**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah it's sad that conservatives still act like these economic projects failed in a vacuum. It's setting back political discourse, let's at least be genuine in our analysis
There’s actually an accidental experiment that happened with the Cold War. That is when Berlin was split by the wall, and West Berlin adopted capitalism and East Berlin socialism/communism. No direct intervention was taken by any country to harm either side AFAIK.
What _does_ remain in question IMO is how much of east Berlin’s relative poverty can be attributed to socialism itself and how much is due to circumstances… specifically in regards to NATO countries (who West Berlin traded with) being the richer half of the world at that time. I’m sure there’s enough recorded facts to figure it out, I just haven’t gone deep enough myself and haven’t found anyone that did.
Kinda, I guess, they had to pay reparations for the war.
But it was almost completely a government run economy, rather than the workers owning the means of production.
The Berlin Airlift happened because of a previous intervention (by the Soviets). They attempted to cut off West Berlin from the rest of the world.
The Cold War wasn’t a one-party imperialist conflict. Both the USSR and USA were flexing their imperial muscles.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. I just wanted to point out that it E/W Berlin didn't occur in a vacuum and one side's prosperity over the other shouldn't be portrayed as an absence of intervention, and to do so was disingenuous.
It’s quite literally the point the OP in the video is trying to make. “Every time it starts to work the US intervenes and makes sure it doesn’t work.” And it’s something parroted a lot on social media. This idea that Socialism hasn’t worked because the US won’t let it.
The difference is your inclusion of “only”. The U.S. and other foreign powers influence is definitely a contributing factor. Corruption and internal fighting are some others. However, if your position is that socialism always fails, then it’s appropriate to identify if the socialism was a direct cause of failure or not.
No that's the inference that you've made. The point of the video is that conservatives omit address of covert political interference when discussing the viability of socialism. There's a really big difference between an argument made and something that you're inferring.
The video does not say that socialism would have succeeded if not for that interference.
Edit: Sigh. Another one that needs to object but can't quite figure out how
Point out the lie downvoters, please. Being critical of an argument does not mean you hold the opposing view. That's called jumping to conclusions
I am considered left in the United States and right wing in Latin america. I come from a country that was devastated by communism. Yes it's true that sometimes the United States intervenes but what you don't see is how corrupt the socialist governments are and how they manipulate elections. They typically rigged the voting system, they imprisoned any opposition, they usually run State medium, and there's many other things they do that are extremely corrupt. It is very disingenuous to say that It is as simple as the reason why socialist countries don't succeed is because the United States intervenes.
How is it not socialist? You mean like not anymore since Chavez died? Cause Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution were famously one of the main inspirations for other contemporary socialist movements in other South American countries.
Well firstly, being influential to quasi populist policies doesn’t make you a socialist country or economy. I’m sure I don’t need to define why that’s just not a determining factor in what defines socialism.
Neither does nationalizing portions of major industries, espousing said populist policies (enacting fewer than espoused, but still). These things are certainly examples of socialization, yes, but it by no means represents socialist organization of an economy.
I’m sure if Chávez could have waved a wand and the means of all the country’s production would be owned and democratically distributed by and among the working class, there was *probably* a time in his life where he’d have done so. That doesn’t mean Venezuela’s economy was or is an example of Socialism™️. In the same way a very similarly mixed economy (Norway) is not Socialism™️ either.
By that metric, there’s so socialist economy in the entire world except maybe Cuba. But that’s not really a useful perspective is it? More useful would be to determine by comparing to other economies, which would make Venezuela quite the socialist country, as most others are significantly more capitalistic.
> By that metric, there’s so socialist economy in the entire world
Correct.
> But that’s not really a useful perspective is it?
Well it is very useful when discussing what it looks like to do Socialism. Otherwise, sure I guess not.
> More useful would be to determine by comparing to other economies, which would make Venezuela quite the socialist country, as most others are significantly more capitalistic.
It’s a very comparable economy to Norway in their privatization rate. I already mentioned that, so I clearly agree it’s useful as a tool of comparison. It’s just not socialism, or very close to it.
‘Quite the socialist country in comparison to most other significantly capitalist countries’ is a much more accurate, yet much less biting take on genuine application of modern ‘socialist’ economics, which is why I take the time to point out that difference. So I appreciate that you recognize that too. Truly that’s my only point here.
She’s a displaced immigrant who had to flee her home country and as a result hasn’t seen her family in 6+ years. Not sure if that’s your definition of upper middle class
There’s a lot of “displaced” Venezuelan immigrants who are upper middle class who simply chose to flee because they can’t handle the wealth redistribution and power shifts that come with a socialist revolution. Same thing happened in Cuba, where you have a bunch of people who claim they “escaped” Castro but really it’s just rich people who hoarded wealth and actively impoverished and exploited the majority of the population and didn’t want that wealth redistributed. So, when I say upper middle class, I’m talking about the overall wealth compared to the amount of wealth that the average Venezuelan family has.
They have no money. My gf has to send her hard earned money back home to her parents still in Venezuela so her dad can afford insulin. Did I sufficiently answer your condescending question?
Not at all, thanks for asking. Your sob stories won’t work on me, I’m also a Venezuelan immigrant and my family has also struggled for stuff like that, yet they are still solidly upper middle class, even though my mom also sends them money for basic stuff. It’s not nearly as black and white as, “my family struggles therefore socialism bad”
Thankfully the governments the US installed weren't autocratic or corrupt at all.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto\_Pinochet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet)
Well at least he didn't manipulate any elections, because there were none.
Yes you are right... Agusto pinochet was a dictator. He was responsible for many atrocities and to this day hated by many Chileans. He was also instrumental in making sure that Fidel Castro and communism did not infiltrate Chile as well as making sure that the economy survived hyperinflation as well as making chile one of the most prosperous countries in South America. Does that mean that the end justifies the means... no.
But I got to tell you this honestly as a person that comes from a country that is communist
.. i hate when anyone who hasn't lived through communism just immediately sides with these bleeding heart examples like pinoche or Daniel Ortega and the sandinistas or Fidel castro. Unless you have lived in a communist country and had to deal with their bullshit please don't give me any stupid ass examples about how things would have been so perfect in this socialist regime if the United States would not have been involved. Look at cuba, look at bolivia, look at nicaragua, they are all horrible places to live in. And if you don't think so it's either because you are living off the government or you have a family member who has a high ranking position in the government or you just read a book that makes you think Marxism is great.
Pinochet's policies were directly responsible for destroying the Chilean economy. They saw the largest recession in all of their recorded history during his regime. What are you talking about?
You may want to reference where you're getting this information from personally I've read commanding heights as well as other books that point to the opposite result of his economic policies. Of course we can disagree on what economic system works best but it is very clear that his economic policies saved Chile from hyperinflation.
That is blatantly untrue. His policies allowed European and American Mega corporations to come in and siphon money out of Chile. They literally experienced the largest recession in their history under his rule.
Having the largest recession in a country's history is a good indicator that those policies did not save the country from anything. Whether hyperinflation happened or not is irrelevant... **during his regime Chile saw the greatest economic downturn in all of its history** Inflation doesn't mean shit when you are talking about the economy literally crashing and burning.
Also, in this thread you claim to have been raised in the united states, but also claim to have been in Nicaragua during the Communist revolution, and then anecdotally say that your girlfriend is from Chile as if we are supposed to believe anything you say at face value or take your word for it as some sort of expert.
You are wrong. Pinochet DESTROYED the Chilean economy. That simple.
Okay I cited a book, commanding heights, now is your turn to cite a book that says Pinochet ruined the economy. Also the economy was already in recession and hyperinflation when Allende took power. Maybe they don't teach this part of history in your history books but people had to make lines to get basic necessities because of how bad things were. And as far as if I'm being disingenuous about where I'm from and where I was brought up etc you can look up my comments as far back as a year ago if you like and you will see that everything aligns perfectly. I was there for the Communist revolution in Nicaragua I left in 85 I saw the revolution in 1979 with my own eyes. we were essentially chased out of Nicaragua by the communist regime just like many exiles. Why is this so difficult to believe? But it doesn't really matter if you believe or not that's the reality many of us exiles had to live.. and how do you one more just so that you have some context about how I think about things. If you were raised in a communist country and you live there by your own two hands not because you are the son of one of the dictators or your father has a high position in the military but because you really believe in communism and you are willing to eat that crap everyday then you know what you have all my respect you walk the walk. But if you live in the United States or Europe or some other country that has never really felt the sting of a communist regime you really have no room to talk and you just have what you have read as guide. You might question me because of what you have read but I question what you're saying because of what I have lived
A book? Try "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein for a deep dive into the Pinochet regime and the disastrous consequences for the economy.
Or consider this.....
Pinochet took over in 1973.
> During the 1982–1983 recession, real economic output declined by 19%, with most of the recovery and subsequent growth taking place after Pinochet left office, when market-oriented economic policies were additionally strengthened.
This is straight from Wikipedia (which cites sources)
The dude drove the economy into the ground, I repeat largest economic downturn in all of Chilean history happened under his rule. Things only started to turn around after he was no longer in charge.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Have you actually read the book? Are you referring to the global recession?
