I’ve watched this video a bunch of times, and it utterly baffles me. I genuinely cannot understand how BadEmpanada came to this conclusion.
To start off this video, he immediately does the most annoying YouTube loser thing ever. He does the whole, “I’m gonna piss off some people with this heh heh heh” thing. That’s annoying to begin with. He appears to believe that anti Americanism is “contrarianism” when it isn’t. The vast majority of internet contrarians are not Intersectional Third Worldists. He then defines the “socialism” that he follows as “trying to do the best possible for the majority of people” which is incredibly anti materialistic and anti scientific marxist. Then, he breaks into the contrarian bullshit of the “but” principle, where he pretends to be against America (he really isn’t). It’s very clear that he’s lying about how much he doesn’t like America. He then says that he opposes America for political reasons and not just “because it’s america.” You know, a lot of people in the Middle East, who live in constant fear for clear skies because they could be vaporized by missile blasts, hate America because it’s America. To say that this is wrong is to delegitimize the third world who is oppressed primarily by the white western country of America.
Then, he does the EPIC contrarian thing where he brings up China. I’m gonna just say it outright here. Fuck critical support. China isn’t doing anything wrong. It is following correct Dengist principles. Criticism of China is entirely rooted in Americanism, White Supremacy, Western Imperialism, and Sinophobia. China is not “state capitalist.” It is Leninist-Dengist. China has lifted millions out of poverty. China has developed the most advanced rail system in the world. China is bringing benefit to non western nations across the world. If you have problems with that, go fuck yourself.
Then he brings up Iran. Iran is in the same boat. Iran is a good anti American country that strives to destroy imperialism from the white westerners. Iran deserves uncritical support. Calling Iran “far right” is a false flag, and is the most western thing ever.
I’m gonna read a quote here where he’s being sarcastic, but it’s entirely true.
US aligned is bad, US opposed is good.
This is entirely true.
This whole video is a CIA Black Ops Gladio hit piece against some of the only good western journalists. The Grayzone is a great news source. To attack it is to promote white supremacy and western imperialism.
He then defends the US by saying it has been on the right side of history (it hasn’t) occasionally (never)
You know what I can’t even go two minutes into the video without screaming. BadEmpanada is a white westerner from Australia who is promoting the colonization of non western Argentina. Fuck him and fuck anyone who defends him.
Death penalty has been used in almost every revolutionary state
Yes, and that doesn't make it right. It's a gross human rights infringement. We should strive to do better.
"kill all slave owners"
Do you disagree with this sentiment?
If they're not actively resisting the liberation of said slaves ? yes. Just put them in prison for the rest of their life. Assassinating them is against human rights. But I'm speaking in the context of a post-revolution period here, where wholesale abolition has been established and is in the process of happening - if we're talking more in the context of what, say, John Brown did, then I'd agree killing them might be a spark, an act that might trigger more large scale movements, and in such cases morally justified.
To get back to my initial answer: yes, but would I shed a single tear if one of those newly-freed slave were to kill them, or even prosecute those slaves ? definitely not. Their own human rights were abused much more in the first place than those of the slave owner would be were he to be killed.
Maybe I'm showing my EU bias here but again: I see any application of the death penalty (as in the context of a legal framework) as gross abuse of human rights, and personally incompatible to me with leftist thought. I've had debates on this here many times though. Still stand by it.
Human rights ain't real
It's our job to make them real.
wat
I mean, I know you're mocking me here but I'd genuinely see that version as an improvement. Perhaps I am too idealistic.
How would you handle the situation with the Russian royal family in 1918?
I'd argue that's a very specific example because:
But if you think killing their kids - especially the two minor ones - was morally justified, especially as viewed under a more modern lens, then I definitely disagree.
Its always amazing to me how even with the length of time of 100 years the 'killing the poor Romanovs' sob story still gets a hearing
Instead of you know... The tens of millions of children that prostituted themselves in Gorky park or died of malnutrition every year under Tsarist rule
Or hell..the 20 million Russians that died in WW1
The millions of Russians that died in unmarked graves thanks to the Tsar and we discuss the morality of shooting a few Royalty during a civil war. Bizarre
No arguments there. Doesn't negate the fact it's hard to defend killing a 13 years old kid. What was he guilty of, really ?
But agree, all in all it doesn't deserve that much highlight compared to millions of other kids killed or abused.
It's always going to be a specific example, a complicated situation---that's the problem with idealist declarations, they become impractical as soon as rubber meets the road.
Putting, into law, that the state has the right to execute people is wrong, period. Killing people while a revolution is in progress is different. It's got nothing to do with idealism or wearing white gloves, unless you think the USSR, China, and so on didn't/don't have the resources to hold those people in prison indefinitely instead. They did, and they do.
I think the fact the soviet themselves put it this way:
[The death penalty being permitted] as an exceptional measure of punishment, until its complete abolition
Or the fact that apparently, two-thirds of death sentences were commuted to prison terms, both show that they knew it was far, far from ideal in a leftist/communist society. They knew at the very least complete abolition was the goal.
What if the revolution never ended? :back-to-me-shining:
:trot-shining: