who have done a much better job debunking specific arguments such as Hakim, Halim Alrah,
AzureScapeGoat, and ThoughtSlime just off the top of my head. I also have playlists with some great documentaries
and Parenti talks that provide a wealth of information. Finally, of course, if you want to learn about
communism, nothing can replace actually reading theory yourself. As for the future of the channel, I’m not
planning on stopping anytime soon. I’m planning to focus more on theory, and
I already have a series of videos in mind. I’ve apologized in every video now about
my upload schedule, and at this point it’s probably not going to get any better. Still, I’m really sorry this one is late
by two years. Two years is a lot of time, and I’ve grown
a lot since I first started making videos. Honestly, just follow my twitter if you want
updates in the long stretches between videos. I also now have a second channel to post memes,
extra content, and other things during these breaks. I created an instagram as well for any communist
theory and book reviews I make. As the end of the video, it’s a good time
to talk about current events that are going on, namely the numerous uprisings occurring
around the United States. It should go without saying to please materially,
monetarily, and physically support these protests in any form. I’ve already donated as much as I can on
my part, and there will be links to donate pinned in the comments. Class warfare and the struggle against
national oppression will always be staunchly supported on my end. Finally, more importantly than ever, no war
but the class war. “It was better in Cuba! Where I didn’t see any kids with swollen
bellies and hungry and begging. I didn’t see any people begging. It was better in Cuba than it was in Washington
D.C. where I live and I walk down the street and I see people in total misery and disorientation
standing there begging for food, begging for money, sleeping in hallways. I see that in the richest country in the world. That’s where it was better! And when you talk about freedom, that’s freedom! And when you talk about oppression, that’s
oppression! Sleeping in a doorway is oppression. You wanna know what oppression is, then sleep
in the doorways of the land of the free and the home of the brave, and you’ll know what
oppression is. You wanna know what oppression is, then think
about the guys who sit there wondering if they’re gonna blow their brains out because
they can’t pay the mortgage on their house and they can’t feed their kids and they
see the whole thing falling apart. That’s where it’s better. And those are real things. And that’s part of freedom.”
is this video eighteen years long? i hope so
As someone who lives in Czech Republic I can’t agree with the whole video. The poll is very misleading and the latest polls with more people show only 6% support communism and even our communist party condemned the communists of the past. They directly killed a lot of people people even from the party sometimes only because their ethnicity. I agree that it was not as bad as Americans say but it wasn’t really good and now we are better off.
I do wish you addressed the people fleeing these regimes for "a better life under capitalism". I find this to be a common argument whenever I discuss communism and socialist ideas. Anyway, great video otherwise!
I think people who have issues with how tankie the video looks have a valid point, but I think that the reason the video goes into the Soviet Union is that the arguments people will have will involve citing the USSR. I think some of the argument/responses in the video have some holes, but nothing big enough that a regular person would be able to refute.
Would this be helpful for democratic socialism as well?
the only criticism i have is youre argument for "youre just some lazy commie, talk to anyone who lived under communism." you could have used testimonials from someone praising their social services instead of using someone who said "stalin didnt kill enough people." you have to keep in mind that youre not just fighting an uphill battle, youre fighting a battle up a steep cliff. i think that line is more likely to put someone off of communism rather than convince them.
First, I just want to say that thanks for the video, definitely put a lot of time into! In addition, I think you really did hit many of the counter arguments that were brought up. However, I do have some criticisms.
One being is that watching this video and your video on Stalin really sets a bad tone. USSR was a totalitarian regime. It seemed to excuse most of the short comings because of external factors while ignoring many of the internal ones. Some people could definitely get a tankie vibe. Maybe not this video but definitely the Stalin one. Yes, the beginnings of the USSR were promising but that ended shortly after Lenin died. I really don’t get why some leftists feel the need to defend certain “socialist” regimes. Of course it’s in the interests of the capitalist class, but it comes off to me as being class reductionist.
Anyways, that’s all I have to offer. I know that I’m equally fair to be criticized.
Thanks for helping the push against left anti-communism in "the west". It's one of the most annoying things I have experienced after moving to Europe
I don't know who this video is supposed to address.
I could understand some tame "debunking every stupid argument" video, that just about anyone with their head still on the shoulders should be able to enjoy. But this reads more like "soviets did nothing wrong", that even people in here have a really hard time to stomach (and throwing "socialism is just government doing stuff" concerns into it is just counterproductive).
Rosa's death was a bit more complex than "Ebert called the truncheons and who cares about the remainder".
Socialism has nothing to do with hiveminds, but in a marxist-leninist system "democratic" centralism and not even separation of powers could as well be it (and no amount of counterrevolution can justify this).
The BBC is utter crap, but when people count deaths for a given ideology, they don't just stop at "directly executed ones". The Great Chinese Famine alone was competing with the whole European theatre of WW2. It sounds a lot like bullshit to reframe "there were bad famines due to markedly bad policies" like "no food, and when they fixed it, it was there so what".
Your obsession with Orwell has already been mentioned elsewhere (fun fact: I was given to read the thing in school the year before we even started talking about XX century history, and it's a completely reasonable book for anybody sharp enough to understand it's metaphoric fiction).
And last but not least.. you seem kind of awkward when handling fascism? Italian fascism was a thing, yes. But the adjective "fascism" today has far wider implications than just that. Stalin itself could be scored under that.