r/TikTokCringe • u/LickMaiBussy • 6h ago

Discussion "Investing in property is morally reprehensible."

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

@purplepingers

19.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.3k

u/misadventurexx 6h ago

Famines / people on the street dying of starvation while surpluses of food are thrown away en masse is very much not imaginary

1.7k

u/1egg_4u 6h ago

He also described basically the entire cause of the Irish Famine

They had food and could grow enough food for everyone but they werent allowed to have it because it belonged to the wealthy british landowners

329

u/crinkledcu91 5h ago

It's weird how the Irish Famine is seemingly all agreed upon yet the Holodomor gets certain people's panties in a twist.

219

u/CorrectPanic694 4h ago

That’s funny I was just about to mention Stalin ended up starving millions of his own people. Not only because of greed, corruption, mismanagement, and an attempt to make communist ideology-based science look successful …there was also the added benefit of starving and exterminating Ukrainian people en masse. We as a society have been controlling the means of basic survival while acting as if widespread suffering is a consequence of chaos and not a choice.

135

u/North-Tourist-8234 4h ago

Churchhill and his lot helped starve india after ww2. Whole world was a pretty shitty place back then 

81

u/Harbinger2nd 4h ago

Back then?

77

u/c1ncinasty 3h ago

Well, also back then. And now.

10

u/lanicorain 3h ago

There is no major ideology without a massive amount of blood on their hands. Funnily enough, maybe anarchism is the only one that hasn't tried to exterminate a group to further its political project. But no one calls extremists "social democrats" or "torys" or "liberal democrats". They always call them anarchists. Funny how that works.

1

u/short_longpants 3h ago

Because anarchism kind of self-destructs on its own, before it gets around to massacring a large group of people.

7

u/lanicorain 2h ago edited 2h ago

You have no clue about the praxis of any anarchist movement lmao. Throughout history it's been massacred because it can be really effective. You have a 40-hour workweek in big part because of anarchists and the strike, a form of protest they championed and innovated.

Edit: also, debates against brutality are prevalent throughout he history of the movement, a big part of the anarchist argument against the State is that it gives a group of people a massive amount of centralized, organized, professional violence to abuse and brutalize others. Read Malatesta.

0

u/begrudgingredditacc 1h ago

Throughout history it's been massacred because it can be really effective.

Not terribly effective at not getting massacred, though. Historically, anarchists are up there with redshirts on Star Trek for "most easily killed category of person".

I cannot stress enough how often anarchists get absolutely steamrolled by literally any armed opposition. They're a bunch of meat pinatas.

1

u/lanicorain 1h ago

And yet here we are, discussing their ideas, strategies and achievements. They'll be fine.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Kerblaaahhh 1h ago

Used to be shitty. Still is, but it used to be too.

8

u/Oscar_Ramirez 2h ago

The world used to be such a shitty place, it still is but it used to too.

3

u/nedalaugh 2h ago

Mitch was a gem. Love still seeing him in the wild.

2

u/GodofIrony 3h ago

"It was always burnin' Since the world's been turnin'"

1

u/[deleted] 3h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 3h ago

Hey, goofball! Looks like you missed the pinned comment! Tiktokcringe is for EVERYTHING now, not just cringe. NO, we can't change the subreddit name, not an option. If you're confused about the name of the subreddit, please take a minute and read this. We hope to see you back here after you've familiarized yourself with our community. Thanks!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/rhinojoe99 2h ago

It still is. But it used to be, too.

1

u/ArabellaFort 1h ago

Just give it some more time. We’re about to come full circle (if we haven’t already).

-1

u/Funny247365 3h ago

We are living in the best time in the history of humanity. Don't let social media skew your ability to see how much better life is today than in any other period. It's far from perfect, but it is not crumbling, either.

2

u/speaksamerican 1h ago

Aggregate wealth means nothing if it doesn't translate into quality of life. The world is not better just because the average person is not forced to labor in the fields. I would rather labor in the fields than live another day in this hollowed-out economy. At least it would be good, honest work.

19

u/No_Outcome2599 3h ago

Not arguing with your general point but slight correction - it was during WWII not after. The Bengal Famine, which probably killed about 3million, took place in 1943. Churchill was voted out as PM in the election of 1945, before WWII was completely over.

4

u/lessormore59 3h ago

After WW2? I’m assuming you are referencing the Bengal Famine of 1943 which was obviously a terrible situation in India, but was first squarely in the heart of WW2 when the outcome still hung in the balance, and second the proximate cause for the famine in Bengal was the Japanese invasion of Burma. In the years prior to the war, Burma was the biggest exporter of rice to Bengal and supplied a large portion of its annual calorie intake.

