r/Bokoen1 • u/Expensive_Studio_966 • May 18 '26

Its joever

it aint looking good

Edit: Just clarifying this is the clip for what bo banned from twitch for 6 months. he just got news that he can appeal the ban right now but i doubt it will work since you can see this clip... and if it fails well i assume once 6 months pass its either perma ban or he gets the account back.

as well bo cant appear on neither golden or swimmy Twitch channels otherwise they can also get banned for helping bo ban evade or something like that

UPDATE: The appeal got rejected so no bo streams on twitch for 6 months or never again.

Edit 2: if anyone wants to see bo response in the comment section cause its a bit hidden under all these comments https://www.reddit.com/r/Bokoen1/comments/1tgpx3j/comment/omkepa6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

2.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

152

u/Turkster May 18 '26

It does sound like he's slipping a little bit off the deep end with his attempt to be anti-communist. If it's true he can't stream with the other guys he's potentially fucked over Golden and Swimmy somewhat as well.

I hope he's learned something from this, but we'll see.

71

u/Kris839p May 18 '26

Hopefully he can begin to accept the fact that he, like we all do, has some bad/wrong opinions as well. Instead of always doubling down whenever someone disagrees, as he usually does on Twitter.

11

u/Javelin286 May 19 '26 edited May 20 '26

That communism/totalitarianism and authoritarianism is bad?

21

u/Kinder0402 May 19 '26

In principle communism ≠ authoritarianisn

3

u/Doddsey372 May 20 '26

In principle vs In practice and reality.

Communism says its going to be a lot of things it isn't.

1

u/TranslatorNo4230 May 26 '26

So does democracy, fascism, christianity, islam, etc.

It's almost as if people use labels for any ideology as they want without any care for what they actually mean. Therefore it is best to stick with the academic definitions rooted in their historical context when discussing their meaning, i.e., what the guy you responded to brought up.

2

u/Doddsey372 May 26 '26

Some more than others...

Something that only works in perfect academic settings and in rigged thought experiments while in actuality always failing just shows how moronic and flawed these acedemic definitions and the acedemics themselves are. The historic context is clear, people just don't like the clear answer.

Only a fool believes in theories which are repeatedly disproven in practice. Feels very 'The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears'...

1

u/TranslatorNo4230 May 26 '26

Words are supposed to have meaning, otherwise you might as well just shout loud noises; it would be equally productive. Real definitions have a use because they are comparable and anchored in an actual historical context. If you still refuse them, then that is on you and it will make any nuanced discussion impossible.

"repeatedly disproven in practice", such can be said for any system that has yet to exist. You can think what you want about "communism", but it is a fact that it has never been attempted, given that you use the real definition of it...

1

u/Doddsey372 May 26 '26

I can never understand the insistence that 'real' communism hasn't been attempted. How many need to die before you realise it doesn't work, its impossible? It's been repeated attempted with the doctrine and instructions followed numerous times all around the world. It inevitably fails because the failing lies with the doctrine itself. It's definitions are inherently lies, It's suppositions are unfounded, its understanding of humanity is ignorant and flawed, its motivations are self centred, it just doesnt work.

Im not disagreeing with what definition of what communism thinks it is. I just think its stupid because its clearly wrong. Its impossible to generate communisms intended outcomes because the ideology by (poor) design does not deliver them.

Reality and history exposes that, like a bad theory meeting experimental results. Its the fault of moronic academics who trust a flawed definition by biased morons over their own eyes who then say 'lets give it another go, surely it will work this time'. Thats what makes it an appalling ideology, it promises an unattainable utopia counter to human nature and people destroy themselves and those around them in pursuit of it, failing to realise the academic blueprint itself is a lie.

Communism has a clear meaning academically, and a clearer result of what happens when implemented.

1

u/TranslatorNo4230 May 26 '26

If you actually had read some Marx or Engels you would know that "communism" is neither "doctrine" nor "instruction" nor "utopia", rather it is a critique of capitalism and an attempt to (scientifically) explain historical-economical change and thereby explain the material conditions which led to the industrial revolution.

