Lol, come on man. While I completely disagree with communism and socialism (at least the kind that doesn't recognize property rights, free association, free contract, and the right to trade property and labor), you have to have a better dialog than that. You're not converting anyone to individual liberty and property rights with name calling. Imo, The video was 10X more of a respectful conversation than any other communist/socialist apologist on TH-cam. And unfortunately I've seen a lot.
I'm so glad to see a new wave of socialist, communist and anarchist youtubers who aren't afraid to tackle the hard questions in a way that is actually accessible to average folks.
@@Libertarian606 check out Fight Like an Animal (audio podcast only), Alpha to Omega, Varn Vlog, This is Revolution, General Intellect Unit, Mortal Science, Swampside Chats
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 it still wouldnt work humans are competitive and the best way to build a great society is to use that competition to invent new stuff america has ruled the world for the last 200 years because wwre fast learners
Witnessing the rare triumvirate of "someone who knows what they're talking about", "someone who knows how to talk about what they're talking about", and "someone who knows how to stay interesting while talking about it". Amazing stuff.
@@missk1697 there are many factors you can look at: level of poverty, crime rates, infrastructure upkeep, mental health statistics, the age at which people marry (19-20 means stuff is good, 27-28 means people are really stressed out). There's 1000 I didn't mention, but these are a good starting place.
Every time I watch a new video of yours, I'm shook to the core at how manipulated I feel from my public "education" in regard to politics. Phenomenal stuff, thank you endlessly.
Even calling it "public education" is part of the propaganda system. The "rigid and formal mass brainwashing", is a central component of the capitalist ruling class system of population wide mass indoctrination and social control of the working class. Children are brainwashed for a decade or two, all of them. I think it is easy to underestimate the unbelievable damage this does to us and our society.
according to whatever you learned since then (if that's anything) @@TheGalaxyWings Sorry I'm just following WHATISPOLITICS' lead in replying snarkily to comments
Those referenced images really show your passion for the subject. Still, your narating style is a good indicator of your stoicism, ie. you not being biased by that passion. Subscribed.
The answer is that marxist economic policy is often misinterpreted, that communist states generally have to have come about by revolution and are more prone to authoritarianism, and that the leaders of these movements generally need an "us vs. Them" mentality to gain a popularity with the people. Or at least that's my solution
A major issue, and one that Lenin talked about is that he would’ve loved to have many parties, but that they immediately needed to produce for the war effort. So because of capitalist nations interfering or threatening, they had to resort to “authoritarianism” in order to defend themselves. This is almost always the reason why nations become “authoritarian”.
@Agueroooo but what about when the wars had ended, yet the authoritarian practices still endured? There's no outside threat, but the usually brutal practices are continous.
@mixkid3362 it's often much harder to get out of the authoritarian mindset once you're in it. It also requires that the authoritarian give up that power which is basically impossible.
@hatter5834 yeah that is true. You can see it in the USSR. Some people tried to ease up on the iron fist, but others stopped or interfered and brought the fist back down hard.
I'm currently in my history undergrad and have studied Russia quite a bit. I was kind of expecting some very Cold War take on communism but you clearly did a lot of actual research and it was so fun to watch a video in conversation with things I'm currently studying. Can't wait for the next part
@@alx3183 a few more weeks - i had a draft script ready when i recorded the first episode but since then ended up reading a lot more to get certain details down
I was in the Soviet Union it really really sucked. Couldn't buy a goddamn sausage if your life depended on it and you had a million rubles and were walking down the street Moscow. The KGB was everywhere and people were afraid to talk publicly about politics.
thank you andrew - i can’t wait either! i wish someone would make it for me! these burn me out each time! i think the next one is going to be a doozy, the stuff I’m reading now is really blowing my mind…
Got to re-paste this here, cause there will be a chance this comment will get delete: I watch to the "Long answer" time stamp. And it is obvious many thing is wrong with your video, a very similar problem to Kraut, another history and economic liberal TH-camr analysis of Yugoslavia civil wars, and blame the Serbs for commit the majority of the atrocities, on the basic that the Serbians politics sphere had a large influence on Yugoslavia army, thus majority Yugoslavia army members are Serbs, or puppet of Serbs, who thus commit the most atrocities. You take historical events, and historical politics in the USSR governments, simplify it as mere actions to support a conclusion you already have in minds, that is "All Communist country is a Dictatorship". You already didn't cares to takes those events, like the funding of Communist parties outside USSR, Laws that take away the Capitalist, and landlord powers in it wide context of what was going, and the point of what they were doing in a larger historical and political context. Another thing is your "Communist revolution is also Nationalist Revolution", that is untruth, while some bare some Nationalist charactered, they, after gaining brief control of their country, realize how "Getting rid the former Elite" just turn into creation of another Elite group, and If you equate this new Elite groups gaining power after a Revolution is the same as working class people, because there are some working class who rose to powers after a Liberal Revolution, then you, already decide your conclusion before looking for evident to support that conclusion of your.
