- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
E Find a Breaking Bad DVD case and put in the shitty Mexican rip off version.
BreadTube - The Unofficial ContraPoints Dickriders Club and the culture / drama surrounding the community.
- Thread starter RichardMongler
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
DirtyHegel
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2021
F. Lolita Express Flight Logs
MasterCornstalk
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2022
Only one needs to look into the mirror. Just show her how racists leftists advocate for discrimation based on race with segregated rooms.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2022
Soviet apologist Hakim attempts to dunk on Economics Explained with arguments like "actually, capitalism had the same problem. Therefore this argument is null." He even makes the argument that the gulags were "rehabilitative labor" rather than prison camps and said the quality of Eastern Bloc products were good. If the Soviet Economy was such a great economy, how come did it stagnate under Brezhnev during the 70s and early 80s leading to an economic collapse that helped end the Soviet Union? How come the average Soviet citizen was less well off compared to an American during most of the Cold War? Why did Gorbachev implement Perestroika in order to help the Soviet economy if the Soviet economy as Hakim says was great?
I saw a comment that pretty much debunks a bunch of Hakim's points of the USSR being a worker's paradise. It's lengthy so I'll spoiler it but TL;DR Hakim is like most Breadtubers in that he's a westerner who has never spoken to anyone from the Eastern bloc about how they feel about the Soviet Union.
Oh, I'm so glad you westerners are free to talk about the soviet economy as if there's anything good about it, without having lived through it, from the comfort of the capitalist society our parents have built for you. We, from the form Eastern Bloc, remember a lot of things you fail to mention that rapidly break down the rose-tinted lefty glasses you're looking through: - "The goods were very durable", but only if a) you can actually find them, because their production was based on plans and not on demand and b) if they're low-tech enough, otherwise you get a very bad knock-off of the western analogue, and since there's no market competition, the state can just say "Here, we make TVs too, like the West, and they're roughly equivalent" and leave it at that. - You had to WAIT for cars - 7-10 years in some cases - because "the plan" didn't match the demand and there was no way to correct the plan, due to the limited resources. - More often than not, when you submit a "rationalization" application (think of this as a patent) with your factory's manager or the state ministry of industry, they'll accept it, only to let you know - in 1 month's time - that "a comrade from the party has already submitted a similar proposal first". So much for stimulating innovation. - "Everybody had housing" - true, but it was in huge, very hastily and poorly built high-rises with an abysmal interior layout. Also, in many cases in large cities, the land the flats were built on had pre-existing houses. They'd show up on your door one merry day and say they're expropriating your house and yard and they'll give you an apartment in kind (with no way for you to appeal or decline). Then they'd put an estimated value of $700 total for your house and yard and $10000 for your "gorgeous brand new flat" on the 10th floor of a 14-story, 5-apartments-per-floor building and force you to take a mortgage with the state bank for the remaining $9300. If you don't want it, you can rent a dilapidated state-owned condo on the outskirts of town for life - it's "your choice" 
- The state managed its 5-year plans so well, that it had to use up all the accumulated pension fund money in the 1980s to pay for their projects, but because you'd get sent to the work camp (at best) or disappear (at worst), you couldn't speak out against it. This way, after the whole thing finally crumbled economically - with queues for bread in winter 1989 - leading to the communist party going down, it was found out that the pensions had been paid out from the current taxes + loans for nearly a decade, so the new government had to reduce the pensions by several times to what the state could actually afford. - "The workers salaries were super good and there was work for everybody", but with a big caveat - only if you meet your unrealistically high production quotas. If you discount the premium (bonuses) from these quotas, the salaries were barely enough to meet the basic living needs. That led to all sorts of tricks being employed by the workers to meet the quotas, such as turning off the water filters on the ore crushing machines in the metallurgy plants. This way you don't have to stop the line and clean the gunk after X amount of cycles, so you can actually try and meet the quotas, but the rooms are filled with dust and most people get lung cancer within 15 years - either fibrosis or silicosis. Further to that point, on many occasions factories were deliberately kept unautomated and thus with low productivity in order to have more employment spots for line workers - in my grandfather's steel mill the factory director literally said that they won't be using the automation equipment of their brand-new, secretly purchased French-built hot steel rolling line because "what are our comrades' wives going to work then?" - "Healthcare was free" - but there was no access to the advanced medicine the western countries had, not even close. - A lot of common materials weren't readily available because they were "need for industry", so if you wanted, for example, to build a roof for your porch or balcony, you had to find a friend who would mark the items you need as "scrap" in the factory and "take them out for disposition", i.e. get them over to you. Then, you'd had to return the favor one day with something you have at your factory and so on. - A bunch of the hardest and/or most dangerous labor, such as Uranium mining, was done by slave-laborer political prisoners in concentration camps, which didn't close right up until the dissolution of the USSR, with some of them still open today as "prisoner behavioral correction colonies". So yeah, go ahead and tell me about the Soviet economy so more and be thankful you didn't live through it.