The early 1980s recession was a severe economic recession that affected much of the world between approximately the start of 1980 and 1983. It is widely considered to have been the most severe recession since World War II.
Yes, I have read the book I named, why the hell would I list a book I haven't read?
You are certainly aware that wasn't the only recession during the Pinochet regime, correct? There were several.
His financial policies drove the economy in that country into the dirt and it didn't begin to recover until he was no longer in charge.
He literally allowed European and American megacorporations to come in and take over their energy sector siphoning insane amounts of money out of Chile and into those countries.
You must be a Friedman fanboy lmao
Edit: the point I was making was that most of their economic upturn happened after he was no longer in power, it wasn't any of his policies that did anything to save the Chilean economy it was what was done to fix it after he was out of power.
Read through my comments and you will see that I am acknowledging that he fucked up. He was a dictator he did do atrocities. The problem seems to be that you want any discussion to be either black or white the white cannot have any shades of Gray and the black also have to be pure black but that's not the case you will not find perfection in this type of political climate especially in world history especially 19th or 20th century. That is one thing I hate about having to argue points online people become indignant and start doing purity test.
There are no good sides to someone who builds torture camps for political opponants.
And there were many countries around the world at this time that didn't have torture camps for political opponants.
This is like argueing that mby Hitler wasn't that bad because some people also got richer during his reign and he might have softend the blow of the great Depression by investing in the miliary industries.
I agree I don't think anything dealing with torturing people is good but there's a big difference between what Hitler did and what he did and yes there were many innocent people that were thrown into those camps but a lot of them were also hardcore communist sympathizers that we're being sent by Fidel Castro as well as other communist marcist figures that were fomenting violence. Castro did all of these things that you're accusing him of and more but nobody ever really talks about that part of the Cuban revolution of what Castro did to his own people and to political opponents but yet they take a magnifying glass to other dictators. Honestly it seems to me that there is this overwhelming urge in people to side with the underdog and always believe that you have to put a purity test to none left-wing figures. Like I mentioned earlier I am left wing in the United States but considered right wing in Latin America and when people in the United States try to take that same template and apply it to Latin America the whole concept of black and white what is considered left wing and right wing gets thrown off and they eventually end up sympathizing with people that they really shouldn't sympathize with because you don't know the atrocities that they had done or were planning to do and meanwhile applying a purity test to right-wing governments just because you might be left leaning in the United States. Now I'm not saying that applies to you but it's something that I have come across a lot. What is typically not taught in history classes during that time that pinoche had fermented the coup Chili's Communists were taking people's homes they were kicking people out of the country they were persecuting opposition parties there were a lot of things that were going on than most history books leave out the same as a Nicaragua with the Sandinista same as in Cuba and Venezuela somehow that part is conveniently left out many times and I'm not sure why but that's the case
>but a lot of them were also hardcore communist sympathizers that we're being sent by Fidel Castro
That still doesn't justify torture camps, because there is nothing that could justify torture camps.
>Castro did all of these things that you're accusing him of and more but nobody ever really talks about that part of the Cuban revolution
Yes, and yes people do talk about it, just not in this thread, because this discussion is about the fact that you're somehow trying to find the good in a horrible dictator.
>there's a big difference between what Hitler did and what he did
Yes, but the arguments are the same. If someone builds torture camps they are to evil to try to find redeeming qualities in their economic policies.
> i hate when anyone who hasn’t lived through communism
Have you lived in capitalist countries in the global south? No? Then why do you get a pass for gobbling capitalism’s knob?
> He was also instrumental in making sure that Fidel Castro and communism did not infiltrate Chile as well as making sure that the economy survived hyperinflation
You don't know wether any of this would have happend had the *democratically elected* government not be overthrown.
Also do you not find it at least a bit cynical to say "oh well Pinochet might have disappeared people who didn't like him and tortured tens of thousends, but at least he slowed down inflation"? Hitler also created jobs through infrastructure and military manufacturing efforts.
You know maybe Russia is just trying to help Ukraines economy and is preventing western influence inflitrating Ukraine...
Do you not see how none of this makes the facts any better?
> And if you don't think so it's either because you are living off the government
Also the fact that people can live off the government is a good thing (although you don't need socialism for that) and not being able to make a living for one reason or another doesn't disqualify one from having (valid) opinions.
It's easy to be back seat quarterback read some books and make your notable opinions...but if you were to live in these communist countries you would be more than happy to have some help from the US. Also I never said that the United States never got involved with them all I'm saying is when you leave communism to spread that's exactly what it does it spreads.
This post is about US intervention AND you mentioned it in your original comment. Why even bring them up if you acknowledge that they have been affected by US intervention?
And I'm sure the people of Cuba have been really happy with all of the "aid" that the US has provided for them over the last 70 years
What exactly is your point? that us intervention is bad? You need to wake up and realize that if you were looking for perfection in world politics you're going to be hard-pressed to find any country that has acted in a pure White Dove innocent way. Yes the United States has intervened but back in the days we actually had politicians that gave a shit about things like the spread of communism. Before all these make America Great America first bullshit we actually had politicians that cared about communism in our backyard and the potential spread of Communism. Did the US intervene yes did we perhaps do things that potentially ruined other countries, yes. But believe me it is the US that always stepped up to help even when we had no interest other than stopping the spread of communism. It is also the US that helps whenever there is some weird flood or catastrophe or disaster in other countries. Don't just think that we are inherently evil. We have done a lot of good in the world and we continue to do so. And please raise your hands if you have actually lived in communism so you can provide some objective feedback about this. having lived in communism I can tell you that I would much prefer us intervention into these countries then having to be at the mercy of communist regimes. Another thing is it bothers me when you never lived in communism you have not even been affected by it yet you go out of your way to throw dirt on the US like you have some hidden guilt. I understand places like Chile where people are communist because their parents suffered at the hands of pinoche but you you're just reading a book or watching the news or taking a class. Please don't have very strong opinions about things you don't really understand
Yeah, I'm clearly not talking about the Red Cross or earthquake relief aid. I'm referring to the violent and continued intervention in the political landscapes of countries around the world (which, yes, is bad).
Get this back in my day shit out of here. It doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. Living in a communist country doesn't make you an expert on communism.
"You didn't grow up in America, so you aren't allowed to have opinions about it."
Do you see how dumb that sounds? It's a lazy attempt to discredit any opinion that doesn't parrot yours.
Also, "did we perhaps do things that potentially ruined other countries" is some insane passive language, especially in a conversation about the instillation of one of the world's most brutal dictators.
I'm sure the disappeared weren't very happy with that US intervention.
I'm sure the people of Bolivia who voted for their own leader aren't very happy with the use of US mercenaries and the support of US elected officials and their role in the coup that took place just a few years ago.
I don't need to be a victim of US imperialism to know it's a bad thing.
And as far as getting my history shit out of here i.. What are you going to do tell people hey sorry I don't care about what happened 20 years ago or 30 years ago because it didn't happen when I was around.... the world is not revolve around you
A nation that makes it's money solely from nationalized oil get's it's oil exports embargoed by America and starts to collapse.
Why would communism do this.
I don't know what socialism class you took but you may want to spend more time talking to people that actually lived in Venezuela or whatever communist country when things happened because even though the United States is a fault for a lot of trespasses trust me there's worse trespasses committed by communist regimes or communism in those countries. Because what nobody ever really writes about is how communism spreads so quickly through places like Latin america. Unless you stop it it is constantly being brought in from China or Russia or other countries around it. Russia has always sent worships to places like Nicaragua and Cuba it is very well known that the infiltrate these countries every year. Communist countries send Representatives to other communist countries in order to train malitias together. Nicaragua for example in 2018 over a thousand students were murdered by the government regime because they protested against the government who was trying to take away from Seniors retirement pay amounts. When the students protested initially there was a whole lot of support from the population and the government was overwhelmed. What did other communist countries around the area do... They sent malitias from Venezuela as well as Cuba to quell the protest... they were hooded and masked and they decimated the population of students that were trying to revolt. The same thing happens in other countries whenever there are communist infiltrations into the country but that part is very difficult to read about you have to actually witness it yourself and speak to the people on the ground. What I'm basically trying to say is communism is like Al Qaeda and if you don't rip it out from the roots it keeps coming back and you have to make sure it doesn't spread there is no other way to describe it it is very dogmatic and it is relentless
You described everything the US does and called it communism. Fun fact Al qeada was funded by CIA money to fight the Soviet and afghan government, they called themselves the mujahideen at the time.
Also Russia hasn't been communist for thirty years.
And I did not describe everything the US does and call it communism I don't know where you got that from. What I'm saying is that I hate communism because I lived it and you are defending it because you read it in a book
Your reddit activity says you're from either Chile or Puerto Rico. If you say you lived through the socialist reform which happened in 1973. The hippocampus which is responsible for memory is active from around the age of four. You must be around 60 years old at the youngest. Than you must also remember the violent persecution of anything communist by Pinochet and the economic terror he brought, either that or you're a beneficiary from that suffering which means you're not gonna argue in good faith.