I brought up the Yugoslavia civil wars because Kraut made many dishonestly and short sight conclusion, which you also made , but not for Yugoslavia, but, just an example, in your short and long answer section, about the USSR and why other Communist party try to replicate it failure, which your statement about it being Undemocratic can only exist if you think the Bolshevik party is allow to exist, without the West trying to kill it from the beginning, blah blah blah English this English that. I brought up Kraut, in his video about Chomsky talk about the Yugoslavia civil war, but Chomsky isn't Important, Kraut comment "Serb was blame the most, because they cause most of the atrocities" or something like that, which is Incorrect, and I hopes he wasn't thinking about this, as oppose to him wanting to reach that conclusion. BECAUSE He equate "Serbs have the most representation in Yugoslavia after TITO" to mean absolutely anything, including the Yugoslavia military, which, by that logic above, meant the Yugoslavia Army during the early Civil Wars, is majority Serbian services or heavily dominate by Serbian will, thus the Yugoslavia army commit more genocide on Croatian and Bosnian, on the assumption that this about quitting mass of protestor and about ethnicities more than a broader picture. His Analysis is like your Analysis, close off, bog down and only make sense in the most Liberal Nationalist possible, because it does not taken into consideration of the REAL situation when the Russian Revolution happen. Like your comment about "Socialist Revolution also are Nationalist Revolution" and "Getting rid of the former Ruler and Elite class" and why Lenin, Karl Marx didn't even think Socialist/Communist revolution in poor countries is even possible, which that terms, I don't know if Richard Wolf said or not, and It doesn't matter. Do you think the point of "getting rid of the former Elite" is just to replace them, with the working class as the ruler? Sure, that is true, AND it is only 1 part of a 1000 parts series of why they did that. If it was just to remove the Monarchy or a "few rich Capitalist" Elite, then the Russian Revolution would became another Liberal Republics doing may be control Capitalism instead of free market capitalism. Did you even read how the Economy work in USSR, and trade between Socialist Countries??? Of course, "Read" from places that aren't Richard Wolf, which I don't know how much of his influence in political theory work Is in this video, but from a man that said "Communism is when the Government does more stuff", How does Anyone who wasn't ignorant of how the USSR government work, can look at this, and say this is an accurate assessment??? Lenin and Marx didn't even think Socialist/Communist revolution is possible? and? Does French people think the French Revolution is possible before they did it? Did Britain and those country who splits from the Vatican think it was possible before they did it? Obviously NOT. What does it matter on what Karl and Lenin thinks when they was growth up in an Era when an entire Working class runs the government is literally a pipe dream, and they didn't even think, well Marx was dead by then, but Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky even think the Bolsheviks winning and control of Russia alone was possible? OBVIOUSLY NOT, they did it, and they found out that it was possible, like a Cave man picking up a stick on fire, and didn't know that Fire can cooks food before he actually put food, on top of another stick, press it again the Fires? Or did among the First colonialist thinks that Colonialism, in which they enslaves and exploit the native on the first ever colonialism process was possible, even morally can be ignore before they try it? Obviously Not. Or did the SS suddenly exist, and decide to kills Eastern Europe on mass, because one day they decide that they can run Eastern Europe Better. I felt have to repeat myself, cause people like you, said thing, that only exist when there are no world outside of it, and IT isn't a evolution of something, that been going on for centuries before, Like Trench Warfare suddenly just happen, suddenly spicy chemical weapons is very effective, or why Western world, now including China, Russia also sends poor people out to dies so they can take control of this region and it resource, and not let it fall in the hand of their rival for example, these thing, event in wider history doesn't happen in a night, nor a month, nor 10 years, nor just 100 years, and it just exist. Your entire Short answer and Long answer section is concentrate on what the Bolshevik does, the Bolsheviks party and it leader did, ignore how it leader is only the lead of a teams, and it member had dies in the thousand during the course of USSR history, including the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil Wars, which already had killed the most of the earliest Bolsheviks members, often by the Russian