- The state managed its 5-year plans so well, that it had to use up all the accumulated pension fund money in the 1980s to pay for their projects, but because you'd get sent to the work camp (at best) or disappear (at worst), you couldn't speak out against it. This way, after the whole thing finally crumbled economically - with queues for bread in winter 1989 - leading to the communist party going down, it was found out that the pensions had been paid out from the current taxes + loans for nearly a decade, so the new government had to reduce the pensions by several times to what the state could actually afford. - "The workers salaries were super good and there was work for everybody", but with a big caveat - only if you meet your unrealistically high production quotas. If you discount the premium (bonuses) from these quotas, the salaries were barely enough to meet the basic living needs. That led to all sorts of tricks being employed by the workers to meet the quotas, such as turning off the water filters on the ore crushing machines in the metallurgy plants. This way you don't have to stop the line and clean the gunk after X amount of cycles, so you can actually try and meet the quotas, but the rooms are filled with dust and most people get lung cancer within 15 years - either fibrosis or silicosis. Further to that point, on many occasions factories were deliberately kept unautomated and thus with low productivity in order to have more employment spots for line workers - in my grandfather's steel mill the factory director literally said that they won't be using the automation equipment of their brand-new, secretly purchased French-built hot steel rolling line because "what are our comrades' wives going to work then?" - "Healthcare was free" - but there was no access to the advanced medicine the western countries had, not even close. - A lot of common materials weren't readily available because they were "need for industry", so if you wanted, for example, to build a roof for your porch or balcony, you had to find a friend who would mark the items you need as "scrap" in the factory and "take them out for disposition", i.e. get them over to you. Then, you'd had to return the favor one day with something you have at your factory and so on. - A bunch of the hardest and/or most dangerous labor, such as Uranium mining, was done by slave-laborer political prisoners in concentration camps, which didn't close right up until the dissolution of the USSR, with some of them still open today as "prisoner behavioral correction colonies". So yeah, go ahead and tell me about the Soviet economy so more and be thankful you didn't live through it.
kukkia
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2021
One would have thought that the fact that almost every single member state in the USSR wanted to get the fuck out of it the moment Gorbachev started allowing for some free speech would have put to rest the whole "Soviet Union was a paradise" shit, but here we are lol.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2022
They'll sperg on "Muh CIA trickery" or something like that, ignoring the Ruskies were also guilty of infiltration via the KGB.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
The other cope is accusing all other countries of sabotage through economic non-participation. It's the same cope you see politicians use in US cities with high gun crime. "It would work if only everyone in existence was forced to participate in my policy/religion/system."
The CIA trickery is another cope as to why South America is a basket case.
School of Fish
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
Here's a funny question you can use to troll Commies. If Communism is so great why isn't the USSR around anymore? After all, if Communism is a superior ideology then it should have dethroned Capitalism by now.
It's the same question I ask Fascists and other extremist nutjobs (like religious nationalists and Anarchists) about their ideologies. If their ideology is so great, then why don't most people want to adopt them? Could it be that most people out there are not batshit insane and want to live a normal life where they're not forced to worship the state or not be forced to worship deity like you see in countries like North Korea or Iran? Hmm.
I mean shit the reason why you're not seeing everyday hardworking people becoming Commies is because why would they surrender their individual rights to some hack that promises them free shit? That's another thing, the only type of people that extremist ideologies attract are usually the people that are morally bankrupt and society's angsty outcasts that nobody fucking likes anyway.
