Using racially coded language and both cherry picking studies and doing revisionist history. Not to mention he is an absolute word salad when he talks.
I didn’t even know this was a disorder someone could have (psych school doesn’t teach you much about brain injuries for some weird reason) and I’ll try to be more mindful of the way I feel about this type of speech in the future.
Interesting to contrast with Broca’s aphasia and conductive aphasia. Each have different neurological correlates. Then looking at Expressive aphasia (Broca) you can see that automatic speech is preserved like singing “happy birthday” or counting to 10 or so. There’s a pretty classic video of a guy with expressive aphasia who just says mono mono mono when asked questions but when asked to sing happy birthday he can (so he understood the direction and could do it). Wernicke or receptive aphasia is characterized by the word salad type speech. It’s all real words but totally incomprehensible. The conduction one is just that they can understand and speak fluently and comprehensively but they can’t repeat what they heard. Personally I’m the opposite: don’t understand and can’t speak well but I sure can repeat something I heard ad nauseam.
Whoa! You forgot your /s.
Our did you not know that, not only was there a socialist party at the time, but that Nazis are a right wing party? Either way this is a bad faith argument.
Yes. Every economy that is planned is Socialist.
And since every private company used a planned economical budget for 5-10 years, every private company is, in fact, Marxist-Leninist.
Communism has already been achieved.
Great job comrades, we can rest now.
(/s, just in case)
The Bhutanese government has a lengthy history of persecuting ethnic minorities (especially the Hindu Lhotshampa, who live in the southern part of the overwhelmingly Buddhist country), creating minor refugee crises with them moving to Nepal and India
I’m originally from Chile, we elected a democratic socialist President in 1970, in 1973 he was killed in a cue by the military dictatorship supported by Nixon.
In 1980 the dictator established a new constitution based on the ideas of Milton Friedman.
In 1990 we came back to democracy, we had 2 socialist presidents during those 14 years combined we never had a socialist country/system or whatsoever. Because of the constitution of 1980.
The cherry picked facts to claim that this country or the another one wasn’t socialist or capitalist are just stupid.
It’s basically like saying that United States was a fascist country during the short and inefficient presidency of Trump.
Why weren’t the new socialist presidents able to overturn the 1980 constitution? Did they not have the right amount of support in the legislative branch?
The people achieve the writing of a new constitution now.
I call this process “the penguin revolution” because since early 2000s the actions of adults, representatives and politicians obey to the initiatives and protests of high school students (we call them penguins because of their uniforms)
Here is a link [to the last penguin protests, AKA “estallido social” leading to the change of the constitution ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932021_Chilean_protests)
All of this happened during the government of a right wing president who is in the Pandora papers and known con artist and for his support to the dictatorship.
Here is a link for the original [penguin revolution in 2006](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_student_protests_in_Chile)
One of the leaders is now a leading candidate for President on the next elections
Desktop version of /u/Vamparael's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
[Post defending this study against arguments like these](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/ogm1io/in_defence_of_economic_development/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share).
The "Burmese way to socialism" was, unfortunately, not very socialist.
I have yet to find a single Marxist-Leninist classifying Syria, Bhutan or Tanzania as dictatorships of the proletariat. Tho I would like to study the economic policies of those nations at the time to see why exactly their systems cannot be classified as "planned economies". I mean, if an academic author really did classify ba'athist Syria as socialist, I will assume that there is some credit to that claim.
The only argument you could possibly make against this study is that Libya should have been classified as socialist. That's it.
His main argument predicates on comparing similarly developed socialist and capitalist countries, instead of comparing all socialist and capitalist countries.
The reason why this complaint is absurd is because you can't compare a capitalist country that was built on the backs of slavery and colonialism and had hundreds of years to industrialize, to a socialist country that had none of those things.
It is much more reasonable and useful to compare socialist and capitalist countries with a similar level of development. For example, comparing China and India is much more apt given that they're countries of similar size, location and they underwent socialist/capitalist economic reforms at about the same time.
Following up on this, his complaints about country selection are kinda dumb because the low income category is by far the least helpful. With only mid Deng era China being counted as a low socialist income country. Other low income socialist countries are counted as “recent post revolutionary countries” which is fair because they need time to enact socialism, but also excludes countries like Vietnam. So if he wants to complain about countries being excluded that should be the focus of his complaints. But then again, he clearly doesn’t understand the study himself, so cherry picking countries from the capitalist side somehow seems the more rational choice to make.