White Nationalist faction and their sponsor, the Western Powers to kill Socialism in it track and fail to do so, which they proceed to put the heaviest economic embargoes and sanctions on Russia possible, one of which include removing the values of Russian Currency and Russia Gold standard of it values, and only will trade, still with heavy embargoes, in Grains. NONE OF THESE THING, you, like Kraut had taken into account that there are a bigger Power supporting the destruction of Socialism before it had been turn into a political party in the government office, let alone allow it to run a region, let alone a government. Policy toward foreign relation, public spending, the military and rights are all develop in the decade and THUS are effected by what the situation around it, which doesn't just include Russia, it also include the Rest of the ruling world, thus Britain, France, Germany and America. Lenin didn't even lives to see WW2 starting, so why would IT MATTER, that He didn't think decolonization effort that Stalin USSR and Tito Yugoslavia undergoes with the rest of the "Poor countries" or rather ex-colonial countries COULD develops their socialism or not? He dies before the Soviet Russia is even stables, he see and do less thing, because he dies earlier than HCM and Castro, and they, but especially Castro policy underwent different directions to the core concept of a democratic Working class countries have everything to do with it surrounding, such as the USA, which had try to deletes it from exist, past 50 commit genocide on it, to protect US corporation interest. OH please, you didn't think about why these Communist countries, in socialist phase still have to be so militarize to begin with, as if it is a must to kept those in worker, the so call "Communist Elite" in power, and NOT actually to protect the countries and it foundation as a Socialist countries from the power that want to destroy it, again after USSR collapse, the only power left are EU and NATO, both are created to oppose to Socialism. As if Vietnam government do this Neoliberal reform in the 1980s for capitalism, and not have to make some sacrifice against it own Socialist policy in order to be allow to trade with other countries. UN let the US bombs Yugoslavia, when they was protecting their sovereignty right as an existing countries, and were dealing with their domestic problems in the form of Nationalist Revolution, just as those in Croatia, Bosnia and Albania, which all try to form French style Revolution because they are Croatian, Bosnian, and Albanian etc, the "not-Serbian" fighting against the Serbian Overlord are what they think they were doing during the Civil Wars, and when they cleanse the local Serbian population, which are everywhere, they will achieve a National revolution when they outed all of the "not-them" from "their land". This alone I think you can agree as acts of Terrorism. But America use the excuse of Yugoslavia central Government was doing "genocide on" some ethnic groups instead of them putting down a Nationalist Insurgent, to get UN approval in making sure, after USSR is gone, no more big influential Socialist Block can exist no longer. NONE OF THIS, you taken into consideration, you nor Kraut even think about what going on outside these Socialist block countries, which let me remind you, Socialist, just the Social Democrat are shots, dispose of, then discredit intensively to begin with, in Italy, in America, In Mexico, In Brazil all during the Cold Wars, and here you are demanding that Socialist countries must be proper Democratic Socialist country and complain about my English.
@@Huy-G-Le Dude - I’m commenting on your english because you’re writing a 5000 word essay and i literally cannot understand what you are fucking saying. Maybe I’m being generous in assuming that you can actually make sense in your own language - maybe you also spit out reams of incomprehensible gibberish in that language as well, but I am spending my precious time to ask you to write in your language and then put it into google translate so that we can actually have a discussion, and you are just being a dick about it and writing even more torrents of nonsense. I can’t respond to anything you’re saying because I literally have no idea what you’re saying or what ANYTHING you said in this insane giant post has to do with my video or my ideas! I have spent about 25 hours in the past two days responding to about 300 comments here and on reddit, and if you want to get your fucking points across then do what I said and write in the language that you are proficient in and put it in google translate, instead of writing a bunch of incomprehensible gibberish and then being pissed off that I can’t understand it.
I was so terrified going into this video. "Oh, this is going to make me so angry, isn't it? This is going to be like FEE and full of misinformation..." Then I see the top comment is Andrewism, and now I am excited.