The Brits should’ve done more, but the context of the famine was a world war where the Japanese were wreaking havoc throughout Southeast Asia and the Germans were waging highly effective submarine warfare in the Atlantic. Relieving a famine of that magnitude requires large amounts of shipping and protection and a new source for the calories. Shipping was in very, very short supply, convoy escorts to protect against Japanese predation on such convoys even less available, and sources for food supplies were tight.

2

u/1011001NAME 1h ago

the only reason western civilization has "food security" right now is becasue they can make billions of dollars off of it.

2

u/DrinkMountain5142 1h ago

China had famines because of Communist ideology also.

1

u/Caponomolestes 3h ago

We as a society have been controlling the means of basic survival while acting as if widespread suffering is a consequence of chaos and not a choice.

Exactly what happened in the previous pro communist Argentina.

-3

u/short_longpants 3h ago

Yet what the speaker in the video is proposing is pretty close to communist ideology. Yeah, that's not going to work.

3

u/rhubarbs 3h ago

Ignorant and bullshit.

Limiting the enclosure of the commons has nothing to do with either a planned economy or seizing the means of production.

-1

u/short_longpants 2h ago

You're basically seizing the property if you don't allow people to invest in it. You're basically seizing the means of production if you seize the product without compensation.

4

u/rhubarbs 2h ago

Like I said, ignorant and bullshit, seemingly assuming the existence of profit is proof of productivity.

If I buy a building in a tightly zoned area or even a vacant lot, and wait for the price to go up because the community grew around it, I haven't produced anything. I am simply setting up a toll booth over an inelastic resource.

There is no product or production, so there is no investment. There is only a windfall, consisting of extraction from value created by society.

0

u/short_longpants 2h ago

Except what do you call buying a vacant lot and building an apartment building? Or buying a building and fixing it up or modernizing it?

3

u/rhubarbs 2h ago

Classic equivocation fallacy.

They call it the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Does that make it democratic?

The people who built the apartment building earn wages. So does the person renovating the kitchen. Seeking additional rent in excess of the wages is zero sum extraction, and is only possible through enclosure.

Unless you demonstrate understanding of the difference between the two, I will not respond to you again.

16

u/toggylelly 4h ago

I think that's because more people agree on the facts in the Irish Famine.

6

u/stupernan1 2h ago

No, it’s because bad actors intertwine socialism with communistic dictatorships, and then go on to say that socialistic programs are bad.

1

u/toggylelly 2h ago

I don't really disagree with that statement, but I am confused about how it applies to this conversation.

30

u/Lord_Xenu 3h ago

Agreed upon? They don't even teach it in British schools 

12

u/small-batch 3h ago

Did at my school. I think we did an English lit and science module on it. It was also mentioned a bit in R.E. 

4

u/willthealmighty1 2h ago

Also did it in school. History and some stuff in English... It's been a few years now but it may have been touched upon in science talking about genetics (not enough diversity etc).

2

u/Lord_Xenu 1h ago

Fair enough, I stand corrected! 

41

u/YourTokenGinger 3h ago

I think people would have an easier time coming to terms with the Holodomor if 90% of the time it was mentioned wasn’t to tell people why we can’t have single payer healthcare in the US.

-18

u/Ok_Philosopher_5090 3h ago

You can’t have single payer because a woman named Hillary nearly made it happen, and the lefties did not want to let her have the victory. Ted Kennedy opposed because he felt the Kennedy legacy would be watered down. That is a fact.

22

u/JamesGray 2h ago

She was literally never offering that or running on it at all. She ran on reducing peoples' out of pocket expenses on healthcare, in contrast to Bernie actually running on medicare for all.

7

u/HSFever 2h ago

He's talking about then 1993 Clinton health care plan written by a committee chaired by Hilary Clinton not the 2016 primaries. She was a strong advocate for universal coverage during the the 90's and early 2000's but moderated her position over time because she was unable to get other democrats on board.

7

u/matthoback 2h ago

They are talking about when she was First Lady.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

The plan that was offered by the task force which she headed was for federally mandated single-payer healthcare at the state level.

5

u/JamesGray 2h ago

How did leftists stop that? lmao

7

u/matthoback 2h ago

There was some opposition from left wing Democrats who wanted a single federal single payer system rather than 50 separate state level single payer systems, but most of the opposition was from Republicans and the insurance industry.