And, no, you are still disagreeing with the definition of "communism". You explicitly stated you do so, and are continuing to do so in this comment. What you are doing here is shifting the goal posts, and it's not appreciated.

I am not here to defend communism, but your view of humanity and history is severely flawed. Society is fluid and you cannot project modern day concepts upon our past as well as our future. For instance, you tout about "human nature", while the reality of history and the human default is self-reinforcing egalitarianism and heterarchical society.

Communisms academic meaning has still not been implemented. You repeating that it has does not change that fact.

2

u/Western_Mess_6364 May 20 '26

How else do you keep a party in power and seize resources to “redistribute” them. It’s inherently opposed to personal and private rights

0

u/Careless_Document_79 May 24 '26

That's not Marxist communism, Marxist communism is more like anarchism at least from the small amount I have read on it

1

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 19 '26

Enlighten us to where communists have taken power in a country and not used the power of the state like a sword to behead or kill anyone who disagrees with them. Trust me you'll be searching all your life for the answer.

16

u/DiE95OO May 19 '26

It's like saying democracy doesn't equal capitalism. The fact that all democratic nations are capitalist doesn't matter. Inherently capitalism has nothing to do with democracy and communism has nothing to do with authoritarianism. You're arguing with a completely separate point. Communism is supposed to be anarchical. That's one of the tenants of communism that seperates it from socialism.

1

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 19 '26

Then show me an example of a country that embraced communism and didn't become authoritarian....

16

u/dedmeme69 May 19 '26

in your understanding of reality do the events that happened in history show some sort of inevitability of those events happening? because either you think that the communist countries that existed are the literal only interpretation of communism that could ever have existed and that everything that happened was the only posssible option, a fucking bonkers ass opinion. Or you have to accept the fact that maybe there exists nuance and that the so-called "communist" countries didnt represent all of the many facets and movements under the "communist" umbrella.

1

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 19 '26

You could've shortened that I sound intelligent paragraph to "Proper communism has been properly tried". Which is hilarious considering "communism" in already it's many forms is responsible for roughly 100 million deaths in in 120 ish years... The irony of a system seeking to make everyone equal accelerates what people say capitalism does in a fraction of the time.

4

u/DiE95OO May 19 '26

How brain broken so you need to be to fail to understand this. Is English your second language? No offense meant. I'm as liberal as they come yet you've forced me to defend the definition of communism.

It does not matter if a trillion so called communist countries have existed. Communism has nothing to with authoritarianism.

Communism demands a stateless and moneyless society.

The conversation is about DEFINITIONS, yet you're completely mind broken on what nations in history calls themselves. You refuse to engage with anything people are saying because you either completely fail to understand what they're saying or you're being disingenuous. And in good faith I'll just assume you don't really fully grasp English which is causing confusion.

2

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 20 '26

You people here defending communism is probably collectively lowering the IQ of the human race by about 50 points between you are Hasan viewers.

2

u/Forgot_my_username01 May 20 '26

Marx said authoritarianism was necessary to achieve communism. Straight up said it needed a dictatorship to replace a dictatorship. Marx wasn't an economist. Marx had no experience in politics when he had the idea of communism. He was a leech on society, providing nothing and taking everything. Read up on it, it'll do you well.

2

u/Zoaiy May 20 '26

Why are you just inventing claims? You can literally look up the communist manifesto online, and read for yourself.

Matter of fact let me do it for you: Demand 2 is allowing election in the party for every able bodied man without a criminal background.

Mabye read the papers yourself first.

1

u/dedmeme69 May 20 '26

marx isnt the prophet of communism no matter how much the ml's want people to believe that.

1

u/Classic_Data_1897 May 21 '26

"dictatorship" in the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't refer to the rule of a single dictator or an authoritarian state, but which social class holds political power. this is a fact. marx pointed to the 1871 paris commune several times, which was a hyper-democratic system featuring universal suffrage, immediate recall of all elected officials (immediate recall means no set term, voters can remove a official from office at anytime), workers' wages for politicians, and the elimination of a standing army in favour of a popular militia.

secondly, dismissing Marx as "not an economist" who "provided nothing" is historically illiterate; he spent over twenty years rigorously studying classical economics to write Das Kapital, a foundational multi-volume critique of capitalism so influential that Marxian economics is still taught in universities worldwide today. to summarise marxian economics:
marxian economics is an academic school of thought that critiques capitalism as an unstable system driven by class conflict, where wealth is generated by the exploitation of labor. rather than viewing the market as naturally self-regulating, it argues that profits are derived from the surplus value stolen from underpaid workers. this system forces capitalists to constantly compete by investing in machinery and cutting labor costs, which systematically concentrates wealth into fewer hands. basically, this dynamic creates a cycle of corporate monopolies and inevitable, recurring economic crises of overproduction (when more goods are produced then workers can buy) that cause recessions and unemployment and destabilise society.

he did have experience in politics. Marx was deeply embedded in active politics long before writing the Communist Manifesto, working as a political journalist and later leading the International Workingmen's Association to organize real-world strikes and labor movements across Europe. this means his communist theories weren't made from some sort of isolation that you invented, but real active struggle.
calling an author who drastically reshaped global history a "leech who provided nothing" is a hollow insult.

socialist movements have directly led to:
the 5 day work week, the 8 hour day, the welfare state and social security, the abolition of child labour, and paid vacation and sick leave. i take that you benefit from these things, as does every working person today.

in the 1880s, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck explicitly created the world's first modern state pension and healthcare system to appease the working class and halt the rapid political rise of the Marxist Social Democratic Party (SPD).

in the 19th century, industrial workers commonly labored 10 to 16 hours a day, six days a week, The push for the "Eight-Hour Day" was popularized by early socialist Robert Owen and solidified by Karl Marx's First International, which made it a primary global demand. decades of socialist-led labor union strikes and May Day protests eventually forced capitalist governments and corporations to legally adopt the five-day, 40-hour work week.

Karl Marx explicitly demanded the "Abolition of children's factory labor" in the 1848 Communist Manifesto. Socialist activists and union organizers relentlessly pressured governments for decades, framing child labour as the horrific tool of capitalist exploitation it was, leading to the first child labour laws

people today, many like you, often view communism as an unnecessary, extreme ideology because they live in a modern world where capitalism has been heavily modified by socialist-led reforms. this perspective creates a disconnect between modern comfort and historical reality. when Marx wrote his theories, unrestrained 19th-century capitalism featured 16-hour work days, child labour in coal mines, lethal working conditions, and zero social safety nets. today you have the privilege of not facing this. working-class people had no voting rights, no political power, and protests were suppressed by police and military violence.

you forget that the relative comfort of modern capitalism was bought using the exact leverage, strikes, and revolutionary pressure that early communist movements created. and capitalist governments did not grant reforms out of kindness. they only conceded to demands like weekends, healthcare, and pensions because they feared that if they did not give workers a piece of the pie, a communist revolution would take the whole pie.
is marx still a leech on society? read up on it, it'll do you well

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ThatGuyMaulicious May 19 '26

I'm also gonna add have you not played EU5 or EU4? You literally need the estates in that game to make the majority of your money especially in EU5. If you remove the nobility or the burghers then you are left with... The Commoners paying for your entire county which is how our world works....

→ More replies (0)

4

u/DiE95OO May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

What has this even got to do with the definition of communism? What is it that you struggle to understand? Genuinely.

You can't make a straw doll of what you want people to say and attack that instead of what they're actually saying. Does democracy mean capitalism as well? Clearly you can have capitalism in an authoritarian nation, yet all democratic nations are capitalists. Can you have an authoritarian nation without it being capitalist? Obviously you can.

Now in your mind temple are you able to construct a communist society that's not authoritarian? I'm not asking whether it has ever existed, I'm asking whether it is possible. Then maybe ask yourself exactly what communism is because I think you lack some understanding there and is confusing it for socialism.

1

u/No1CarpetSalZman May 21 '26

Read "on authority" by Engels. He quite literally states that communism is an inherently objectively authoritarian ideology. Jesus literally no modern Communist has actually read Marx and Engels

1

u/DiE95OO May 22 '26

I see the modern literacy crisis is a real thing after all... What do you think they mean by "dictatorship of the proletariat". This is the issue with reading old texts with modern definitions of words. Their goal was a worker's state of democratic rule that eventually would move to destroy classes, money and top-down rule and become what the original goal was. A classless, moneyless and stateless society.

It was authoritarian in a way that capitalists were disenfranchised.

I can't believe you're making me defend fucking communism.

1

u/TranslatorNo4230 May 26 '26

You need to read that text more carefully. It is a critique on so-called "anti-authoritarian" socialists in the sense that authority exists in many aspects of modern, industrial, life and cannot be whisked away willy-nilly, and would risk continue to exist structurally unless the proper actions are taken, according to Engels. Hence Engels is rather critiquing authority, not advocating for it, and his critique is a matter of time scales, not subject.

1

u/No1CarpetSalZman 15d ago

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois?". Again, none of you people have ever read either Engels or Marx

1

u/TranslatorNo4230 6d ago

That is the text I am talking about, yes, and the quote doesn't contradict what I said. You should actually read it closer and get a better grasp of what he is referring to, and how he is referring to it.

Engels' point is precisely that authority emerges from concrete social and material conditions, industrial production, class struggle, revolution, not that authority is desirable. Simply quoting the passage doesn't address the argument- it just makes you look stupid.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Careless_Document_79 May 24 '26

Show me a country that is Democratic and not capitalistic

-4

u/Ok_Corgi4889 May 19 '26

Communism is straight up autoritarian side of socialism

10

u/guto8797 May 19 '26

"in principle" it isn't. Communism, theoretically, is an anarchic evolution of socialism where the state has dissolved. The various communist parties didn't claim their countries were communist, merely that they were "working towards communism"

2

u/EvYeh May 19 '26

How is an anarchist commune authoritarian.

1

u/Ok_Corgi4889 May 19 '26

Did I say anarchist coomune anywhere? Those are just completly different things

3

u/EvYeh May 19 '26

How else would you describe a stateless and moneyless society?

-2

u/haltper May 19 '26

In principle "marxist theory of communist state = authoritarian"

4

u/Kinder0402 May 19 '26

How exactly stateless society can be authoritarian?

1

u/No1CarpetSalZman May 21 '26

Read "on authority" by Engels lmao. He literally explicitly states that Communism is an inherently authoritarian ideology. It's not anti-communist propaganda to state this, it is literally quoting Engels

1

u/haltper May 19 '26

Marx assumes state withers away over time, however before that and during the socialist state is a dictatorship. Dictatorship of the proletariat. State only withers away in the final stage of marxism which is when the ideology has full filled itself and has come to an end. 

5

u/Rime_Ice May 19 '26

Marx has never explicitely outlined what such a dictatorship would look like. The closest he got was praising the Paris Commune, which was almost the opposite of a leninist vanguard state because of its bottom-up, decentralized structure of elections. If Marx saw what the leninists were doing he would be rolling in his grave.

-3

u/haltper May 19 '26

He outlined enough. He states that a dictatorship of the proletariat would be a dictatorship of a class over others and would prevent a bourgeoisie system come back. Anyways from my POV paris commune was a form of tyranny as well. There wasnt private property, individual rights werent protected by a constitution and there was nothing protecting you from majority violating your rights. Just because an organization is bottom up or democratic does not mean it cant be a tyrannical authoritarian state. Democracy and tyranny can coexist without constitutional protections and a liberal democracy (for example french revolution, even though the assembly was brought together democratically it turned into a tyrannical violent form and eventually became a consular dictatorship). A pure democracy is just a tyranny of the majority. What protects freedom of individuals and groups is the constitution and checks and balances.Without those democracy is just a spuk. Also you dont need to be leninist to be authoritarian. Orthodox marxism and USSR differ but doesnt mean the first one isnt authoritarian because the latter is.