This was awesome. Great references. I'm glad that as an Anarchist you still read Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, for me, it reframed the discourse coming from parts of the Left.
in the next episode i’ll be getting a lot deeper int what lenin was thinking and saying, and marx, and marx’ other followers, it’s super interesting to see the fucked up choices lenin made and why he made them, and how almost no one today is grappling with any of that, we’re either trying to make excuses for it or demonize his intentions instead of learning from it.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Really glad to hear you say this. The left does itself no favours by not be able to discuss past socialist projects and important works objectively. I'm from an African country and trying to learn about China and the many transformations it underwent over the 20th century. Its ridiculous that any mention of Mao must be followed immediately with total condemnation and if not, the only other crowd are those that immediately jump to apologia.
@@MrOzzification exactly - the reason i made this video (and the one that will follow) is first to introduce normal people to socialist ideas, to dispel caricatures about socialism and communism and show the reasons for their appeal in the poorer countries, but then to get leftists to think about the mistakes that others have made so that we don’t repeat them. there is much to criticize in china and russia and all the other communist and socialist dictatorships, and i believe that in russia there were alternatives not taken that could have applied around the 3rd world - but if not for these regimes most of these countries would instead be variations of 3rd world banana republics with most of the populations illiterate and economies geared largely towards supplying rich countries abroad.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 totally hear that! This was such a great vid, and I always look forward to your stuff. As a side question, I haven't read Bakunin, but I keep hearing Marxists dismiss him as authoritarian. The little I know about him makes this claim sound like nonsense, but is there any credence to this claim?
@@phithinker02 yes actually - sort of - despite his anti authoritarianism when it came to the state, he had this dumb idea that you needed a secret core of revolutionaries to push the society in this or that direction - honestly i forget - it’s not like state rule, but it’s like he wants him and his clique to still have disproportionate influence - not very well thought out and rather hypocritical
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 oh, I did read about that bit from a presentation on anarchism once (by Marxists who basically were criticizing anarchism). I thought that part sounded a bit like what anarchists do with affinity groups, but maybe it really is as conspiratorial as it sounds on its face.
@@phithinker02 i remember reading it in bakunin years ago thinking wtf is this?? but last i heard it was tom obrien referenced it a few times on alpha to omega
My theories, as a non-communist who has started to lose trust in capitalist thought, from most forgiving to least forgiving theories: 1. Communist countries were too weak to survive as democracies due to foreign political meddling and wars 2. Communism is difficult to manage as a democracy, because having the state control so much is very difficult and complicated 3. It's impossible to create a power structure which can manage communism without it being easily exploited by those hungry for power 4. Communist governments were all just a deception against the working class, and the people should have just unionised and opted for liberal democracy to liberate themselves from the capitalist class
I like your perspective on it! I'm a Marxist but I find hearing your perspective at this early radicalization stage and perspective nice to see
17 วันที่ผ่านมา
State control is just a different monopoly. And thus doesn't change the factors Marx was pointing out as a problem. In fact it exacerbates the one he missed... it gives the regulatory agencies a perverse incentive to not regulate.
Jesus Christ this video is cathartic to watch. I’ve been trying to explain to people for ages that Soviet-style “communism” would be better described as “Leninism” and that the vast majority of “Communist” revolutions throughout history based their ideologies either directly on the writings of Lenin, or indirectly through the writings of others, who were themselves heavily influenced by Lenin, and I have repeatedly been called an idiot for it. I’m bookmarking this video and using it in place of my own explanations from now on, because you’ve done a way better job than I ever have or could at making this subject accessible for the layman. You’ve got a new subscriber in me, I’m really looking forward to watching the rest of your videos.
youre awesome man thank you for such insightful commentary. I also loved your commentary on the wisdom of Kandiaronk and how it showed that indigenous people werent just dumb savages but were also intellectuals in their own right and possesed so much generational shared wisdom about communal living and social hierarchies. Ive gotten so much insight into literature I only knew superficially or referencially before because of your videos so thank you
I stumbled upon your channel about a month ago, and I just want to say it's probably the most well-written and thought-out content in all of the so-called "breadtube" (I kinda like the Kropotkin reference of the name, ngl). If I have to single out one quality of these videos it's NUANCE. Going back to the sources, to evidence, to understanding the complexities of our political life, taking the time to dismantle ideas to expose its cogs and pieces; that's a huge lot of work and a huge love for politics and for humankind. Thanks, and greetings from South America.