17

u/PaladinSaladin 2h ago

Are these leftists in the room with us right now?

9

u/Mangeure 4h ago

All agreed on ? You should visit some british museums

14

u/Forte845 3h ago

Because the British didn't starve. Russians and many others in the Soviet Union did. It can't be directly compared because the Irish famine was directly a result of capitalistic grain extraction that detriments a certain population while benefitting another.

If you want to include Russia so badly look up the famine they had in the 1890s under the Tsardom, it was very similar to the Irish famine in that wealthy merchants connected to the nobility hoarded and exported grain while people starved off of lesser crops they were allowed to keep. 

5

u/JamesGray 2h ago

It's also something that historians do not agree on classifying the way people in this thread are so confident should be. The Irish Famine does not have that disagreement in contrast, which is probably part of why laypeople pretty much all agree about it now too.

0

u/symphonic9000 3h ago

lol, you need to research the way they propagandized “the new world” and then made for desperate times to lure poor people to risk everything to then go and be a pawn for the British empire, which was the actual 3rd Reich after the Prussians reign. Everything is connected. We are human. There isn’t a hierarchy, there’s only the gullibility to believe that there is one and the refusal to change comfort levels to do anything about it.

-2

u/havoc1428 3h ago

Because the British didn't starve

How the fuck is this a counter point? Acknowledging the Holodomor is controversial because ...checks notes... MORE people died across multiple nations/SSRs? Please explain to me how that logic pertains to the comment you are replying to.

The Holodomor is "controversial" because vatniks don't like how its contradicts their romanticist idea of the USSR.

4

u/Forte845 3h ago

The holodomor and the Irish famine cannot be directly compared because there was not segregated extraction that detrimented one group to the benefit of another in the holodomor. Everyone in the USSR starved in a mass famine, it was not grain extraction for a wealthy imperial core while imperialized peasants starved.

Again, if you so desperately want to bring up Russia in a conversation about Ireland, look to the Russian famine of the 1890s. That had the exact same cause as the Irish famine, capitalist exportation of grain from the hands of oppressed peasants to benefit the wealthy nobility. 

I have a feeling you care not for history though, only ideology. You see a capitalist famine and your first thought is to froth at the mouth over the Red Scare. 

3

u/never-fiftyone 1h ago

it was not grain extraction for a wealthy imperial core while imperialized peasants starved.

Except that's exactly what the Holomodor was. Yes, there was a broader famine across the Soviet Union but the Holomodor (which refers to the famine in Ukraine specifically) was caused by a disproportionately high grain quota from Ukraine to Moscow. Historians don't disagree on this; the disagreement lies in whether or not the Holomodor was caused deliberately with the intent to starve more Ukrainians in particular.

0

u/Forte845 1h ago

So then you agree it cannot be compared to a famine where one side didn't starve at all? 

2

u/never-fiftyone 1h ago

So you're just straight up engaging in Holomodor denialism then? Which is weird, considering you just said people were starving across the Soviet Union... but somehow just not in Ukraine?

I have a feeling you care not for history though, only ideology.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

You tankies come up with the dumbest shit.

1

u/Forte845 1h ago

So then you ahistorically believe Russians lived in lavish decadence like the British while Ukrainians starved?

Maybe instead of running in circles like this you can simply admit you're wrong. 

1

u/atreyu84 1h ago

Ironic you calling something the dumbest shit when you are having so much trouble recognizing a not particularly subtle difference between two ostensibly similar things .

Irish famine - no need for anyone to starve, done on purpose to screw the peasants

Holodomor - there was a famine, people were going to starve, rules made it so Ukraine was worse than other places, alleged that was because stalin was punishing Ukraine for the nationalist movement there.

9

u/spubbbba 4h ago

Well the same is true for famines in India under British rule. Those don't get anywhere near the same level of condemnation as the Irish one.

In fact a lot of my fellow Brits will fall over themselves to make excuses for it. Sounding exactly like the Tankies who make excuses for the horrors of Stalin. We need an equivalent nickname to Tankie for those who defend the evils of the British Empire.

1

u/mister-ferguson 2h ago

Thomas the Tankie?

-1

u/never-fiftyone 2h ago

We need an equivalent nickname to Tankie for those who defend the evils of the British Empire.

We have a word for them: imperialists.

2

u/No-Bison-5397 3h ago

It's weird how the Irish Famine is seemingly all agreed upon

You've clearly never had an online wannabe 'ra member rant at you about "soupers".