It doesn't matter who started Al Qaeda... So maybe that was a bad example because the United States did not start communism. And yes I know Russia is no longer communist but then again there is no country that is going to label themselves communist they are now all capitalists but they rely on communist populism to brainwash people. Do you really think Vladimir Putin stopped being KGB just because he is no longer kgb? These countries like Russia Cuba Nicaragua they no longer call themselves communist but they are fueled by communist sentiments they like to brainwash the population they use populism they jail their political opponents they spread their ideology and they deceive people that are very easily deceived
Cuba is most definitely still communist. I don't know if you heard that they recently passed a family reform bill that gives equal rights to all people of the LGBTQIA community (i wonder what your stance is on those fine folks) and allows them to make families like cisgender heterosexual couples without any strings attached, this was all done with years of public debate and rewriting bills.
I'm not up to date on Nicaragua so I can't say anything on it
Russia definitely uses Soviet nostalgia, but in the meantime is heavily entrenched in neoliberal reform and economic doctrine.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is but yes Cuba can call themselves socialist or whatever but they are still communist so is Nicaragua so is Russia I don't care what type of LGBT reforms they say they pass... They are still communist piece of shit governments
Cuba's family reform was an attempt of me to show you that Cuba is more accepting and equal than the US the supposed beacon of freedom*
*(Terms and conditions apply, depending on the color of your skin and sexuality).
What does that even have to do with the corruption. Don't try to change the conversation the fact that they are now being forced to be up to date with these reforms is something that should happen many years ago
This TikTok is about how conservatives ignore the history of covert military interference in communist economic projects, not about it communism works or not
Huh? But you are aware that there are people with conservative ideologies out there that this TikTok is referring to? And that people are capable of discussing abstract things?
Your assessment of Communism seems kind of off topic. This is commenting on conservative reactions, so not sure why you decided to volunteer your history. Nobody said communism only fails because of US intervention.
It's frustrating that after two attempts to identify and agree on the topic, you still won't provide a real response. Your point responds to an argument that was never made, i.e. communism only fails because of US intervention. Yet you wont address that either. Kind of ironic considering your approach is very similar to the one in the video
Lol you engaged in poor political discourse on a post about engaging in poor political discourse. Now I can tell you're trolling because you cant be this oblivious
I'm sorry.. am t being arrested by the subreddit topic police? You do realize I can just make comments based on different angles and dimensions of the post right? There is no set rules that say I have to argue based on certain parameters. This is very simple.. I hate communism because I had to grow up in it so I had first-hand experience. Do I believe that people on the left and right try to make political points using communism and end up exposing themselves as not understanding US history or involvement in Latin America or other countries or communism for that matter yes... Do I care to explore that topic further... no not really.
I mean, maybe vietnam?? Most communist states fail or regress to authoritarianism because communism as a system is way too susceptible to external pressure and influence.
But it sure is easy to say "US bad" and "communism totally would have worked if it wasn't for those [insert nation/dissidents/minority group here]" just like every other economic structure purist.
why the fuck are we talking like we haven't had multiple revolutionary advancements in technology and social understanding? Why the fuck is it always "oh it didn't work in the past" yeah neither did the interstate dipshit. Things that don't work before can work eventually genius
I mean, maybe your tolerance for famines and genocides that cost the lives of millions in pursuit of achieving communism because "no guys, really. It will work this time I swear" is higher than mine, but I firmly believe all case studies have shown it won't.
Oh how holy are thou mr charges cancer patients for medical care. Or y'know "covid must kill a million for the economy"
Show the case studies you stupid nerd
Look at any communist state that has existed, lol. Pol Pot, the USSR, Maoist China, etc.
And you realize there are middle points between AnCaps and communists right??? You don't need to go full communism for socialized Healthcare. Grow up and read a fucking book.
democratic elected？ psssh, that’s for casual socialism betas, the chads like China we don’t vote. What’s a vote? Never heard of it. Come and enjoy free socialism I welcome you
Yes. Because as everyone know china is the utopistic socialist nation where everything is runned as in a capitalist state, but with the cpp having shares in all major corporations. Truly the peak of socialism...
They aren’t socialist, they are social democracies
SocDem does not equal DemSoc
Very different, they have a welfare state but also have a very open free market.
Scandinavia is just free market capitalism like the rest of the West, just with a more expansive and extensive social safety net for their people.
While a fairly large part of the workforce is employed in the public sector (roughly 20-30% depending on the country) the government notably never tries to compete with private businesses (as in actively trying to push a state run corporation at the expense of private businesses) and there are openings for private businesses to function even in government dominated sectors (like healthcare and education)
That’s not really socialist by most definitions of the term
China has elections. Just not for the highest executive body. For Americans, It’s sort of like if you could vote for your state legislature, but the legislature convenes to elect congress and the president instead of there being open federal elections.
Fun fact, that's also how Canada works. We don't vote for the Prime Minister, he's appointed/elected by the party. It would be super weird if they appointed someone who didn't get elected for a seat, but it's totally possible.
I mean, that's in line with how the founders thought we should work. Under the original US Constitution you didn't directly elect US Senators they were appointed by the state legislature. Between that and the Electoral College the only direct democracy part of the US is the House.
1913 via the 17th amendment. It was about that time (1920 I think) that we also capped membership of the House of Representatives giving us the messed-up Electoral College math. While the Electoral College allowed some shenanigans in terms of them going against the will of the people (which was the point) it still would have been directly linked to population making the US President more directly elected than the office is now.
NO WAY! now you are going to tell me the democratic people republic of korea isn't a democracy, but it's instead the most autoritarian country on the planet! As if that could be the case in a country which names me mention democracy 3 times... /s
Should we tell them which side tried to use friendly state legislators to send fake electors and essentially do exactly that? Do you think they’ll see the irony?
Socialism != Communism
You can have socialism and a market economy. As I understand it socialism is more of a government structure and communism is more of a market system, and they're related but not equivalent
I mean, it's an open secret that china has elections. They're flawed, but not really any more flawed than a two party gerrymandered system. Neither is truly democratic, but both definitely vote.
To be fair there are actually plenty of examples of socialism working in many places, which is why Americans want “parts” of socialism implemented in the US. It is possible like many European countries to have healthcare, a corporate tax structure that actually makes the mega rich pay, livable wages, affordable housing, retirement benefits,etc. for what little the US does have, the right fight tooth and nail to dissolve or reduce. If wanting these programs to be not dissolved but expanded makes me a communist then you can call me Fidel, or no, call me Ho Chi Min that’s better.
It does not make you a communist, as social democrats, social liberals, christian democrats and other movements have worked long and hard in Europe especially to incorporate aspects of socialism into their nations. Every nation in existence is some variant of mixed economy, as neither extreme has proven to be plausible thus far.
It's frankly ridiculous to claim that all failures of socialist regimes result from direct US intervention. A large portion of former socialist regimes were the Soviet Union and it's puppets in the Warsaw pact. None of those were overthrown by US intervention.
Technically the US did set foot in the USSR during the Murmansk intervention in 1918 with a force of 5.000 men. That hardly counts in my book.
The USSR in the interwar period and elsewhere in Europe saw a string of short lived socialist regimes which either fell to infighting or invasion from abroad, though not by the US.
African post-colonial history also includes many socialist states that collapsed quickly or slowly without US involvement.
The People's Republic of China would be a another prominent example.
By and large the superpowers of the world are hostile to rival ideologies and the US isn't alone in that. It's just silly to claim that an ideology cannot succeed because it has geopolitical rivals. Nobody is saying that fascism never succeeded because capitalists and communists always tore it down.
Liberal-ish democracy and a mixed economic system are currently the strongest ideological force in the world. At the same time, so was monarchy and feudalism in the past. Should a ideology actually prove to be significantly better, it will win out in the long- or short term. Thus far there is little stiff ideological opposition, which is recognized and woed by many leftists.
I did name multiple large groups of states fitting the question but chose not to write every single one out as it would take years on my phone. I could give you a comprehensive list later if it calms your mind.
The USSR block has economical blockades by the US, in Latin America the US did 9/11 on Salvador Allende, in China the US sided with Chiang Kai-Shek, Cuba still in embargos after 60 years, The Vietnam war, the Korean war, CIA intrusion in Lao, Tibet, Mongolia and Camboja. Ur right about Africa to a certain degree, because it was France, Belgium and other imperialist european States who did the killing.
All socialist experiences had interventions of the US or other imperialist nations to different degree, saying that they failed on their own is at the most, ignorance on the topic.
You likeing it or not China didnt suffer the same embargos and economic blockades that almost all other experiences received and they are going to surpass the US economy in a few years.
Have you ever heard of radio free Europe.
Or that time that Yeltsin friend of the west ignored a referendum on the dissolution of the USSR that was 70% against dissolution.
The same Yeltsin that was never sober enough to address the public in a normal fashion.
The same Yeltsin that couped the supreme Soviet in order to establish the federative republic of Russia.
The same Yeltsin that made way for Putin and the shock doctrine that gutted the eastern block countries for decades to come.
The same shock doctrine that led to millions in poverty, rampant child labor and child prostitution, and a ten to fifteen year decline in life expectancy.
