This guy "used to be" alt-right (i.e. a Hungarian Fascist), then it turns out he's still shit. :surprised-pika:
Original video instead of Hasan clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94_5mXsQTpA
Editing to say I really do hope that all the dunking he's getting on his YouTube posts convinces this guy to read a bit and finally understand why his fascist beliefs were bad in the first place, and why he's wrong.
Are you people listening to yourself? Words have meanings for the love of god. Adam Something is a lib who understands the flaws of capitalism, it baffles me that you guys are so desperate to see fascists everywhere that you type shit like this.
Real people, in the real world, are complicated. Our beliefs change, and are often incoherent. Give the guy time to get radicalized properly before you call him a fascist, this post is like a fucking parody of the left.
You realize the reason people are shiting on him is because he said the USSR was worse than the Nazis and would've been a fourth Axis power? You don't need to read theory or be radicalized to realize that the people who beat the Nazis are probably not worse than the Nazis, actually
:this:
deleted by creator
you're insane if you think people like him do more harm than good for the left
libs like contrapoints, john oliver and him are those who lead people down the radicalization pipeline, go and try to convert a lib by telling them how the DPRK is actually good, see how that goes
edit: nevertheless, yes, he can and should be criticized for those dumb viewpoints, but this post is not doing that lol
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BO83Ig-E8E
BoyBoy are good
deleted by creator
I'm sure you were born as a radical anarcho Maoist...
Every person I know that's an AES-defending communist started with libshit like contra and Oliver. They are trash, but they're a good entry point. I myself found Hakim because youtube recommended him after I watched a lot of libtube videos.
We can whine about them here, but I find it very unproductive. Fact is that getting someone into full communism is a layered process, and getting people to realize their system ain't so perfect is the first step, a step which these libs do pretty well. And at the end of the day, I'd take a Hassan or Contra lib over a gamer-slipping-right proto-fascist.
Nobody here is a well-known YouTuber spreading horseshit. Random comrades can have every dumbass idea they want, it'll have a small reach. Platformed reactionaries serve as propagandists.
I was responding regarding the libshit, not the reactionary. I agree with you on that.
Oh absolutely, we're in full agreement comrade
deleted by creator
People love to throw "maoist" around almost like its a joke, casual sectarianism. If you want to make a joke about some people absurdly lefty and niche, call them a Maoist or a Hoxhaist. They are just joke wacky ideologies to some people
Removed by mod
You realize you are breaking the no sectarianism rule? Also Maoism includes the Naxalites and CPP. I'd say they deserve more respect than any of us here posting on a forum
Removed by mod
No CPP as in the Philippines. Joma Sison is not an ultra, and I would hope you are not saying the NPA is bad. Sison __Literally _ wrote the book on MLM. Gonzalo can fuck himself, don't stroke his ego in death by giving him reign over the term and ideology http://www.bannedthought.net/Philippines/CPP/Sison/Sison-OnThePhilosophyOfMarxism-Leninism-Maoism-OCR.pdf Also the Naxalites are also MLMs. This was a conversation here the other day, MLM being just "ultra left Gonzaloism" is only the stance that the shining path themselves believe. Don't flatter them, nor decide that the Naxalites own ideology is not theirs but that they rather wholly fit into a box you're comfortable with. It's like people hit the wall of "MLM is shining path" and "Naxalites are good" and rely on reducing their movement to just Mao Zedong Thought like post-Mao China.
Let them speak for themselves per their 2004 Party Programme upon the merger of the previous Marxist-Leninist People's War Group (PWG) and then Maoist Communist Center of India (MCCI) which was Maoist (protracted people's war all that) with the new organization being Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. So evidentially they don't agree with the idea that it is at odds with MZT or just means Gonzaloism. http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Founding/Programme-pamphlet.pdf
I'm not saying you have to be an MLM, but don't just change what the Naxalites are and consider themselves to be in order to make them mesh with an essentialist view. I think its fair to regard them as following what they espouse to follow, instead of saying they just follow what you personally find better. But hey I guess the Naxalites have a "bad ideology" and supporting them is
What was that thing Mao said about investigation? Seriously don't trust the wikipedia tab for "ideology" and leave it at that, and don't do the thing people do to the Zapatistas when they try to mold them into fitting with what is more comfortable for their tendency, at the expense of the actual theory and their actuals. Same site has translations for more CPI-Maoist texts though some I cannot link as they are word docs. http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/#Founding_Documents
Here is their text outlining Marxism-leninism_Maoism and why they follow it, how they define it. You don't have to agree, it's not my tendency either; but don't just lie and pretend they are not MLM just so you can say you like them without contradicting your absolutist stance. It is literally just not the case, and being ignorant about it is kinda worse than supposedly being an "enlightened pluralist", cause I wouldn't call reading a group's own constitution "acting like every ideology is just as good as every other" http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Founding/MLM-pamphlet.pdf
:mao-aggro-shining: follow Mao Zedong Thought:
we can add the communist party(ies) of Nepal to the list of cool and good maoists, though they re in power already somewhat
Bhutan insurgents as well
they were done so dirty by the libs, who just keep praising eco fascism instead of liberation because when you scratch them, as usual, a fash bleeds
I had hoped "anarcho maoist" made it obvious that it wasn't a real assertion of their beliefs, but oh well.
deleted by creator
Yeah I got that, but that's my point. Maoism is always the go to for absurd joke ideologies. The joke is at the expense of anarchists and maoists
I see. My apologies, I didn't mean it that way but I can see why it would come across like that. I was just trying to come up with the most radical ideology to illustrate my point.
Personally I lean more towards the maoists, but I definitely didn't mean to insult either group. I will be more careful.
No harm done dude
I appreciate your understanding. This place has much better people than Reddit.
Completely agree
Privileged Western leftist moment.
Being a bloodthirsty reactionary is bad, actually.
Lmao where are you getting “bloodthirsty” from?
General support for NATO and apologetics for militarized Ukrainian nationalists.
Or, alternately, acknowledge that a guy who was a short time ago a fascist has maybe not shed all of those viewpoints and should be criticized for it.
Oh spare me, this post is 100% written in bad faith. You can acknowledge that he has some shit anticommunist views left over without effectively accusing him of actually still being alt-right.
deleted by creator
Accusations of him still being alt-right based on pro-nazi comments he made in regard to the Soviet Union does not magically make said accusation “bad faith” ironically your comment is the definition of bad faith sense you think people are just dogpiling him for not being leftist enough and not for the fascist apologia he’s spit out the last few days
I owe nothing to someone using their large platform to repeat Nazi propaganda, and it's perfectly reasonable to imply the former Hungarian alt-righter repeating WW2 era Nazi propaganda might not be totally "former" after all.
He didn't even say the USSR was bad, the said they were worse than the Nazis. That is just Holocaust denial, could've come straight from Goebbels.
I would agree with you if he didn't deliberately say that it was worse under the USSR than it was under the Nazis. That's just holocaust denial, plain and simple.
deleted by creator
The guy is a Hungarian taken in by literal Nazi apologia that compares them favorably to the Soviets.
And have you tried living in Eastern Europe? This is pretty much the only mainstream narrative. In a lot of places, especially if you are under 40-50 you will get ridiculed or bullied for being even slightly on the left. In a lot of these places even the left parties are led by conservative reactionaries. And there are still plenty people who have first or second hand experience of the collapse of socialism, and that often means assigning the flaws of the socialist regimes to socialism itself. In these places there is no viable large ideological alternative to neoliberalism and fascism. And its not like the Soviets were angels or something anyway.
To me Adam Something sounds like a pretty typical Eastern European leftie, one that understands there were a lot of fucked up things in the USSR and its satellites, and that has also perhaps fallen for some propaganda, because given everything else it sounds plausible.
I have not tried living on Eastern Europe and count my lucky stars for it because the reactionary organization and violence there is so much stronger and overt. Like being in chud country 24/7 only the chuds don't even pretend to be anti-Nazi.
Another fun tendency is to blame the Soviets/socialism for the economic collapse and deprivation created literally and explicitly by liberalization in the '90s. They use all these tortured stories about Soviet cultures / state apparatuses being naturally mob boss oligarchical, saying shit that's borderline Asiatic hordes racism.
And don't get me started on their views and actions towards Roma.
With that said, 70%+ of generations that were adults in the 90s say things were better under the Soviet System and have positive views of socialism, so these tendencies do vary with that generational divide. There were a lot of communists who just wanted a few reforms and more independence, not the liberalization that was forced on them.
Its a little more complicated than the common internet arguments make it out to be. For one libertarians and the like love parroting the thing about the economic collapse, and western lefties love parroting the retort that it was the liberalization that messed things up, where truth is that there were very deep issues in the system, that liberalization only exasperated and turned into a disaster. So when a lot of people say that things were better before the 90s, they are absolutely correct. But they also do not mean that things were good, or that things weren't headed for an economic crisis anyway (which arguably would have been much milder had the privatization and embrace of capitalism happened). Furthermore, a lot of the "it was better back then" sentiment is also fueled by social conservatism, because a part of the "it was better" includes that there were no gays, no political correctness, women knew their place and you could be freely racist. You have the boomer chuds, who want the return to the Soviet system, because it means not having pussy western values, and basically being fascist with a red coat on, and you have the younger chuds, who are opposed to the Soviet system, cause they want some bullshit libertarian fascism they think is good. I know these people. I grew up with them and was surrounded by them.