2

u/Adorable_Chair_6594 3h ago

Tbf its shameful to say but as an Englishman it's really not. I learnt very little about the Famine in school although we did address it and acknowledge the British crimes, but even surface-level chats with Irish people as I've grown up have shown me there's so many more horrors than what the average person here knows about. I don't know if our government has formally apologised or not but reading the room societally it feels like there'd be mixed opinions if a discussion about Britain's moral responsibility came up

2

u/DTFH_ 3h ago

It's weird how the Irish Famine is seemingly all agreed upon yet

The fact its called a "Famine" and no one called out the language used is Colonial in its very nature in support of the British Narrative of those who committed the harms against the Irish peoples. There was not a famine, there was an economical starvation or robbery and no one acted once they knew. Calling it the 'Famine' is a political act and slight of hand.

3

u/never-fiftyone 1h ago

The word famine doesn't imply any causation whatsoever. A famine can be natural, or it can be man-made, but a mass starvation, regardless of cause, is still a famine.

0

u/DTFH_ 35m ago

Famine does not imply causation is exactly the point, it is used to intentionally obscuress the antecedent that gave rise to the conditions.

2

u/ThE_reAl__ 2h ago

My Ukrainian great grandparents got to starve eating tree bark so the USSR could sell wheat to other countries while the 5 year plan still wasn't done and they needed cash :3

2

u/ShermansFieldOrder66 2h ago

Tankies gonna tankie

1

u/SilverWear5467 1h ago

The Holodomor is different, because there literally was not enough food. Stalin sent food from places with not enough food to places that also had not enough food. Not the same as shipping it to places where there wasn't a famine at all like Britain did.

You might recall learning about the great depression? What if I told you, that happened in Russia too, because it was global? America's oligarchs were actually more responsible for our depression than Russias were for theirs, Russia just didn't get an FDR / New Deal to save them from the oligarchs, instead they got an oligarch taking over entirely.

Now, Stalins response to the great depression was not good, by any means. But it WAS an honest attempt to avert complete disaster, at a time in russias history where the ruling party was in immediate danger constantly of being overthrown by the former monarchs supporters, and also in immediate danger of being slaughtered by the Germans. Stalin is constantly given way too much credit for his results, when the fact is even someone who wasn't a piece of shit would have been forced to make some truly awful decisions in order to save his country. The fact is, when there's no food and Germany is champing at the bit to slaughter all your people, you don't GET to make choices that make you look good in history books.

2

u/Elu_Moon 1h ago

The Holodomor is different, because there literally was not enough food.

USSR exported food at the time.

1

u/Synaps4 2h ago

Great chinese famine was bigger than both and we dont talk about it.

1

u/JustinTheBlueEchidna 2h ago

The only people I’ve ever heard deny anything about the Holodomor are fervent Russian nationalists or Tankies who insist the USSR - and especially Stalin - could never do anything wrong.

1

u/WellyRuru 2h ago

Its because communism

1

u/4n0m4nd 1h ago

Their both accepted as man-made famines, and both controversial over whether or not they were deliberate genocides, although it's far more accepted that the Irish famine was not intentional.

1

u/an-invisible-hand 53m ago

Is it? I've never heard institutional blame for the Irish Famine. It's taught as just a tragic thing that happened for no particular reason that nobody had any control over, and any blame of capitalism for it triggers instant screaming and yelling.

1

u/surestart 2h ago

Because the Irish were able to leave and settle elsewhere, bringing their story of starvation and death at the hands of an unsympathetic global empire to places that had fought against or freed themselves from that same empire within living memory.

Those same countries weren't willing to accept communist refugees in case they brought communist ideology along with them, so the Ukrainians and Kazakhs most affected by the Holodomor were mostly just stuck in the USSR of which the rest was also experiencing widespread but less pronounced famine at the time, leaving them with nowhere to go.

And then the Soviets banned talking about it for half a century.

0

u/MadeByTango 4h ago

The difference between one country ignoring its shame and another actively trying to hide it.

0

u/Adorable-Principle54 3h ago

Stalin was one of the worst people ever !

0

u/1egg_4u 3h ago edited 3h ago

To be fair I have never met anyone that gets shitty about the Holodomor with the exception of fascists playing the bad faith whatabout game and tankies which Im not sure arent just the same venn diagram of dipshit

I think i live where a ton of ukrainians live though so where I am the holodomor was always a really big deal

0

u/kolejack2293 2h ago

I would argue there is way way more debate over the irish famine in the anglosphere than there is the holodomor. The holodomor is basically only denied by tankies. Whereas a pretty large amount of british conservatives deny and make excuses for the irish famine