Or the invasion of Vietnam… Or the annexation of Tibet… Or the bullying of Southeast Asian countries… Or the great leap forward… Or the communist land reforms… Or the anti counterrevolutionary campaigns

The CCP leaves you no end of really good options to pick here.

I find it funny how someone lacks understanding of capitalism and socialism is trying to lecture others what they mean, especially when they’re sources are fucking Wikipedia… And even those articles showcase your ignorance lmao. You have nothing, so go keep coping elsewhere

I don’t need to imagine, it’s well known where this type of propaganda is coming from:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-09-18/china-is-cranking-up-its-global-propaganda-machine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/20/chinese-officials-create-488m-social-media-posts-a-year-study-finds

Truth hurts, cope

This is the peak of your intelligence. This is as far as it goes. I don’t think you’re capable of producing anything of value. This certainly explains why you’re a brain dead Marxist, but it also shows that you’re a waste of time.

The only people who feel threatned by others calling out fallacies are the ones who know they’re disingenuous but still act in bad faith anyway.

Marxism is so easy to destroy, but the reality is that modern day Marxism literally cannot exist without fallacies and propaganda. The ideology is so shallow that it can’t stand on its own merits.

You clearly don’t understand what the fallacy is if you’re actually dumb enough to post an article to try and justify it. Here’s a quick run down for your own benefit. Whataboutism is the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse (This is the Merriam Webster definition). There are three reasons why this is fallacious:

1. The “what about” part is irrelevant to the original statement or argument. By dismissing the original point and entirely focusing entirely on the “what about” part, the person gets to use the “what about” as misdirection to avoid directly addressing what was already said. If you know your fallacies well, you would know that this sounds eerily familiar to the red herring fallacy. Not exactly the same, but very close.

2. It implies that because entity B did something just as bad or worse, that justifies entity A doing the same thing… when that’s not the case. If I stole a bike three years 3 years ago, that doesn’t justify you stealing a bike now. You criticizing me for stealing the bike 3 years ago doesn’t make your criticism wrong even if you stole a bike this morning, but it also doesn’t justify you stealing the bike. The point is that both actions are wrong, each entity is responisble for it’s own actions. One doesn’t justify, excuse, or negate the other.

3. The whataboutism fallacy is a variant of the Tu Quouque fallacy (that’s not a bonus, that’s literally what it is) which is a subsection of the ad hominem argument. An ad hom becomes fallacious when an a character attack is used in place of an actual argument. Which is what happens with whataboutism. The person using it is replacing an actual argument with a charged accusation of hypocrisy and nothing more, which is basically just a character attack.

In this case, the OP of this comment thread made a hypothetical scenario poking fun at the authoritarianism, poor working conditions, and the corruption that is so often found in socialist states. You can agree or disagree with that statement, but if you want to make rebuttal against it, you have to actually address it. The second commenter in this thread did not address it. Instead he brought up a random point about American companies promoting lead. Not only is his comment an irrelevant non-sequitur, but it doesn’t disprove the point that OP was trying to make. That second commenter is clearly a Marxist who got offended by the point that the OP made, and so he quickly resorted to the “what about the US” fallback tactic to both avoid addressing the point that was actually made and to pull a weak “gotcha”. It’s the ol’ classic “oh yeah? but look at the US is bad therefore Marxism is good/not as bad/excused/justified in doing shitty thing”. It’s inconsistent logic.

Then again, Marxism is truly a brain dead ideology. Without propaganda about the US, the entire school of thought would collapse. What is there left to a firmly failed ideology that failed in both theory and practice? Nothing.

I like how tankies conveniently forget that Marxism is just as authoritarian, just as evil, just as violent, and just as failed (in both theory and practice) as fascism. Actually, Marxism has a greater death toll than fascism. It is the ideology of scum. Tankies and neo nazis are the same level of insufferable trash.

Economic freedom is literally what defines socialism and capitalism. Pure socialism is when you have a fully planned economy and pure capitalism is when you have a fully private economy. Obviously neither extreme works, but when you actually look at the data, you’ll notice that there’s a pretty strong correlation between freedom, prosperity, and happiness and economic freedom. The more economically free countries are the best performing ones.

Also the US is not the most capitalist country nor is it the standard of capitalism. There are plenty of other countries with that are just as, if not more capitalist. Even then, the US is still a very free, prosperous, and happy country. It is objectively very well developed and well performing, even if it isn’t the best preforming capitalist country or liberal democracy. This idea that the US is the definition of capitalism or that the US is a “soon to be collapsed^TM” third world country literally stems from Soviet propaganda (which was inherited by modern Russia and China).

