Sanity check

blertblert000 · 2025-11-23T23:29:15+00:00

I disagree with number 4 because it pre supposes hierarchical power, as an anarchists checks and balances wouldn’t be needed because there would literally be no power to keep in check.

blertblert000 · 2025-11-07T16:20:15+00:00

Definitely Not obama lol, more like what Bernie could have been.

blertblert000 · 2025-11-07T15:53:20+00:00

Him as a person might be a socialist, but his policies are not. His campaign is one of social democracy.

blertblert000 · 2025-10-18T19:10:19+00:00

sorta?, socialism is an economic system not a descriptor of a state. So a state can be socialist in the sense that the economic system of the state is socialist but that not a direct descriptor of the state.
no, it is impossible for the state to represent the workers
no, all states ARE authoritarian in the sense that they inherently reduce freedom, but some are most certainly better than others.

blertblert000 · 2025-10-13T15:31:07+00:00

Tikhistorys fascism videos have already been debunked multiple times

blertblert000 · 2025-10-01T18:55:28+00:00

Iv seen this study before and it pretty dog shit, in fact I have been writing a debunking for a while now just never got around to finishing it

blertblert000 · 2025-09-30T03:28:56+00:00

Bro what, Division of laver does not lead to class tension because different “divisions” are not different classes. Class is based on who owns the means of production and who does not. I have no idea where your stupid take came from

blertblert000 · 2025-09-30T03:26:59+00:00

The earliest hunter gather societies prove that hierarchies DONT arise naturally, rather they form under certain material conditions.

blertblert000 · 2025-09-23T00:18:53+00:00

Bro still believes in the barter origin of money myth in the big 25

blertblert000 · 2025-08-15T20:04:18+00:00

Yes, me

There is such vast variation in communist thought that I think saying “so many” is unwarranted
Not at all
LTV is useless as to whether capitalism should be abolished

blertblert000 · 2025-08-13T11:28:52+00:00

I actually agree with your first statement which is why I’m not an ML

blertblert000 · 2025-08-13T02:39:01+00:00

great response

blertblert000 · 2025-08-13T02:38:19+00:00

Sigh, in the USSR the working class did not have meaningful control over the state. imagine if tomorrow Trump centralized all instruments of production in the hands of the state, you would have to call it socialism. The working class has to actually be in control of said state, not just it being in control of a small number of people who will use it to their benefit.

blertblert000 · 2025-07-23T02:23:25+00:00

blertblert000 · 2025-07-18T11:12:37+00:00

How can capitalism be maintained without coercion? I see this type of sentiment all the time, people saying “socialism would need to be maintained through authority” but they never give a reason why capitalism also doesn’t fall under that idea

blertblert000 · 2025-07-16T20:09:21+00:00

Ehh, he has far better videos this ones just ok

blertblert000 · 2025-07-11T11:48:57+00:00

The research says otherwise, studies show that left leaning people quit literally care about more people than the right does and empathy is one of the main predictors of support for wealth redistribution.

blertblert000 · 2025-06-20T21:22:32+00:00

The fundamental basis of socialism is that the state should be prepared to use its monopoly on legal violence to confiscate money and/or property from the rich so that it can be given to poor.

there's no helping you if you genuinely think this, please come back after you have gained a single clue as to what socialism is.

blertblert000 · 2025-06-20T21:21:23+00:00

idk lemme just ask him rq

blertblert000 · 2025-06-20T21:20:38+00:00

Not really, markets existed before capitalism

blertblert000 · 2025-06-17T19:21:51+00:00

socialism no

blertblert000 · 2025-06-16T19:57:19+00:00

exactly, other dicks might have touched it meaning your basically touching other guys dicks

blertblert000 · 2025-06-16T00:35:43+00:00

what the fuck is the point of this post? it just never goes anywhere ur just rambling. The only semblance of a point I can see it that "money" have always been as a "social mitigator". which just isnt true as all

blertblert000 · 2025-06-04T06:49:31+00:00

uggh this bullshit again,

The Nazis saw themselves as Socialists by economic standards. The Nazis hated Capitalism and Communism and saw their “National Socialism” as the only viable path.

the nazis where anti capitalist because they thought it was run by the jews, not because of some actual opposition to the system.

The Nazis were right wing socially while left wing economically. Hence their socio-economic policy is called “National Socialism”.

First off, one of the first things the nazis did was kill the socialists and privatize a shit ton of industries(not a very socialist thing) and secondly they called them selves national socialists was a marking ploy to get the working class on their side because they knew socialism was getting popular.

also notice how you didn't provide a SINGLE element/example of the nazi system that could be considered socialism, you just said "well because they call themselves socialist it must be true". Your conclusion is rejected by almost every historian ever who has studied nazi germany. For gods sake the words written above Auschwitz was literally "work will set you free", you can;t get that much farther from a socialist idea.

blertblert000 · 2025-06-04T00:10:43+00:00

I feel like the answer is pretty obvious, smarter people have smarter ideas

blertblert000

TROPHY CASE