So many examples of this.
US absolutely torches any progress made in alternative fuels then goes on to claim no possible alternatives to fossil fuels.
21There's a law requiring ever-increasing amounts of biofuel to be mixed into everything. Biofuel has a ton of downsides that have great potential for a dust bowl 2.0, but that's another topic. US researchers have every motivation to develop non-constly alternatives by virtue of investors, even if the investment only gives them a small bubble like Arcimoto's minicars did. In fact, California is considering using hydrogen cars for parts of their network that don't go past the speeds hydrogen fuel can support.
4
This is really one sided. I'm not saying there isn't truth in it, but there are also other factors. Communist revolutions can be bloody and can lead to authoritarian states. They can be inefficient and stifle innovation. It often was just a power grab not an attempt to make a country better for everyone.
I wouldn't want to live in the mid 20. century idea of communism. But otherwise I support that the means of production belongs to the worker and anyone affected by the production.
-21/2 [Communist revolutions can be bloody and can lead to authoritarian states.]
– Yes, revolutions can be bloody, whether they're communist or otherwise. That's not really unique of communist revolutions.
"Authoritarian state" is a meaningless redundancy; there's no such thing as a non-authoritarian state. If your criticism is that the revolutions didn't immediately result in a communist society, then that's also a poor criticism since they were never meant to...
16...immediately transition to communism because that would be impossible, or at least strategically impractical. The plan of Marxist-Leninist revolutions was always to create a transitional state that would eventually transition into a stateless classless society once the state was no longer needed.
9
Authoritarian is a meaningless word that anti-communists love to use without thinking. Every state holds authority by virtue of having a monopoly on violence, period. The only question is whose interests the authority of the state is exercised in. There is also zero evidence that communist states are inefficient of stifle innovation. In fact, vast majority of meaningful innovation under capitalism happens in the public sector. Finally, every communist state has vastly improved living conditions for the majority of the people. I recommend actually learning a bit of history instead of regurgitating nonsense you've been indoctrinated into.
7They ignored the point that capitalism uses violent oppression to suppress innovation. Kind of a main point of the video. The evidence that other ideological regimes cannot innovate is always implicitly that capitalists won by military might therefore the interlocutor is compelled to concede a flawed premise from the outset.
It's like smashing the sportsball net then saying you won the game. Especially if one were to come from a scientific perspective that is not a proper comparison of technological innovation when you ensure nobody else can even try.
Show us a world were different regimes compete scientific and technologically without resorting to violence against the others. We couldn't have it because capitalists sabotage your science experiment, take your equipment, then declare themselves the winner.
7@yogthos my dude you literally support an organisation that briefly toned down the capitalism in the place it governed before restoring it at gunpoint: you're in absolutely no position to be going around calling others anti-communist.
-5When people respond, there are a few different forms the response comes in. By far the worst is one that tries to completely deny the original post by finding weird circumstances in which individual statements of the op aren't true and do so in a rude way and/or childishly patronising way.
That's you. Though, great that you like capitalisms public sector 😂.
-6