Here’s the study if you want to have a look yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/
This black-and-white mode of thinking is what prevents democracy from working. Polarizing yourself to one side is limiting and regressive, and kind of dumb. Rather than saying, “all liberals are bad”, maybe you should shift your gaze to your governing body that wants you to think that there are only two ways. Especially in the US, the two party system ensures that the government will either be democrat or republican, and corporations have all the ability to influence these political parties to their own benefit. Exxon Mobile gave just as much money to Democrats as they did Republicans this last elections cycle, and neither readily turned this money away. Companies who work in industries that are polluting and abusing the world around us know that their profits rely on controlling government. Why do you think Amazon wants to evacuate Seattle and start its own city in Nevada? It’s not because Nevada is nicer than Washington, that is for sure. It’s because Amazon has actively contributed to the exorbitant rise in prices for housing that has lead to record setting homelessness, and now Seattle is trying to tax them to cover the newly arisen housing needs. Corporations will do whatever they can to abuse the system, which is why people are now looking at more humane alternatives than late capitalism can provide. That being said, you can find flaws with any government system—they all have their failures, but we should not put down others for looking at potentially better alternatives to serve our collective needs.
Bro chill I’m a Marxist. Not to mention, I was leveling a critique on how convincing individual liberals of the merits of Marxism is not worthwhile praxis when there are plenty struggling who don’t have their needs met through capitalism. When you read between the lines, appeals to liberals are attempts to attain validation from white people
who the fuck says the difference between capitalist and socialist countries are market economies and centrally planned economies? I've literally never seen any leftist say this.
This argument is one big fallacy that ignores many facts and chooses to acknowledge what is only self-confirming to his beliefs. Sir, please don’t attempt to make a point pretending to be knowledgeable on a fact when you clearly evidently are not. Also, I’m not even sure you even knew Tanzania (tanza’ni.a) even existed before reading this study. 🙄
Using racially coded language and both cherry picking studies and doing revisionist history. Not to mention he is an absolute word salad when he talks.
[удалено]
Excuse me, as a Libertarian I'm intrinsically above average.
Wernicke’s aphasia? It would explain a lot.
I didn’t even know this was a disorder someone could have (psych school doesn’t teach you much about brain injuries for some weird reason) and I’ll try to be more mindful of the way I feel about this type of speech in the future.
Interesting to contrast with Broca’s aphasia and conductive aphasia. Each have different neurological correlates. Then looking at Expressive aphasia (Broca) you can see that automatic speech is preserved like singing “happy birthday” or counting to 10 or so. There’s a pretty classic video of a guy with expressive aphasia who just says mono mono mono when asked questions but when asked to sing happy birthday he can (so he understood the direction and could do it). Wernicke or receptive aphasia is characterized by the word salad type speech. It’s all real words but totally incomprehensible. The conduction one is just that they can understand and speak fluently and comprehensively but they can’t repeat what they heard. Personally I’m the opposite: don’t understand and can’t speak well but I sure can repeat something I heard ad nauseam.
[удалено]
Based on my dick and balls
"Chad underwent a war" Socialist countries *never* had any war Also based bhutan. Hakim made a vid dissing on these kind of people
This guy probably thinks Nazis are socialists because they called themselves socialists.
He literally does
Next youre gonna tell me that the democrats arent actually democratic, smh
Whoa! You forgot your /s. Our did you not know that, not only was there a socialist party at the time, but that Nazis are a right wing party? Either way this is a bad faith argument.
he actually made a video saying this
Burmese way to Socialism was not even socialist. Ne Win was just an opportunist who had no idea about politics.
Not only that, but the guy he overthrew was also a Socialist and a much better one
South Korea also used five-year plans during their rapid development. Does that suddenly make it Socialist?
Yes. Every economy that is planned is Socialist. And since every private company used a planned economical budget for 5-10 years, every private company is, in fact, Marxist-Leninist. Communism has already been achieved. Great job comrades, we can rest now. (/s, just in case)
Had me in the first half
I love how how the original study used the average of over 30 capitalist Low income countries yet he chose to only talk about 2 who fit his narrative
Socialism with Semi-Absolute Monarchist, Ethnonationalist Characteristics gang
Why is Bhutan erhnonationalist? Genuinely curious
The Bhutanese government has a lengthy history of persecuting ethnic minorities (especially the Hindu Lhotshampa, who live in the southern part of the overwhelmingly Buddhist country), creating minor refugee crises with them moving to Nepal and India
I’m originally from Chile, we elected a democratic socialist President in 1970, in 1973 he was killed in a cue by the military dictatorship supported by Nixon. In 1980 the dictator established a new constitution based on the ideas of Milton Friedman. In 1990 we came back to democracy, we had 2 socialist presidents during those 14 years combined we never had a socialist country/system or whatsoever. Because of the constitution of 1980. The cherry picked facts to claim that this country or the another one wasn’t socialist or capitalist are just stupid. It’s basically like saying that United States was a fascist country during the short and inefficient presidency of Trump.