The one pushed by the state and formal education maybe but fact is there are dozens of millions of people in Eastern Europe with actively positive experience and outlook of the pre collapse and USSR years , something thats reflected in every single research and poll at every time. So we shouldnt act like positive experiences, narratives and anecdotes are readily and easily available and prevalent among normal people isnt a thing in the USSR and that people who repeat the fascist mainstream narrative of "as bad and worse than Nazis" havent been exposed many times in opinions and narratives against it by people that lived under the USSR. Hell im in Greece and im literally exposed to those more positive than negative narratives by older hungarians, ukranians, georgians, russians ,ex-yugoslavians i meet (many of whom actualy live in their countries) pretty consistently. He knows these experiences of millions of people everywhere including his country but he dismisses them and choses to buy the both sides or even worse narrative
So, the soviets being worse than nazis I think, usually focuses on the time around Stalin and around WWII, because the Red Army werent any better than the Nazis arguably. Neither were of course the Allies. We are talking about a brutal world war, where human rights werent exactly respected.
In addition to this, as I mentioned in my other post, we should examine these positive experiences of pre-collapse USSR, and seek to understand them better. Because, sure one big part was social security, healthcare, education and the like. But other parts are absolutely fueled by reactionary conservatism about the time when the eurogays werent spreading their gender ideology. On a side note, an interesting Ive noticed among some people talking about the times back then is that things that are relatively normal now are stated as a downside of socialism back then, without them realizing that this same bad thing is even worse now, or things that if you think a little deeper are actually kinda good are stated as bad.
Actually, only one of those three factions engaged in an industrial-scale genocide. The war crimes committed by the allies (including the USSR) are not arguably the same as what the Nazis did. The people who liberated the concentration camps are very different from the ones who built them.
Big oof on my side in that regard. Completely agree, that the Nazis were bent on extermination and genocide. What I was trying to say is that the red army did engage in war crimes, as did every other army. Of course it's not on the scale of what the Nazis did, but it still is warcrimes. Which is inevitable when there is such a war, but still should be condemned regardless.
Of course they were are you fucking serious right now ?
Did the red army burn tens of thousands of villages many times with the people in it alive? Did it engage in rounding up millions of jews, Roma's and undesirables for industrial genocide? Did the red army engage in an aggressive genocidal war killing and starving tens of millions of civillians AS A POLICY ?
Of course the Red Army and the Allies engaged in civilian violence and rapes and war crimes through WW2. But saying "they arent any better" than the Nazi's is disgusting. Even the worst thing the red army did, the mass rapes in Germany and Berlin, are eclipsed by orders and orders of maginitude and scale by the equivalent the Nazi army did marching though eastern Europe and which it self doesnt register in the top of their attrocities.Its even disgusting to the millions of Jews the red army went out of its way and too hundreds of thousands of additional losses in order to evacuate from eastern Europe
Its not in the same stratosphere and its a logic that would lump any army ever as no better than the Nazi's .Everyone in WW1 ? As bad as Nazi army. The Vietcong and PLA in China .As bad as Nazis .
I dont care that its the "opinion of a lot that from that era" considering a lot of polland ,Hungary and countries that these views are primarily found had civilian populations filled to the brim with collaborators that cared little about the millions Nazi's burned and killed in their own country as long it was jews, romas or other eastern Europeans .
Engaging with it an adopting it as an "arguable" truth is in itself ahistorical and nazi apologia and honestly you should delete it or reword it cause there is a danger you get a justfiable for that opinion banned tho i dont believe you really mean it that way
Actualy we do have data. Massive research for reasons behind the positive opinions. Nothing about "the gays and lgbts" as an important reason . The most reactionary big reason is usualy the one based on "we had a grand global standing and power" which is bad and nationalistic at face value but also can be interpreted in different ways for different people. Economic reasons, stability reasons, positive outlook for the future and optimism, people being more kinda and community spirit being stronger are the other massive ones. The only non fringe "socialy conservative" reason is usualy regarding the rise of drugs ,alcoholism and prostitution which seeing the form that surge took after the collapse is quite justifiable to see a reaction against those things from their POV
Agreed with your point about the armies. Still it sits wrong with me comparing war crimes with war crimes. Yes, Nazis are absolutely horrible, but that doesn't make the war crimes on the other side any good in any way.
As for the social part - I know it sounds stupid to say it on the internet, and to a person I've never met irl, but believe me, the social conservatism is absolutely a factor. It is what lies behind stuff like people lamenting community spirit, positive outlook on the future and the like. The gays and the LGBT is just the most visible part on a general outlook of tolerance towards minorities, women's rights and so on seen as western influence, as part of capitalism that ruined this great power, and as something to be rolled back and reversed And these countries were and are very socially conservative. And likely will be, unfortunately.
Honestly, my experience growing up in one of these countries, talking to people, reading textbooks from the Soviet era, etc. is the major source of my belief that when we fight for socialism we have to absolutely fight for ending racism, discrimination and so on in addition to fixing the economic base. You can absolutely have reactionary and conservative communism and that is something we should strive to prevent.
I don't know if you live in the US(west) or if I've gone completely batshit insane on 'They Live' goggles but, yes, there's fash everywhere.
There's the insidious legacy and hegemony of large components of fascism everywhere and we can call them fash as shorthand because who's going to stop us?
Fascists are also capable of understanding the flaws of capitalism, you’re refrain makes no sense
shut the fuck up v**sh