วีดีโอ

@@lljkgktudjlrsmygilug Yeah this time around I was being lazy that’s my bad. The background noise wasn’t intentional the heater turned on mid way through and I thought when I turned on the sound filter it would go away but I was quite wrong 💀. Next time I’ll just re-record the whole thing.

@@nickd.5616 There will be, three more videos in between tho lol

@@MLMenjoyer Definitely in the future, the Lovestone Bio is a transition into more stuff on the right opposition for now.

@@Ultradogmattick are you covering the KPD(O)?

@ Yes

Yeah

I second this motion

… why?

"Yes, the brave Bukharin shouted: “Enrich yourselves!” But Stalin did much worse and was about to shout: “Make money from the land! Leave us only the industrial State, the armed force!”. He did not understand that whoever has the land has the State. The phrase of Bukharin, which everyone remembers without being able to reconstruct its doctrine, has this scope: “We open the doors of the land of the State to you; enrich yourselves with capital of the agrarian enterprise, and the moment we expropriate you from what you have accumulated will arrive more quickly, passing also in the countryside to step four: State Capitalism”." "For the fifth step, Socialism, one needs neither laws nor Congress debates, but only one force: the World Revolution. Bukharin did not understand it then and this was serious."

>watches video on communism >there's communism inside Who could have guessed????

I accidentally subscribed to your channel, and now I feel like my youtube is unclean. Looking at your channel is like looking at the scum at the bottom of the internet barrel

shutup bitchboy

​​@@cogandballthen simply unsuscribe. No one is interested in your neurosis.

This is not intended for children, it's more on the level of enthusiasts. Clearly, you're in the wrong place.

There exist two forms of intersection between capitalist and nation-state competition. The first as you mentioned is imperialist competition, in which nation-states compete militarily to grant their capitalists privileges in the exploitation of colonial resources. The second form actually flows downstream from the orthodox view, which is not usually too relevant when it comes to competition between two industrial nations, but cannot be dismissed as it becomes far more significant when there's "free trade" competition between an industrial nation and an underdeveloped one, as the process essentially deindustrializes the underdeveloped nation. This is embodied in the idea of "comparative advantage", which is never explicitly acknowledged as an indirect tool of state competition, but for the underdeveloped nation it effectively means perpetual incapacity to build up its own forces of production outside of what they have a comparative advantage in, which ends up being raw materials they have a natural monopoly on.

@@sauerkrautlanguage The capitalist states just want to open markets to their exploitation. Colonialism was just a means to that, not an end in itself. It was necessary to create markets to exploit in the first place and to force the markets of countries like China an India to integrate to the world economy in terms advantageous to the imperialists. The long rivalry between the imperialists which led to the meat grinder of WWI were ultimately battles for the conquest of market shares. In other words the imperialists were going to war with each other for much the same reasons that Mexican cartels do. But the most powerful cartels are also known to lay their differences aside and gang up to destroy anybody who wants to establish a new independent gang. That's the whole point of the foreign policy of the US and its satellites (all erstwhile independent imperialists were reduced to US satellites after WWII). They want to prevent the establishment of a powerful rival that could slice market portions from them. Just as they Balkanized the Balkans by destroying Yugoslavia they are in the process of Balkanizing the Muslim world, a process that is underway for decades. The underdeveloped countries are not prevented from developing because of a supposed economic mechanism (the theory of comparative advantage is false for reasons we can dicuss elsewhere). They are actually prevented through various political mechanisms, namely the institutions of the imperialists (World Bank, IMF and so on) and the local capitalists in those places who profit from doing business with the imperialist core. Capitalism took many centuries to develop in the West. Why? Because of political factors, namely the social relations under feudalism and absolutism. Today the political factor preventing the development of the peripheral countries is capitalism itself, the social relations it imposes. These relations in turn prevent the imperialist countries from deploying their resources rationally and to the benefit of their own working people.

​@@velvetcroc9827 We don't disagree at all on the first part, state competition doesn't really exist outside of economic competition, because conquest ultimately means conquest of land and labor resources. I think there's still worth in differentiating political motives, because for instance irredentist nationalist conquest can be quite irrational in its objectives when seen from a purely economic perspective. I know the marxist conception is that such justifications are just idelogical nonsense to mislead the people, but i'm afraid that more dangerous than an establishment that cynically lies about its objectives is one that actually believes its own propaganda. I agree the rise of new competitors is highly destabilizing to the powers that be, you could see the world wars through the lenses of the preestablished colonial powers defeating the challenge of emerging Japanese and German imperialisms, and the current geopolitical crisis due to the rise of China. As for the last part, i didn't mean to claim comparative advantage is the only mechanism through which the global south is kept underdeveloped, things like IP restrictions, brain drain or global financial arbitrage, also maintain the state of affairs. The simple fact remains that the forces of production under capitalism cannot and will not develop without the capacity to stay competitive, and if all competitive capacity is on one side of a border, it follows that the other side will not develop. No nation has ever industrialized without protecting its nascent industries from competition from more advanced economies, nor the Germans and Japanese in the 19th century, nor the taiwanese and south koreans in the 20th. Conversely it can be historically evidenced that free trade has harmed the autonomous development of the global south, for instance the indian textile industry was not destroyed by direct british colonial policy, but by forcing india into free trade with the much more productive british manufacturers, and in modern times the US creates xenophobic hatred against Mexico for a problem they created by destroying mexican peasant agriculture through NAFTA free trade, turning peasants into the reserve army of labor that has been crossing the border ever since.