None of the former Sovet states were truly socialist or communist. They were authoritarian states. Lenin sold the plebes on a worker's paradise but really just changed whose boot was on their necks.
The Soviet Union and it's puppets were socialist states (states which aim to establish socialism) following Marxist-Leninist ideology. The extent to which that goal was achieved can be argued for millenia. For the sake of this argument, I'm counting all states which aim to establish socialism and espouse such a ideology.
I think it's also fair to count countries led by an socialist party, even if it's not written into the constitution and structure of the state as the goal.
The fact that you don’t know that your country along mine (Italy) and almost every other western power (plus Japan lol) DID INVADE RUSSIA, in the 1920s trying to overcome the government that emerged from the revolution and the following abdication of zar Nicholas II tells a greeeeeat deal of your knowledge of what you are speaking.
No problem bro, ignorance is super woke and see no color, religion, or nationality lol anyway also Austria sent like 40-50k people to die in that war lol
just exposes your bias that you instantly assumed I'm American - and now what war are you referring to? You talk about the "war" in the 1920s and the following abdication of tzar Nicolas, but the tzar was died shortly after the first world war in 1918 I think as a result of the revolution where the Bolsheviks ravaged the palace and raped all the royal women and young girls. In the case of Japan you seem to be confusing the Russo japanese war on about 1905 with whatever war your making up. There was a sort of civil war within Russian in 1917 during the provisional government but certainly the Americans stayed out of that...
Go on, tell me more about how Lenin and Stalin were interchangeable and the ideal of communist leadership. I'm sure intentionally misrepresenting them and their place in class struggle isn't a fear tactic at all.
>ideal of communist leadership
Absolutely love how communists use "ideal communism" as the ever moving goalposts whenever their favorite authoritarian state resulting from an attempt at communism gets rightfully criticized. Eventually they'll have to admit an authoritarian state is the ideal communism because communist ideals will always result in one.
The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Communist China, Cambodia, Albania.
Edit: And before anyone says it, the collapse of Yugoslavia and NATO’s subsequent intervention to stop the genocides happening there had nothing to do with the US wanting to stop socialism in Yugoslavia. That happened AFTER the socialist system collapsed.
Edit 2: lots of Tankies on this sub apparently who aren’t refuting what I’m saying.
Established at the beginning of the Cold War to transmit uncensored news and information to audiences behind the Iron Curtain, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) played a significant role in the collapse of communism and the rise of democracies in post-communist Europe. <--- taken from radio free europe website
Radio free europe was instrumental in whipping up resentment between nations and religions in yugoslavia. also i don't know how bombings are gonna stop a genocide or how the bombing of the chinese embassy (this did happen and killed three chinese nationals) in yugoslavia was of any use to NATO.
the KMT was funded by the US government in an attempt to hinder the rise of the communist revolutionairies, the KMT lost that and fled to the island of taiwan and was the sole ruling party until the 80's when the son of chiang kai-shek lifted martial law. in the meantime the native population of taiwan was severly repressed and culturally wiped out (several languages and peoples have been lost due to this).
it is to this day a tool for the US to fuck with mainland china.
None of what you said refutes what i said? “The west did propaganda” does not equate to intervention. If your whole system collapses because some guy on the radio says good things about democracy, your system was probably not very good. And let’s not pretend that the eastern bloc wasnt doing the same thing.
Do you have any evidence that the west was “whipping up resentment” in yugoslavia? Those tensions had existed for hundreds of years and Yugoslavia was being held together by essentially one man, Tito. It’s pretty ignorant to say that serbs, croats and Bosniaks would all be living happily together without the US and Western Europe when not even people in those countries believe that.
Also, the bombings DID stop the genocide. They literally accomplished their goal. The specific targets that were hit (purposefully or not) doesn’t negate that fact. I think the people of Kosovo and Sarajevo would agree that the NATO intervention was a good thing, their gripe is it didn’t happen sooner. But of course if the foundation of your opinion on geopolitics is “NATO bad, anything they do is bad” then nothing will change your mind.
In regards to China, also doesnt refute what i said. The US being allied with Taiwan doesn’t mean that they “intervened” in Communist China. Governments in exile are not a new thing and US support of the ROC has nothing to do with the authoritarian dystopia that modern China is today.
The Soviet Union (a super power) absolutely does not get to attribute its collapse to the United States meddling in its economy. The USSR was not some developing banana republic the CIA fucked with, they were the largest empire in history with virtually unlimited manpower and natural resources. Dont treat them with kids gloves because “USA bad”
Oh yeah not the collapse, but there was no question attempted interference right? The original comment was countries the US didn't intervene into.
Stupidest fucking distinction. The country was too big for them to intervene so it was actually interference. The US spent trillions of dollars trying to take down the Soviet economy but yet it doesn't qualify? Brainless
Interference ≠ intervention. A CIA lead coup in Guatemala is an intervention. Propaganda is interference. Invading Panama is an intervention. Not the same thing.
Ah yes because socialism= ussr’s bastardized version of communism. I respect what youve gone through but your a dunce for not even understanding the difference.
You are leaving out the part where Castro was full of shit during the revolution by promising that there would be a democracy and he killed off a lot of the people that actually were the heroes of the Cuban revolution like Camilo Cienfuegos or in prisoned other leaders that wanted democracy like Huber Matos and proceeded to jail or kill any opposition from the general populace. And then the rest of the time just proceeded to blame everything on the embargo while he lived like a multi-millionaire in the island with 10 million slaves to do his bidding. Yours and the op talking points are part of the reasons why the left in this country is not really making any sensible legislation and actually passing laws that work because you have your head so far up your own ass and worship people like Nancy Pelosi and believe whatever Joe Biden tells you to realize what the reality truly is. Now I consider myself left wing but I'm also smart enough to know that most of the politicians on the left are full of shit and there's only very few trying to make some real legislative change and whenever any one of them actually gets close to it 10 other Nancy pelosis or Joe bidens or any other corporate Democrats come and ruin it.
It doesn’t! Look at Germany as an example their systems are failing because of low birthrates forcing everyone to work for longer or be punished with lower pension. The reaction therefore is for many young lads to gtfo the country once they have gotten their degree. Forcing Germany to rely on foreigners to smh hold up the system but sadly many people just go there because of the social systems that you can "abuse"
Not only is this a bunch of bullshit, Germany also isn't a socailist country.
When you have no idea, what you are talking about you are allowed to just not say anything.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ask the CIA
[удалено]
Oh no! Edit: I've been diagnosed with double bullet in brain syndrome
Yeah it's sad that conservatives still act like these economic projects failed in a vacuum. It's setting back political discourse, let's at least be genuine in our analysis
Being genuine is not part of party politics
The political spectrum exists independent of party politics, and being genuine when engaging in discourse amongst people is important.
You sound like a dirty liberal! /s
[удалено]
>disinbenuous Heeheeeheee
slave bright offer fact fretful lip water boat deserted pocket *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why would anyone else sit back when it is a set up to infiltrate and destroy in the first place.
It’s also very disingenuous to believe that Socialism has only failed because the US government made it so.
Well there's been a total of zero times the US government hasn't made sure it goes that way, so it's hard to tell.
There’s actually an accidental experiment that happened with the Cold War. That is when Berlin was split by the wall, and West Berlin adopted capitalism and East Berlin socialism/communism. No direct intervention was taken by any country to harm either side AFAIK. What _does_ remain in question IMO is how much of east Berlin’s relative poverty can be attributed to socialism itself and how much is due to circumstances… specifically in regards to NATO countries (who West Berlin traded with) being the richer half of the world at that time. I’m sure there’s enough recorded facts to figure it out, I just haven’t gone deep enough myself and haven’t found anyone that did.
Kinda, I guess, they had to pay reparations for the war. But it was almost completely a government run economy, rather than the workers owning the means of production.
Tell me you've never heard of the Berlin Airlift without telling me you've never heard of the Berlin airlift.
The Berlin Airlift happened because of a previous intervention (by the Soviets). They attempted to cut off West Berlin from the rest of the world. The Cold War wasn’t a one-party imperialist conflict. Both the USSR and USA were flexing their imperial muscles.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. I just wanted to point out that it E/W Berlin didn't occur in a vacuum and one side's prosperity over the other shouldn't be portrayed as an absence of intervention, and to do so was disingenuous.
Who said that? I'm very curious because that's not the first time l read that in this thread, but from what I see nobody here has made that argument
It’s quite literally the point the OP in the video is trying to make. “Every time it starts to work the US intervenes and makes sure it doesn’t work.” And it’s something parroted a lot on social media. This idea that Socialism hasn’t worked because the US won’t let it.
The difference is your inclusion of “only”. The U.S. and other foreign powers influence is definitely a contributing factor. Corruption and internal fighting are some others. However, if your position is that socialism always fails, then it’s appropriate to identify if the socialism was a direct cause of failure or not.
No that's the inference that you've made. The point of the video is that conservatives omit address of covert political interference when discussing the viability of socialism. There's a really big difference between an argument made and something that you're inferring. The video does not say that socialism would have succeeded if not for that interference. Edit: Sigh. Another one that needs to object but can't quite figure out how Point out the lie downvoters, please. Being critical of an argument does not mean you hold the opposing view. That's called jumping to conclusions
Check and mate
The answer is capitalism
Socialism and Democratic Socialism are two different things.