The only people that will pretty much become a Communist these days are people that made tons of bad choices in life to blame society, rich fucks like Vuash and Hasanabi that were born with a gold spoon in their mouths, and college gradates that got indoctrinated by the leftist professors and they now think they know everything about the world around them.
So the reason why normal people don't want Communism is for the same reasons why normal people don't really want Fascism or Anarchism or any other wacko ideology for that matter; those are the ideologies of losers and unhinged nobodies that are the punchline of a joke anyway.
It's the same question I ask Fascists and other extremist nutjobs (like religious nationalists and Anarchists) about their ideologies. If their ideology is so great, then why don't most people want to adopt them? Could it be that most people out there are not batshit insane and want to live a normal life where they're not forced to worship the state or not be forced to worship deity like you see in countries like North Korea or Iran? Hmm.
I mean shit the reason why you're not seeing everyday hardworking people becoming Commies is because why would they surrender their individual rights to some hack that promises them free shit? That's another thing, the only type of people that extremist ideologies attract are usually the people that are morally bankrupt and society's angsty outcasts that nobody fucking likes anyway.
The only people that will pretty much become a Communist these days are people that made tons of bad choices in life to blame society, rich fucks like Vuash and Hasanabi that were born with a gold spoon in their mouths, and college gradates that got indoctrinated by the leftist professors and they now think they know everything about the world around them.
So the reason why normal people don't want Communism is for the same reasons why normal people don't really want Fascism or Anarchism or any other wacko ideology for that matter; those are the ideologies of losers and unhinged nobodies that are the punchline of a joke anyway.
Last edited:
DirtyHegel
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2021
I mean, Anarchism hasnt been that tested, but it has shown promise with Makhno's Black Army, Cospaia, etc. Liberalism rn is also taking a Fat L as well.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2022
The only time extremist ideologies win over more moderate viewpoints is when the people are desperate and the more center viewpoints don't or can't do anything to alleviate the situation. This is a major reason why Hitler was voted into power and how the Bolsheviks overthrew the Provisional Government of Russia during the October Revolution. Don't want extreme ideologies to govern your nation, then don't give the people reasons to seek extremism.
Lobster Cult High Priest
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2021
Agreed it’s a game of concessions.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2022
I mean Anarchy and communism are incompatible, despite what many leftists say. The first person to describe themselves as an Anarchist, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, was strongly anti communist, as he saw communism using the state to enforce equality as something that would only lead to despair and tyranny. Proudhon was in favor of a market economy consisting of cooperatives, voluntary mutual associations, and small scale businesses of peasents and artisans, as opposed to communism favoring economic planning and abolishing markets. Lastly Proudhon was a patriot who wanted a decentralized federation to protect the regional cultures of France, which is the exact opposite of the globalist utopianism of communism where the workers have no country.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2021
DirtyHegel
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2021
yeah, even Makhno wasnt a Communist as people like to claim. Rather a form of Market Anarcho-Syndicalism is a better description, Proudhon was super based though and is proof the 2 cant intermingle.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
I mean, "libertarian" was once a euphemism for "anarchist" back when most people (rightly) thought of anarchists as being nihilistic spree killers and terrorists.
It's only recently that it's also used to describe minarchists or those who favor limited government.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2021
ancoms be seething about how the big bad ancap view is more plausible than their dogma
- Joined
- May 28, 2017
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
He also said that "property is theft," so it makes sense on why many communists try to reconcile anarchism with communism.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2022
Yes that is true. Proudhon did believe in universal ownership of land and the means of production and that in order for someones claims to property to be valid they had to be actively using that property, which is in line with what ancoms believe. However Proudhon also said that property is freedom. The context of this seemingly contradictory quote is that he was referring to the product of ones labor, which a person has an absolute right to as they worked to create it. This is incompatible with communism as communism requires that everyone gives according to their abilities, and takes according to their needs, which is the exact opposite of what Proudhon believed. While I quite like Proudhon, I don't agree with everything he had to say (I wouldn't consider myself an anarchist), and I was just trying to explain how ancoms will try to claim that they are the only really anarchists and that Anarcho capitalism is an oxymoron because it doesn't call in line with what anarchism original was, yet at the same time they deviate heavily from what anarchism originally was as well.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2022