The real answer is that in Communist Manifesto, Marx literally instructed that you need a dictatorship to steer the country to communism. Then once communism had been established the government would give power back to the people. Well, turns out dictators always conveniently forget this final step and never willingly give up their power. The fact Marx didn't think this through should be telling enough.
that’s actually not right (you guys need to watch the videos before commenting!!) - the word dictatorship didn’t have the same meaning in the 19th century as today - what marx meant by “dictatorship of the proletariat” was “dominance of the proletariat” - the regime that he described as the dictatroship of the proletariat in other works was clearly supposed to be democratic for workers. lenin also thought this up until after the revolution - the next episode will talk about what changed his mind
Communism was tried multiple times before Soviet Union and always failed. The 1st Communist community was New Harmony, Indiana in the 1800s. New Harmony failed in 18 months, people started to starve, no one wanted to put in their fair share, they ended up leaving. Every attempt since has been as bad or worse.
communism was the main system on planet earth among humans from when we emerged as a species around 300,000 years ago until 5000 or so years ago… lots of mini “communist” agricultural colony experiements failed because it only works in certain conditions. also those communities usually weren’t democratic to begin with, so that’s not communism.
I have so thoroughly enjoyed this series! I'm a gen psych undergrad pleb, and I chose that major largely due to the influence of a certain, lobsteresque, PhD doctor professor 🥴 Nonetheless, in the years since that time, to say that I have learned much, from various disciplines, and completely dismantled my previously prevailing worldviews, would be an understatement.. Well-written and accessible, critical, scholarly content like this has proven absolutely crucial to my endeavors to study, and to deliberate, and to hold meaningful discussions with people. Thank you very much for your hard work, comrade. Sincerely, A Long-Disillusioned Lobster
honestly, even though i disagree with so much of it, and think he’s partly lost his mind, peterson is a lot of fun to listen to so can’t blame you! glad you’re enjoying my work!
@WHATISPOLITICS69 I recall a classroom lecture where he correctly identified the left/right, equality/hierarchy dichotomy, and simply proceeded to justify existing hierarchy. Then he turned fanatic/grifter. Anyhoo, yes, keep doing your thing! You're helping to facilitate real discourse, and it's appreciated
I have a question, isn’t one of the biggest reasons that we don’t really have egalitarian societies anymore war? It seems to me that egalitarian societies have a disadvantage when it comes to war and therefore unless all societies are egalitarian there will always be non egalitarian societies that end up overpowering. Also it should be unstable to have all societies be egalitarian because of this disadvantage since there is always the incentive to be able to gain more resources thru war and therefore to be more suited to war
Oooh, excellent question First thing to note to keep in mind, is that the formula for hierarchy is that you need some people to be able to control access to resources that other people need to survive. I talk about this in my anthropology and dawn of everything episodes. War is always hell, but but it’s a double edged sword when it come to egalitarianism. On one hand, when you’re being attacked it’s a good excuse to concentrate power and increase authoritarianism because the population will tolerate more than in normal times. So there’s always that tendency for that to happen - and sometimes it’s for efficiency at defence, and often it’s an excuse to concentrate power, and very often it’s both, kind of like how supply chain inflation is an excuse for companies to raise prices on products that have no supply chain inflation. On the other hand, war creates a big chunk of the population who knows how to use weapons and who has a high degree of solidarity. And the sacrifices made by the general population generate a high sense of entitlement for more of a share of resources because they just saved the elites’ asses. And they now know how to use guns. There are also spillover effects for womens’ equality because they take over a lot of production and meet eachother and form coalitions with which they can advocate for their rights. WWI was a huge factor in women’s suffrage, WWII was a huge factor in creating welfare state in the US and west, constant wars in ancient athens is what created the democracy there, war in spain made the anarchist revolution possible, even though it didn’t survive, WWI is what made the russian revolution possible, even though the second revolution turned into dictatorship and failed. So it depends on circumstances - war is often an excuse for concentration of power, but it’s also one of the biggest factors in creating more egalitarianism.
Great to see another video by you! I hadn’t seen one for awhile and was afraid u had stopped. I’m 50 pages into dawn of everything and really enjoying it so far.