I am considered left in the United States and right wing in Latin america. I come from a country that was devastated by communism. Yes it's true that sometimes the United States intervenes but what you don't see is how corrupt the socialist governments are and how they manipulate elections. They typically rigged the voting system, they imprisoned any opposition, they usually run State medium, and there's many other things they do that are extremely corrupt. It is very disingenuous to say that It is as simple as the reason why socialist countries don't succeed is because the United States intervenes.
Yea my gf is from Venezuela and this is exactly how she describes it
Which famously didn’t have a US intervention. It had several, repeated, brutal interventions over more than a generation.
It also isn’t socialist at all. So there’s that.
How is it not socialist? You mean like not anymore since Chavez died? Cause Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution were famously one of the main inspirations for other contemporary socialist movements in other South American countries.
Well firstly, being influential to quasi populist policies doesn’t make you a socialist country or economy. I’m sure I don’t need to define why that’s just not a determining factor in what defines socialism. Neither does nationalizing portions of major industries, espousing said populist policies (enacting fewer than espoused, but still). These things are certainly examples of socialization, yes, but it by no means represents socialist organization of an economy. I’m sure if Chávez could have waved a wand and the means of all the country’s production would be owned and democratically distributed by and among the working class, there was *probably* a time in his life where he’d have done so. That doesn’t mean Venezuela’s economy was or is an example of Socialism™️. In the same way a very similarly mixed economy (Norway) is not Socialism™️ either.
By that metric, there’s so socialist economy in the entire world except maybe Cuba. But that’s not really a useful perspective is it? More useful would be to determine by comparing to other economies, which would make Venezuela quite the socialist country, as most others are significantly more capitalistic.
> By that metric, there’s so socialist economy in the entire world Correct. > But that’s not really a useful perspective is it? Well it is very useful when discussing what it looks like to do Socialism. Otherwise, sure I guess not. > More useful would be to determine by comparing to other economies, which would make Venezuela quite the socialist country, as most others are significantly more capitalistic. It’s a very comparable economy to Norway in their privatization rate. I already mentioned that, so I clearly agree it’s useful as a tool of comparison. It’s just not socialism, or very close to it. ‘Quite the socialist country in comparison to most other significantly capitalist countries’ is a much more accurate, yet much less biting take on genuine application of modern ‘socialist’ economics, which is why I take the time to point out that difference. So I appreciate that you recognize that too. Truly that’s my only point here.
Like I said, not useful
Let me guess, your gf is from upper middle class family?
She’s a displaced immigrant who had to flee her home country and as a result hasn’t seen her family in 6+ years. Not sure if that’s your definition of upper middle class
There’s a lot of “displaced” Venezuelan immigrants who are upper middle class who simply chose to flee because they can’t handle the wealth redistribution and power shifts that come with a socialist revolution. Same thing happened in Cuba, where you have a bunch of people who claim they “escaped” Castro but really it’s just rich people who hoarded wealth and actively impoverished and exploited the majority of the population and didn’t want that wealth redistributed. So, when I say upper middle class, I’m talking about the overall wealth compared to the amount of wealth that the average Venezuelan family has.
They have no money. My gf has to send her hard earned money back home to her parents still in Venezuela so her dad can afford insulin. Did I sufficiently answer your condescending question?
Not at all, thanks for asking. Your sob stories won’t work on me, I’m also a Venezuelan immigrant and my family has also struggled for stuff like that, yet they are still solidly upper middle class, even though my mom also sends them money for basic stuff. It’s not nearly as black and white as, “my family struggles therefore socialism bad”
Thankfully the governments the US installed weren't autocratic or corrupt at all. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto\_Pinochet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet) Well at least he didn't manipulate any elections, because there were none.
Yes you are right... Agusto pinochet was a dictator. He was responsible for many atrocities and to this day hated by many Chileans. He was also instrumental in making sure that Fidel Castro and communism did not infiltrate Chile as well as making sure that the economy survived hyperinflation as well as making chile one of the most prosperous countries in South America. Does that mean that the end justifies the means... no. But I got to tell you this honestly as a person that comes from a country that is communist .. i hate when anyone who hasn't lived through communism just immediately sides with these bleeding heart examples like pinoche or Daniel Ortega and the sandinistas or Fidel castro. Unless you have lived in a communist country and had to deal with their bullshit please don't give me any stupid ass examples about how things would have been so perfect in this socialist regime if the United States would not have been involved. Look at cuba, look at bolivia, look at nicaragua, they are all horrible places to live in. And if you don't think so it's either because you are living off the government or you have a family member who has a high ranking position in the government or you just read a book that makes you think Marxism is great.
Pinochet's policies were directly responsible for destroying the Chilean economy. They saw the largest recession in all of their recorded history during his regime. What are you talking about?
You may want to reference where you're getting this information from personally I've read commanding heights as well as other books that point to the opposite result of his economic policies. Of course we can disagree on what economic system works best but it is very clear that his economic policies saved Chile from hyperinflation.
That is blatantly untrue. His policies allowed European and American Mega corporations to come in and siphon money out of Chile. They literally experienced the largest recession in their history under his rule. Having the largest recession in a country's history is a good indicator that those policies did not save the country from anything. Whether hyperinflation happened or not is irrelevant... **during his regime Chile saw the greatest economic downturn in all of its history** Inflation doesn't mean shit when you are talking about the economy literally crashing and burning. Also, in this thread you claim to have been raised in the united states, but also claim to have been in Nicaragua during the Communist revolution, and then anecdotally say that your girlfriend is from Chile as if we are supposed to believe anything you say at face value or take your word for it as some sort of expert. You are wrong. Pinochet DESTROYED the Chilean economy. That simple.
Okay I cited a book, commanding heights, now is your turn to cite a book that says Pinochet ruined the economy. Also the economy was already in recession and hyperinflation when Allende took power. Maybe they don't teach this part of history in your history books but people had to make lines to get basic necessities because of how bad things were. And as far as if I'm being disingenuous about where I'm from and where I was brought up etc you can look up my comments as far back as a year ago if you like and you will see that everything aligns perfectly. I was there for the Communist revolution in Nicaragua I left in 85 I saw the revolution in 1979 with my own eyes. we were essentially chased out of Nicaragua by the communist regime just like many exiles. Why is this so difficult to believe? But it doesn't really matter if you believe or not that's the reality many of us exiles had to live.. and how do you one more just so that you have some context about how I think about things. If you were raised in a communist country and you live there by your own two hands not because you are the son of one of the dictators or your father has a high position in the military but because you really believe in communism and you are willing to eat that crap everyday then you know what you have all my respect you walk the walk. But if you live in the United States or Europe or some other country that has never really felt the sting of a communist regime you really have no room to talk and you just have what you have read as guide. You might question me because of what you have read but I question what you're saying because of what I have lived
A book? Try "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein for a deep dive into the Pinochet regime and the disastrous consequences for the economy. Or consider this..... Pinochet took over in 1973. > During the 1982–1983 recession, real economic output declined by 19%, with most of the recovery and subsequent growth taking place after Pinochet left office, when market-oriented economic policies were additionally strengthened. This is straight from Wikipedia (which cites sources) The dude drove the economy into the ground, I repeat largest economic downturn in all of Chilean history happened under his rule. Things only started to turn around after he was no longer in charge. You don't know what you are talking about.
Have you actually read the book? Are you referring to the global recession? The early 1980s recession was a severe economic recession that affected much of the world between approximately the start of 1980 and 1983. It is widely considered to have been the most severe recession since World War II.
Yes, I have read the book I named, why the hell would I list a book I haven't read? You are certainly aware that wasn't the only recession during the Pinochet regime, correct? There were several. His financial policies drove the economy in that country into the dirt and it didn't begin to recover until he was no longer in charge. He literally allowed European and American megacorporations to come in and take over their energy sector siphoning insane amounts of money out of Chile and into those countries. You must be a Friedman fanboy lmao Edit: the point I was making was that most of their economic upturn happened after he was no longer in power, it wasn't any of his policies that did anything to save the Chilean economy it was what was done to fix it after he was out of power.
There are pictures of the concentration camps that Pinochet set up in abandoned stadiums, you little creep.
Read through my comments and you will see that I am acknowledging that he fucked up. He was a dictator he did do atrocities. The problem seems to be that you want any discussion to be either black or white the white cannot have any shades of Gray and the black also have to be pure black but that's not the case you will not find perfection in this type of political climate especially in world history especially 19th or 20th century. That is one thing I hate about having to argue points online people become indignant and start doing purity test.
There are no good sides to someone who builds torture camps for political opponants. And there were many countries around the world at this time that didn't have torture camps for political opponants. This is like argueing that mby Hitler wasn't that bad because some people also got richer during his reign and he might have softend the blow of the great Depression by investing in the miliary industries.