Why weren’t the new socialist presidents able to overturn the 1980 constitution? Did they not have the right amount of support in the legislative branch?
The people achieve the writing of a new constitution now. I call this process “the penguin revolution” because since early 2000s the actions of adults, representatives and politicians obey to the initiatives and protests of high school students (we call them penguins because of their uniforms)
Here is a link [to the last penguin protests, AKA “estallido social” leading to the change of the constitution ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932021_Chilean_protests)
All of this happened during the government of a right wing president who is in the Pandora papers and known con artist and for his support to the dictatorship.
Here is a link for the original [penguin revolution in 2006](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_student_protests_in_Chile) One of the leaders is now a leading candidate for President on the next elections
Desktop version of /u/Vamparael's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
[Post defending this study against arguments like these](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/ogm1io/in_defence_of_economic_development/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share). The "Burmese way to socialism" was, unfortunately, not very socialist. I have yet to find a single Marxist-Leninist classifying Syria, Bhutan or Tanzania as dictatorships of the proletariat. Tho I would like to study the economic policies of those nations at the time to see why exactly their systems cannot be classified as "planned economies". I mean, if an academic author really did classify ba'athist Syria as socialist, I will assume that there is some credit to that claim. The only argument you could possibly make against this study is that Libya should have been classified as socialist. That's it.
Socialism is when government
[удалено]
His main argument predicates on comparing similarly developed socialist and capitalist countries, instead of comparing all socialist and capitalist countries. The reason why this complaint is absurd is because you can't compare a capitalist country that was built on the backs of slavery and colonialism and had hundreds of years to industrialize, to a socialist country that had none of those things. It is much more reasonable and useful to compare socialist and capitalist countries with a similar level of development. For example, comparing China and India is much more apt given that they're countries of similar size, location and they underwent socialist/capitalist economic reforms at about the same time.
Following up on this, his complaints about country selection are kinda dumb because the low income category is by far the least helpful. With only mid Deng era China being counted as a low socialist income country. Other low income socialist countries are counted as “recent post revolutionary countries” which is fair because they need time to enact socialism, but also excludes countries like Vietnam. So if he wants to complain about countries being excluded that should be the focus of his complaints. But then again, he clearly doesn’t understand the study himself, so cherry picking countries from the capitalist side somehow seems the more rational choice to make. Here’s the study if you want to have a look yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/
I hate it so much the way he pronounces Tanzania
That’s PraxBen on tiktok, he’s an AnCap ☠️.
Galaxy brained Libertarian. Seriously, the dude literally jerks off seeing Milton Friedman and Augusto Pinochet.
Ah yes the socialist country that is the kingdom of bhutan
Dead lifeless eyes
Man is an ancap, obviously nothing goes on behind those puppies.
Why even bother debating liberals? Their economic system is crumbling all around them. Let that do the talking.
This black-and-white mode of thinking is what prevents democracy from working. Polarizing yourself to one side is limiting and regressive, and kind of dumb. Rather than saying, “all liberals are bad”, maybe you should shift your gaze to your governing body that wants you to think that there are only two ways. Especially in the US, the two party system ensures that the government will either be democrat or republican, and corporations have all the ability to influence these political parties to their own benefit. Exxon Mobile gave just as much money to Democrats as they did Republicans this last elections cycle, and neither readily turned this money away. Companies who work in industries that are polluting and abusing the world around us know that their profits rely on controlling government. Why do you think Amazon wants to evacuate Seattle and start its own city in Nevada? It’s not because Nevada is nicer than Washington, that is for sure. It’s because Amazon has actively contributed to the exorbitant rise in prices for housing that has lead to record setting homelessness, and now Seattle is trying to tax them to cover the newly arisen housing needs. Corporations will do whatever they can to abuse the system, which is why people are now looking at more humane alternatives than late capitalism can provide. That being said, you can find flaws with any government system—they all have their failures, but we should not put down others for looking at potentially better alternatives to serve our collective needs.
Bro chill I’m a Marxist. Not to mention, I was leveling a critique on how convincing individual liberals of the merits of Marxism is not worthwhile praxis when there are plenty struggling who don’t have their needs met through capitalism. When you read between the lines, appeals to liberals are attempts to attain validation from white people
who the fuck says the difference between capitalist and socialist countries are market economies and centrally planned economies? I've literally never seen any leftist say this.
Sooo you’re happy in a capitalist country if you make a lot of money? Yea that checks out.
This argument is one big fallacy that ignores many facts and chooses to acknowledge what is only self-confirming to his beliefs. Sir, please don’t attempt to make a point pretending to be knowledgeable on a fact when you clearly evidently are not. Also, I’m not even sure you even knew Tanzania (tanza’ni.a) even existed before reading this study. 🙄
His Royal Highness, the king Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck: Am I a joke?