@sauerkrautlanguage There's this common misconception reflecting ideological infection by the enemy's propaganda: that the point of capitalism is all about being more productive than the others and more industrious. But that's not the point. The point of capitalism is racking up profits, not being the hard-working overachiever our mother always dreamed we would be. Let's take a country of the global South like Greece. Why did Greece opt to join the forerunner to the EU, the so-called “European Economic Community” and opened its markets to its “partners” leading to its rapid de-industrialization and a massive decline in labor productivity? Why did it adopt a hard currency leading to rising income inequalities and loss of competitiveness? The fact is that “Greece” did none of these things. It was precisely the capitalists in charge of the country's political system that pushed for these policies because it suited their pockets. They could simply make a lot better profits selling imported goods transported with their own ships instead of running production themselves while their adoption of a hard currency like the Euro (basically the Deutschmark in disguise) would make their assets appreciate enormously in value. That's a textbook example of capitalists rubbishing the future of their “own” country to advance their narrow class interests. Of course, the communists are well aware that the capitalists are beholden to no country whatsoever. They know that the capitalists are internationalists. That's why they insist that the working class needs to adopt the same outlook to oppose them, it needs to meet them on the same field of battle. The superior internationalist perspective of the capitalist classes gives them the upper hand and keeps the underdeveloped countries in the gutter. The only way out the gutter and out of the illusions is the way of proletarian courage: to advance economically, socially and culturally the working masses have to establish their own state and put in motion the transition to a socialist society. Favoring protectionist policies without ditching capitalism leads to a dead end because the established imperialist countries will simply change their strategy and come up with various “creative” ways to pull you back to the “free market”. Against such “creative” ways, patriotic regimes run by cliques of strongmen trying to balance the interests of both classes won't last very long even if the regimes appear powerful. In Russia today, those same reactionary forces who pushed for the dissolution of the Soviet Union and imagined they would be welcomed with open arms to the club of the imperialists are forced to fight a bitter struggle over the resources of Ukraine. This struggle will continue (overtly or otherwise) for many years but in the long run Russia will definitely lose because in wars between capitalist states the side with more capital to spare always wins out. If the history of the communist movement has taught us anything is that no country can defeat the imperialists with just an “armed forces”. It also needs to have the popular masses fighting on its side. There's really only one force on this planet that could potentially mobilize the masses to fight for their interests: the communist party. It is that very party, the fruit of so much labor and sacrifice, that the cliques ruling today's Russia so ignominiously betrayed. They will pay the ultimate price for their error.

@@sauerkrautlanguage The algorithm removed the first comment. Edited and reposted. The capitalist states just want to open markets to their exploitation. Colonialism was just a means to that, not an end in itself. It was necessary to create markets to exploit in the first place and to force countries like China an India to integrate to the world economy in terms advantageous to the imperialists. The long rivalry between the imperialists which led to the meat grinder of WWI were ultimately battles for the conquest of market shares. In other words the imperialists were going to war with each other for much the same reasons that organized crime syndicates (i.e. illegal capitalists) do. But the most powerful gangs are also known to lay their differences aside and band together to undo anybody who wants to establish a new independent gang. That's the whole point of the foreign policy of the US and its satellites (all erstwhile independent imperialists were reduced to US satellites after WWII). They want to prevent the establishment of a powerful rival that could slice market portions from them. Just as they balkanized the Balkans by undoing Yugoslavia they are in the process of balkanizing the Muslim world, a process that is underway for decades. The underdeveloped countries are not prevented from developing because of a supposed economic mechanism (the Neo-Ricardian theory of comparative advantage is false for reasons we can discuss elsewhere). They are actually prevented through various political mechanisms, namely the institutions of the imperialists (World Bank, IMF, etc. ) and the local capitalists embedded in those places who profit from their smooth integration to the capitalist core. Capitalism took many centuries to develop in the West. Why? Because of political factors, namely the social relations under feudalism and absolutism. Today the political factor preventing the development of the peripheral countries is capitalism itself, the social relations it imposes. These relations in turn prevent the imperialist countries themselves from deploying their resources rationally and to the benefit of their own working people.

Please never listen to this idiot

just put music yourself??

ADHD Ahh

The same complex stamping technology used to make things like stamped toys and sowing machines in Germany were later used to make the very advanced StG 44 and reliable jerrycans. These industries that produce consumer goods can be flipped during wartime.

The industrialisation "under Stalin" Industrialisation was necessary, but Stalin's rule was catastrophic. Lenin acknowledged that something had to be done about agriculture, but he warned that it should be handled with care. Stalin purged the military elites and the war situation only improved when he backed off.

@@hazelwray4184 from wooden plows to nuclear posterstations isn't "catastrophic" and most people in the former S0v Union agree with me

This applies to all of his thumbnails.

Not necessarily if the party had the ability to maintain its monopoly of political processes. It would have been terrible for heavy industry prior to WW2 though

@zachk.2125 i don't think the party would be able to maintain any political power with the flood of cheap commodities coming in from the world market. A new capitalist class would very quickly have acquired enough power to overthrow the bolsheviks

@@staticalelectric I'm not sure what you mean, the USSR never left capitalism

​@staticalelectric I don't think the party "would have been able" to (past tense)

@@hazelwray4184 thanks captain grammar

Congratulations, you're retarded.

where’s the communism?

@toxicavenger-oz6tr China

@@the1albania873 Does China have socialised production and individual appropriation of the product of that social labour?

@@DarrenSmith-j8m social

He always went between the two

Putler is playing the long game

​@@samgomez2064Putin is awesome unironically, and of course you look like that

I genuinely hope this is a joke

@gorgnigon Nope, were Zmaxxing rn you're going to the DPRK

@@Sneed-pb9cz guess I'll starve to death then :(

organised communists still have free time

is he from the ICC?

@@luckywizz nah

What Party?