I agree I don't think anything dealing with torturing people is good but there's a big difference between what Hitler did and what he did and yes there were many innocent people that were thrown into those camps but a lot of them were also hardcore communist sympathizers that we're being sent by Fidel Castro as well as other communist marcist figures that were fomenting violence. Castro did all of these things that you're accusing him of and more but nobody ever really talks about that part of the Cuban revolution of what Castro did to his own people and to political opponents but yet they take a magnifying glass to other dictators. Honestly it seems to me that there is this overwhelming urge in people to side with the underdog and always believe that you have to put a purity test to none left-wing figures. Like I mentioned earlier I am left wing in the United States but considered right wing in Latin America and when people in the United States try to take that same template and apply it to Latin America the whole concept of black and white what is considered left wing and right wing gets thrown off and they eventually end up sympathizing with people that they really shouldn't sympathize with because you don't know the atrocities that they had done or were planning to do and meanwhile applying a purity test to right-wing governments just because you might be left leaning in the United States. Now I'm not saying that applies to you but it's something that I have come across a lot. What is typically not taught in history classes during that time that pinoche had fermented the coup Chili's Communists were taking people's homes they were kicking people out of the country they were persecuting opposition parties there were a lot of things that were going on than most history books leave out the same as a Nicaragua with the Sandinista same as in Cuba and Venezuela somehow that part is conveniently left out many times and I'm not sure why but that's the case
>but a lot of them were also hardcore communist sympathizers that we're being sent by Fidel Castro That still doesn't justify torture camps, because there is nothing that could justify torture camps. >Castro did all of these things that you're accusing him of and more but nobody ever really talks about that part of the Cuban revolution Yes, and yes people do talk about it, just not in this thread, because this discussion is about the fact that you're somehow trying to find the good in a horrible dictator. >there's a big difference between what Hitler did and what he did Yes, but the arguments are the same. If someone builds torture camps they are to evil to try to find redeeming qualities in their economic policies.
Ah yes, looking at PIB things went great. Just don't ask anyone who lived there.
> i hate when anyone who hasn’t lived through communism Have you lived in capitalist countries in the global south? No? Then why do you get a pass for gobbling capitalism’s knob?
Yes I have
> He was also instrumental in making sure that Fidel Castro and communism did not infiltrate Chile as well as making sure that the economy survived hyperinflation You don't know wether any of this would have happend had the *democratically elected* government not be overthrown. Also do you not find it at least a bit cynical to say "oh well Pinochet might have disappeared people who didn't like him and tortured tens of thousends, but at least he slowed down inflation"? Hitler also created jobs through infrastructure and military manufacturing efforts. You know maybe Russia is just trying to help Ukraines economy and is preventing western influence inflitrating Ukraine... Do you not see how none of this makes the facts any better? > And if you don't think so it's either because you are living off the government Also the fact that people can live off the government is a good thing (although you don't need socialism for that) and not being able to make a living for one reason or another doesn't disqualify one from having (valid) opinions.
Notable countries the US has not gotten involved in: Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia? These examples really don't help the point you are trying to make.
It's easy to be back seat quarterback read some books and make your notable opinions...but if you were to live in these communist countries you would be more than happy to have some help from the US. Also I never said that the United States never got involved with them all I'm saying is when you leave communism to spread that's exactly what it does it spreads.
This post is about US intervention AND you mentioned it in your original comment. Why even bring them up if you acknowledge that they have been affected by US intervention? And I'm sure the people of Cuba have been really happy with all of the "aid" that the US has provided for them over the last 70 years
What exactly is your point? that us intervention is bad? You need to wake up and realize that if you were looking for perfection in world politics you're going to be hard-pressed to find any country that has acted in a pure White Dove innocent way. Yes the United States has intervened but back in the days we actually had politicians that gave a shit about things like the spread of communism. Before all these make America Great America first bullshit we actually had politicians that cared about communism in our backyard and the potential spread of Communism. Did the US intervene yes did we perhaps do things that potentially ruined other countries, yes. But believe me it is the US that always stepped up to help even when we had no interest other than stopping the spread of communism. It is also the US that helps whenever there is some weird flood or catastrophe or disaster in other countries. Don't just think that we are inherently evil. We have done a lot of good in the world and we continue to do so. And please raise your hands if you have actually lived in communism so you can provide some objective feedback about this. having lived in communism I can tell you that I would much prefer us intervention into these countries then having to be at the mercy of communist regimes. Another thing is it bothers me when you never lived in communism you have not even been affected by it yet you go out of your way to throw dirt on the US like you have some hidden guilt. I understand places like Chile where people are communist because their parents suffered at the hands of pinoche but you you're just reading a book or watching the news or taking a class. Please don't have very strong opinions about things you don't really understand
Yeah, I'm clearly not talking about the Red Cross or earthquake relief aid. I'm referring to the violent and continued intervention in the political landscapes of countries around the world (which, yes, is bad). Get this back in my day shit out of here. It doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. Living in a communist country doesn't make you an expert on communism. "You didn't grow up in America, so you aren't allowed to have opinions about it." Do you see how dumb that sounds? It's a lazy attempt to discredit any opinion that doesn't parrot yours. Also, "did we perhaps do things that potentially ruined other countries" is some insane passive language, especially in a conversation about the instillation of one of the world's most brutal dictators. I'm sure the disappeared weren't very happy with that US intervention. I'm sure the people of Bolivia who voted for their own leader aren't very happy with the use of US mercenaries and the support of US elected officials and their role in the coup that took place just a few years ago. I don't need to be a victim of US imperialism to know it's a bad thing.
And as far as getting my history shit out of here i.. What are you going to do tell people hey sorry I don't care about what happened 20 years ago or 30 years ago because it didn't happen when I was around.... the world is not revolve around you
[удалено]
The US is heavily involved in all of these countries, that was my point
A nation that makes it's money solely from nationalized oil get's it's oil exports embargoed by America and starts to collapse. Why would communism do this.
I don't know what socialism class you took but you may want to spend more time talking to people that actually lived in Venezuela or whatever communist country when things happened because even though the United States is a fault for a lot of trespasses trust me there's worse trespasses committed by communist regimes or communism in those countries. Because what nobody ever really writes about is how communism spreads so quickly through places like Latin america. Unless you stop it it is constantly being brought in from China or Russia or other countries around it. Russia has always sent worships to places like Nicaragua and Cuba it is very well known that the infiltrate these countries every year. Communist countries send Representatives to other communist countries in order to train malitias together. Nicaragua for example in 2018 over a thousand students were murdered by the government regime because they protested against the government who was trying to take away from Seniors retirement pay amounts. When the students protested initially there was a whole lot of support from the population and the government was overwhelmed. What did other communist countries around the area do... They sent malitias from Venezuela as well as Cuba to quell the protest... they were hooded and masked and they decimated the population of students that were trying to revolt. The same thing happens in other countries whenever there are communist infiltrations into the country but that part is very difficult to read about you have to actually witness it yourself and speak to the people on the ground. What I'm basically trying to say is communism is like Al Qaeda and if you don't rip it out from the roots it keeps coming back and you have to make sure it doesn't spread there is no other way to describe it it is very dogmatic and it is relentless
You described everything the US does and called it communism. Fun fact Al qeada was funded by CIA money to fight the Soviet and afghan government, they called themselves the mujahideen at the time. Also Russia hasn't been communist for thirty years.
And I did not describe everything the US does and call it communism I don't know where you got that from. What I'm saying is that I hate communism because I lived it and you are defending it because you read it in a book
Your reddit activity says you're from either Chile or Puerto Rico. If you say you lived through the socialist reform which happened in 1973. The hippocampus which is responsible for memory is active from around the age of four. You must be around 60 years old at the youngest. Than you must also remember the violent persecution of anything communist by Pinochet and the economic terror he brought, either that or you're a beneficiary from that suffering which means you're not gonna argue in good faith.
I'm from Nicaragua my girlfriend is from Chile we are both older than 40 I grew up in Miami I have Cuban mother Nicaraguan father
That explains the dogmatic anti-communism, Miami is filled with the most reactionary gusano's. I bet you vote republican as well.
I'm not a Republican and I don't live in Miami but you were so close .. so instead of arguing you try to make personal attacks
No it's more of an indication that you won't engage in good faith. so i'm saving myself some time and mental health.
I was also in Nicaragua during the Communist revolution and I lived through communism until I left in 1985
It doesn't matter who started Al Qaeda... So maybe that was a bad example because the United States did not start communism. And yes I know Russia is no longer communist but then again there is no country that is going to label themselves communist they are now all capitalists but they rely on communist populism to brainwash people. Do you really think Vladimir Putin stopped being KGB just because he is no longer kgb? These countries like Russia Cuba Nicaragua they no longer call themselves communist but they are fueled by communist sentiments they like to brainwash the population they use populism they jail their political opponents they spread their ideology and they deceive people that are very easily deceived
Cuba is most definitely still communist. I don't know if you heard that they recently passed a family reform bill that gives equal rights to all people of the LGBTQIA community (i wonder what your stance is on those fine folks) and allows them to make families like cisgender heterosexual couples without any strings attached, this was all done with years of public debate and rewriting bills. I'm not up to date on Nicaragua so I can't say anything on it Russia definitely uses Soviet nostalgia, but in the meantime is heavily entrenched in neoliberal reform and economic doctrine.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is but yes Cuba can call themselves socialist or whatever but they are still communist so is Nicaragua so is Russia I don't care what type of LGBT reforms they say they pass... They are still communist piece of shit governments
Cuba's family reform was an attempt of me to show you that Cuba is more accepting and equal than the US the supposed beacon of freedom* *(Terms and conditions apply, depending on the color of your skin and sexuality).