I propose that political officers be sent to these psychics randomly. The officers would sit down with these plebs and ask them to read their futures. If they don’t guess that they’re going to get beat up, then they’re going to get beat up for being frauds. The ones who know what’s coming to them, will still get beat up, but lightly, and they will be asked nicely to contribute something more meaningful to society… or else.

The assumption here being that we live in scarcity?

This isn’t an assumption, this is objective fact, we don’t have infinite resources.

That worker productivity is directly tied to the amount of time worked?

It’s not 1:1, but there’s a strong correlation between productivity and time. Obviously having workers work 16 hours a day is not going to go well in terms of productivity, but a person who works 6 months of the year and a person who works 10 months of the year are not going to have the same annual productivity. The person who worked for 10 months is going to be more productive because they put in more time.

That people won’t take difficult jobs like being a doctor without the financial incentive?

What’s the mystery here? Money is indeed a big incentive. Why would anybody spend about 14 years of their life after high school studying very difficult subjects to work very demanding jobs if they end getting paid as much as a delivery driver? Might as well become a delivery driver and save your save a decade and a half of stress.

The US > literal any socialist state, and it’s not even close. The US is so far above any socialist state past and present that it’s comical when brain damaged Marxists try to compare the two and think it’s a gotcha for them. No, despite all its flaws, the US is objectively a great country, and that’s largely because it’s a liberal democracy. What’s funny is that it’s not even the best liberal democracy, there are others that are better. But even a mediocre liberal democracy is better than anything Marxist. Hell, even a bad liberal democracies are better than anything Marxist. I’d rather live in modern day Botswana or Peru any day of the week over modern day Cuba or any time during the Soviet Union.

What’s so complicated about what I said?

I basically wrote the same thing for like 5 comments already, so I’ll just copy and paste one of them again.

It’s simple, anti-trans views are on the rise among all age groups and political affiliations, at least in the US (according to Gallup). This isn’t randos on the internet, that’s the general public. Movements need the support of the general public to advance their cause. What’s happening is that the anti-trans movement is what’s growing. They’re organizing, passing legislation, creating campaigns, and so on. Looking at the trends, they’re winning. The boycotts that happened to Budlight and Target are not a coincidence. The trans movement is heading in the wrong direction. The people with influence in the movement are either grifting or focusing on the wrong things, members of the movement are not holding their leaders accountable and they’re not organizing, and the movement is fracturing due to extremism poisoning it on the inside. In an ideal world, the trans movement would find a way to head back in the right direction and continue to advance civil rights for trans people… but I don’t see that happening because a lot of people who support the trans movement either don’t care enough to do something or they’re too busy focusing on pointless things.

It’s simple, anti-trans views are on the rise among all age groups and political affiliations, at least in the US (according to Gallup). This isn’t randos on the internet, that’s the general public. Movements need the support of the general public to advance their cause. What’s happening is that the anti-trans movement is what’s growing. They’re organizing, passing legislation, creating campaigns, and so on. Looking at the trends, they’re winning. The boycotts that happened to Budlight and Target are not a coincidence. The trans movement is heading in the wrong direction. The people with influence in the movement are either grifting or focusing on the wrong things, members of the movement are not holding their leaders accountable and they’re not organizing, and the movement is fracturing due to extremism poisoning it on the inside. In an ideal world, the trans movement would find a way to head back in the right direction and continue to advance civil rights for trans people… but I don’t see that happening because a lot of people who support the trans movement either don’t care enough to do something or they’re too busy focusing on pointless things.

I don’t know where you and the other brainlets are brigading from, but what I said is not that complicated. Being trans isn’t a movement, but there’s a trans movement. That movement isn’t doing too hot, and the evidence is supporting that notion. Anti-trans views are spreading more and more, and if the issue is goin to continue to be ignored by people, do you know what’s going to happen? Anti-trans legislation is going to find it’s way into the law, and civil rights are going to regress. Idk about you, but that’s not a good thing in my book.

Being trans isn’t a movement in of itself, but there is a trans movement. You can deny it all you want, but it’s there. Unfortunately, at least in the US, the general public is increasingly becoming more trans across all age groups and political affiliations (according to Gallup). This is reflected by the fact that there more anti-trans legislation than there was a few years ago. The reality is that the trans movement is heading in the wrong direction. Either the people with influence in the movement are focusing on the wrong things, members of the movements can’t organize or don’t care enough to, or the movement is being poisoned from the inside either by extremists or bad faith actors. Regardless, if people keep ignoring it, the anti-trans positions will steadily gain more ground and civil rights will regress.

You either read what I said wrong or you’re too busy trying to find something to get mad over.

This comment is do dumb it doesn’t even deserve a proper reply.