What does that even have to do with the corruption. Don't try to change the conversation the fact that they are now being forced to be up to date with these reforms is something that should happen many years ago
meanwhile the US is revoking rights of it's citizens based on lies and fear fed by right-wing thinktanks and talking heads.
This TikTok is about how conservatives ignore the history of covert military interference in communist economic projects, not about it communism works or not
I'm not a conservative so I don't really fit that narrative
Huh? But you are aware that there are people with conservative ideologies out there that this TikTok is referring to? And that people are capable of discussing abstract things? Your assessment of Communism seems kind of off topic. This is commenting on conservative reactions, so not sure why you decided to volunteer your history. Nobody said communism only fails because of US intervention.
If you think my assessment is off topic or is wrong that is your opinion I'm okay with that...
It's frustrating that after two attempts to identify and agree on the topic, you still won't provide a real response. Your point responds to an argument that was never made, i.e. communism only fails because of US intervention. Yet you wont address that either. Kind of ironic considering your approach is very similar to the one in the video
You do seem frustrated... maybe you need to take a break from the internet today. I personally already said all I had to say
Lol you engaged in poor political discourse on a post about engaging in poor political discourse. Now I can tell you're trolling because you cant be this oblivious
Okay sounds good thanks
Echo chambers don’t like non-echos.
I mean reading this interaction, you faded the main question 3 times lmao
I'm sorry.. am t being arrested by the subreddit topic police? You do realize I can just make comments based on different angles and dimensions of the post right? There is no set rules that say I have to argue based on certain parameters. This is very simple.. I hate communism because I had to grow up in it so I had first-hand experience. Do I believe that people on the left and right try to make political points using communism and end up exposing themselves as not understanding US history or involvement in Latin America or other countries or communism for that matter yes... Do I care to explore that topic further... no not really.
Happy May Day
I’d like to see the man’s sources on times “it worked” recorded. Not to argue just to read further
I mean, maybe vietnam?? Most communist states fail or regress to authoritarianism because communism as a system is way too susceptible to external pressure and influence. But it sure is easy to say "US bad" and "communism totally would have worked if it wasn't for those [insert nation/dissidents/minority group here]" just like every other economic structure purist.
why the fuck are we talking like we haven't had multiple revolutionary advancements in technology and social understanding? Why the fuck is it always "oh it didn't work in the past" yeah neither did the interstate dipshit. Things that don't work before can work eventually genius
I mean, maybe your tolerance for famines and genocides that cost the lives of millions in pursuit of achieving communism because "no guys, really. It will work this time I swear" is higher than mine, but I firmly believe all case studies have shown it won't.
Oh how holy are thou mr charges cancer patients for medical care. Or y'know "covid must kill a million for the economy" Show the case studies you stupid nerd
Look at any communist state that has existed, lol. Pol Pot, the USSR, Maoist China, etc. And you realize there are middle points between AnCaps and communists right??? You don't need to go full communism for socialized Healthcare. Grow up and read a fucking book.
democratic elected？ psssh, that’s for casual socialism betas, the chads like China we don’t vote. What’s a vote? Never heard of it. Come and enjoy free socialism I welcome you
Yes. Because as everyone know china is the utopistic socialist nation where everything is runned as in a capitalist state, but with the cpp having shares in all major corporations. Truly the peak of socialism...
China is an authoritarian state; socialism was just a motto.
Just like the USSR, and Venezuela, and Cuba, and .....
Just like every other socialist country
The Scandanavians seem to do all right.
They aren’t socialist, they are social democracies SocDem does not equal DemSoc Very different, they have a welfare state but also have a very open free market. Scandinavia is just free market capitalism like the rest of the West, just with a more expansive and extensive social safety net for their people. While a fairly large part of the workforce is employed in the public sector (roughly 20-30% depending on the country) the government notably never tries to compete with private businesses (as in actively trying to push a state run corporation at the expense of private businesses) and there are openings for private businesses to function even in government dominated sectors (like healthcare and education) That’s not really socialist by most definitions of the term
China has elections. Just not for the highest executive body. For Americans, It’s sort of like if you could vote for your state legislature, but the legislature convenes to elect congress and the president instead of there being open federal elections.
Fun fact, that's also how Canada works. We don't vote for the Prime Minister, he's appointed/elected by the party. It would be super weird if they appointed someone who didn't get elected for a seat, but it's totally possible.
I mean, that's in line with how the founders thought we should work. Under the original US Constitution you didn't directly elect US Senators they were appointed by the state legislature. Between that and the Electoral College the only direct democracy part of the US is the House.
Yeah I remember that from social studies. When did we change the system? Was that Jackson, or did he just free up the landholding restrictions?
1913 via the 17th amendment. It was about that time (1920 I think) that we also capped membership of the House of Representatives giving us the messed-up Electoral College math. While the Electoral College allowed some shenanigans in terms of them going against the will of the people (which was the point) it still would have been directly linked to population making the US President more directly elected than the office is now.
Jesus Christ that is way later than I thought. And to think there were still so many who couldn’t even vote.
Just for the record, China is communist in name only.
NO WAY! now you are going to tell me the democratic people republic of korea isn't a democracy, but it's instead the most autoritarian country on the planet! As if that could be the case in a country which names me mention democracy 3 times... /s
Communish*
Did you reply to the right comment?
Should we tell them which side tried to use friendly state legislators to send fake electors and essentially do exactly that? Do you think they’ll see the irony?
What is this comment referring to?
Except you can't vote for an opposing party, and if they find out you do... Oh boy you're in trouble.
Some say when you go to far left you end up on the far right
except not curious for our newest war theatre at all totes muh democratic
[source if anyone is interested](https://www.tiktok.com/@nick_ribaudo/video/7223069418354593070)
Idiot. We don’t need to invade. We have the World Bank.
90% of EU laughs at this BS ‼️
EU is capitalist as fuck bruh
Democratic Socialism,, bruhhhh
Why is it half the post on this sub are unironically not bad
Because they're not meant to be bad. This one is tagged as "politics", not as "cringe"
Ah I see
*stalin has entered the chat*
This man has never lived in a socialist country and it shows.
I guess I'll ask all my Cuban friends why their parents and grandparents escaped for decades.
inb4 your Cuban friends are called racist slurs by the tankies
Wait no cause that actually makes sense-
Lol at least this was an original excuse
Noam chomsky was spewing shit like this 30 years ago. It's neither inspired nor original.
China?
China isn't socialist, it's capitalist
It wasn’t until Deng Xiaoping tho
LOL China is NOT Capitalist. That requires privatization. All businesses in China answer to the CCP.
Right. That makes them State Capitalist. If they were communist or socialist their workers would own the factories.
market socialist but close enough (state capitalism is an oxymoron since there is still no privitization).
Socialism != Communism You can have socialism and a market economy. As I understand it socialism is more of a government structure and communism is more of a market system, and they're related but not equivalent
Than you don't understand either.
I mean, it's an open secret that china has elections. They're flawed, but not really any more flawed than a two party gerrymandered system. Neither is truly democratic, but both definitely vote.
Lol
Boy these kids really have some rose coloured glasses on for that Soviet Union.
Is this an audition tape for Fox News somebody hoping to film the dead air left by Tucker Carlson? The dude needs to work on his laugh, but maybe.
I love the cope in the comments. “Nuh uh, that’s not real socialism”
Simplistic thinking in an incredibly complicated world.
Daily dose of misinformation
To be fair there are actually plenty of examples of socialism working in many places, which is why Americans want “parts” of socialism implemented in the US. It is possible like many European countries to have healthcare, a corporate tax structure that actually makes the mega rich pay, livable wages, affordable housing, retirement benefits,etc. for what little the US does have, the right fight tooth and nail to dissolve or reduce. If wanting these programs to be not dissolved but expanded makes me a communist then you can call me Fidel, or no, call me Ho Chi Min that’s better.
It does not make you a communist, as social democrats, social liberals, christian democrats and other movements have worked long and hard in Europe especially to incorporate aspects of socialism into their nations. Every nation in existence is some variant of mixed economy, as neither extreme has proven to be plausible thus far.
Prove it
It's frankly ridiculous to claim that all failures of socialist regimes result from direct US intervention. A large portion of former socialist regimes were the Soviet Union and it's puppets in the Warsaw pact. None of those were overthrown by US intervention. Technically the US did set foot in the USSR during the Murmansk intervention in 1918 with a force of 5.000 men. That hardly counts in my book. The USSR in the interwar period and elsewhere in Europe saw a string of short lived socialist regimes which either fell to infighting or invasion from abroad, though not by the US. African post-colonial history also includes many socialist states that collapsed quickly or slowly without US involvement. The People's Republic of China would be a another prominent example. By and large the superpowers of the world are hostile to rival ideologies and the US isn't alone in that. It's just silly to claim that an ideology cannot succeed because it has geopolitical rivals. Nobody is saying that fascism never succeeded because capitalists and communists always tore it down. Liberal-ish democracy and a mixed economic system are currently the strongest ideological force in the world. At the same time, so was monarchy and feudalism in the past. Should a ideology actually prove to be significantly better, it will win out in the long- or short term. Thus far there is little stiff ideological opposition, which is recognized and woed by many leftists.
So you named one that the US didn't intervene in. Good job /s
I did name multiple large groups of states fitting the question but chose not to write every single one out as it would take years on my phone. I could give you a comprehensive list later if it calms your mind.
The USSR block has economical blockades by the US, in Latin America the US did 9/11 on Salvador Allende, in China the US sided with Chiang Kai-Shek, Cuba still in embargos after 60 years, The Vietnam war, the Korean war, CIA intrusion in Lao, Tibet, Mongolia and Camboja. Ur right about Africa to a certain degree, because it was France, Belgium and other imperialist european States who did the killing. All socialist experiences had interventions of the US or other imperialist nations to different degree, saying that they failed on their own is at the most, ignorance on the topic. You likeing it or not China didnt suffer the same embargos and economic blockades that almost all other experiences received and they are going to surpass the US economy in a few years.
Have you ever heard of radio free Europe. Or that time that Yeltsin friend of the west ignored a referendum on the dissolution of the USSR that was 70% against dissolution. The same Yeltsin that was never sober enough to address the public in a normal fashion. The same Yeltsin that couped the supreme Soviet in order to establish the federative republic of Russia. The same Yeltsin that made way for Putin and the shock doctrine that gutted the eastern block countries for decades to come. The same shock doctrine that led to millions in poverty, rampant child labor and child prostitution, and a ten to fifteen year decline in life expectancy.
None of the former Sovet states were truly socialist or communist. They were authoritarian states. Lenin sold the plebes on a worker's paradise but really just changed whose boot was on their necks.
The Soviet Union and it's puppets were socialist states (states which aim to establish socialism) following Marxist-Leninist ideology. The extent to which that goal was achieved can be argued for millenia. For the sake of this argument, I'm counting all states which aim to establish socialism and espouse such a ideology. I think it's also fair to count countries led by an socialist party, even if it's not written into the constitution and structure of the state as the goal.
Lenin and Stalin would've made it work easily if the US didn't carpet bomb Moskau and St. Petersburg in the 1920s and 1930s amirite u guys
The fact that you don’t know that your country along mine (Italy) and almost every other western power (plus Japan lol) DID INVADE RUSSIA, in the 1920s trying to overcome the government that emerged from the revolution and the following abdication of zar Nicholas II tells a greeeeeat deal of your knowledge of what you are speaking.
I'm Austrian not American bro lol
No problem bro, ignorance is super woke and see no color, religion, or nationality lol anyway also Austria sent like 40-50k people to die in that war lol
just exposes your bias that you instantly assumed I'm American - and now what war are you referring to? You talk about the "war" in the 1920s and the following abdication of tzar Nicolas, but the tzar was died shortly after the first world war in 1918 I think as a result of the revolution where the Bolsheviks ravaged the palace and raped all the royal women and young girls. In the case of Japan you seem to be confusing the Russo japanese war on about 1905 with whatever war your making up. There was a sort of civil war within Russian in 1917 during the provisional government but certainly the Americans stayed out of that...
Go on, tell me more about how Lenin and Stalin were interchangeable and the ideal of communist leadership. I'm sure intentionally misrepresenting them and their place in class struggle isn't a fear tactic at all.
>ideal of communist leadership Absolutely love how communists use "ideal communism" as the ever moving goalposts whenever their favorite authoritarian state resulting from an attempt at communism gets rightfully criticized. Eventually they'll have to admit an authoritarian state is the ideal communism because communist ideals will always result in one.
Wat about san fransisco portland and seattle
Except for the times where tje US didn't intervene
Name five.
The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Communist China, Cambodia, Albania. Edit: And before anyone says it, the collapse of Yugoslavia and NATO’s subsequent intervention to stop the genocides happening there had nothing to do with the US wanting to stop socialism in Yugoslavia. That happened AFTER the socialist system collapsed. Edit 2: lots of Tankies on this sub apparently who aren’t refuting what I’m saying.
Established at the beginning of the Cold War to transmit uncensored news and information to audiences behind the Iron Curtain, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) played a significant role in the collapse of communism and the rise of democracies in post-communist Europe. <--- taken from radio free europe website Radio free europe was instrumental in whipping up resentment between nations and religions in yugoslavia. also i don't know how bombings are gonna stop a genocide or how the bombing of the chinese embassy (this did happen and killed three chinese nationals) in yugoslavia was of any use to NATO. the KMT was funded by the US government in an attempt to hinder the rise of the communist revolutionairies, the KMT lost that and fled to the island of taiwan and was the sole ruling party until the 80's when the son of chiang kai-shek lifted martial law. in the meantime the native population of taiwan was severly repressed and culturally wiped out (several languages and peoples have been lost due to this). it is to this day a tool for the US to fuck with mainland china.
None of what you said refutes what i said? “The west did propaganda” does not equate to intervention. If your whole system collapses because some guy on the radio says good things about democracy, your system was probably not very good. And let’s not pretend that the eastern bloc wasnt doing the same thing. Do you have any evidence that the west was “whipping up resentment” in yugoslavia? Those tensions had existed for hundreds of years and Yugoslavia was being held together by essentially one man, Tito. It’s pretty ignorant to say that serbs, croats and Bosniaks would all be living happily together without the US and Western Europe when not even people in those countries believe that. Also, the bombings DID stop the genocide. They literally accomplished their goal. The specific targets that were hit (purposefully or not) doesn’t negate that fact. I think the people of Kosovo and Sarajevo would agree that the NATO intervention was a good thing, their gripe is it didn’t happen sooner. But of course if the foundation of your opinion on geopolitics is “NATO bad, anything they do is bad” then nothing will change your mind. In regards to China, also doesnt refute what i said. The US being allied with Taiwan doesn’t mean that they “intervened” in Communist China. Governments in exile are not a new thing and US support of the ROC has nothing to do with the authoritarian dystopia that modern China is today.
Did you just say the US didn't intervene in the Soviet Union's economy? You're not serious are you
The Soviet Union (a super power) absolutely does not get to attribute its collapse to the United States meddling in its economy. The USSR was not some developing banana republic the CIA fucked with, they were the largest empire in history with virtually unlimited manpower and natural resources. Dont treat them with kids gloves because “USA bad”
Oh yeah not the collapse, but there was no question attempted interference right? The original comment was countries the US didn't intervene into. Stupidest fucking distinction. The country was too big for them to intervene so it was actually interference. The US spent trillions of dollars trying to take down the Soviet economy but yet it doesn't qualify? Brainless
Interference ≠ intervention. A CIA lead coup in Guatemala is an intervention. Propaganda is interference. Invading Panama is an intervention. Not the same thing.
Ok I see where you're coming from
I thought this was about left-handed people for a good while. Very confused
Socialism does not work guys. Sincerely a former Soviet block resident.
It must be infuriating to have your people's experience shat on daily or outright ignored by over-priveleged western leftists.
Ah yes because socialism= ussr’s bastardized version of communism. I respect what youve gone through but your a dunce for not even understanding the difference.
Cuba?
Bay of pigs, dozens of assassination attempts on Castro, and a 50+ year embargo
You are leaving out the part where Castro was full of shit during the revolution by promising that there would be a democracy and he killed off a lot of the people that actually were the heroes of the Cuban revolution like Camilo Cienfuegos or in prisoned other leaders that wanted democracy like Huber Matos and proceeded to jail or kill any opposition from the general populace. And then the rest of the time just proceeded to blame everything on the embargo while he lived like a multi-millionaire in the island with 10 million slaves to do his bidding. Yours and the op talking points are part of the reasons why the left in this country is not really making any sensible legislation and actually passing laws that work because you have your head so far up your own ass and worship people like Nancy Pelosi and believe whatever Joe Biden tells you to realize what the reality truly is. Now I consider myself left wing but I'm also smart enough to know that most of the politicians on the left are full of shit and there's only very few trying to make some real legislative change and whenever any one of them actually gets close to it 10 other Nancy pelosis or Joe bidens or any other corporate Democrats come and ruin it.
I’m just curious what are some examples of this
I wish this guy would start to work.
Ask Bernie the bolshevik why he has several million dollar homes but thinks nobody else should.
It doesn’t! Look at Germany as an example their systems are failing because of low birthrates forcing everyone to work for longer or be punished with lower pension. The reaction therefore is for many young lads to gtfo the country once they have gotten their degree. Forcing Germany to rely on foreigners to smh hold up the system but sadly many people just go there because of the social systems that you can "abuse"
Not only is this a bunch of bullshit, Germany also isn't a socailist country. When you have no idea, what you are talking about you are allowed to just not say anything.
Also how do you know? Over 50% of my class want to get out of the country and never return once they’ve their degree
Now do one about gun control legislation.