Main flaw is that you don't analyze the context and how international pressure affects the decisions in socialist countries. You only mentioned how Salvador Allende was overthrown by a dictator backed by US but failed to stress how widespread this is. Cuban revolution has been under constant harassment and pressure by the US government and under strict economic sanctions that also shape the decisions made in its government. The same applies to other socialist countries or others where ideas are born which are not aligned with what imperialism expects. Other than this, I found the video very interesting and looking forward to seeing the sequel, since here you didn't answer the question. Maybe later you will give international pressure the role it deserves
yes you’re right - you’re also the ONLY person (out of like 5 millions furious maniacs) who made this critique without insulting me! and yes, i think i’ll mention it a little next time. I didn’t include it because it’s often just an excuse - like it’s very real, and pushes all regimes towards authoritarianism, but since lenin they were inventing imaginary saboteurs and secret whites as enemies to blame for all protest.
As soon as I am able I will become a supporter. I would like to read the books you have read. I have some ideas about how to change our society to one without inequality. I'll get back to you on that.
thank you! i will talk about that more in the future, but it’s going to be very general ideas, i have no detailed blueprint, and i don’t think anyone can really have one at this point
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I’m a software engineer without benefit of degree. I’ve make 6 figures and worked at Walgreens. Also I studied philosophy, mostly interested in the analytical. So I’ve seen the low and the high. I’m pretty motivated for the many and weak and against the few and the strong. I just re watched your latest video about socialism and I can’t tell you how re impressed I am with it.
The economic calculation problem has been reduced to an infantile talking point that is just from a lack of researching the actual issue. I'm glad that you touched on this very briefly and pointed out that there are very well laid out solutions. However, for anyone actually interested in getting in the weeds on the economics of the presence or absence of markets and centralization of economics I would highly recommend searching out Paul Cockshott. He breaks down these issues with ease, although beware if you're not in love with economics you'll be asleep in a matter of minutes.
thanks - i haven’t done a deep dive into it myself, but i’d like to do an episode on it - i linked to cockshott in the bibliography, found out about him from alpha to omega
@@sacha9593 well, I personally never said it was but I find it funny the level of pretentiousness one has to have to say we have super computers that can perform unheard of calculations and physics models but it couldn't come close to pretty accurately modeling small scale supply chains and gradually work in higher levels of inputs directly from individual areas of the market to the point of being able to pretty closely determine day to day economic adjustments. Especially considering the fact that we already have "markets" that do this to a smaller degree that are the size of the Soviet union at its highest point.
@@sacha9593 the problem is that you need a huge number of inputs in realtime to calculate demand and preferences over fast timeframes - “computer” does exactly that. “computer” solves all kinds of problems, which is why “computer” was invented. “wrench” also solves lots of problems. so does “calculator”
The pretentiousness is thinking you can manage the whole economy using computers while implicitly comparing people preferences to particules in some "physic models".
this was a really interesting video, I disagree on a lot of the things said but I appreciate the different points of view, the good explanation and some new informations
If there's no difference between communism and socialism, then (by your logic) there should be no difference between those two terms and "social democracy" since they were all used interchangeably by everyone including Marx, Engels and Lenin until later in the 1920s(?). In fact, all these definitions have never been static. They are always evolving depending on the material (or environmental) conditions they're trying to explicate. Entertaining video, as always.
thanks - you can always use language any way you want - i’m choosing to stick with the 19th century use (socialism is the broader term, and communism is more specific) because i think that’s just a much more productive way of thinking about it. when you have competing definitions, you have to pick one, or invent a new one… see episode 4 for more on that, how i choose terms, and why etc
Looks like your channel is about to finally blow up like it deserves to. We need more in-depth original analyses like yours. Everything else on left tube has become very repetitive. You and Luna Oi are my favourites
yeah, i really want to break out of everyone just mindlessly copying 100 year old political identities and turning socialism and communism and anarchism into new identity groups…
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 The clarity with which you present these is impressive. I suppose that is difference between knowledge and understanding. Congratulations on 20K views! I hope your content reaches millions
@@paranoah1925 thanks - and i need to check out luna oi, never heard of them - and wow i never imagined the marxist leninist kids would get so upset at this…
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I would strongly suggest you approach Luna Oi's work with a veeeery critical eye. In my opinion, she is one of the classic ML types who tout nationalistic dictatorships as communism and twist almost every point of Marxist ideology to fit into their authoritarian framework. I wouldn't even consider her a socialist.
I am 16 and I found this video to be deeply insightful about things like communism and socialism, im barely learning about a lot of these more radical ideas so your channel has been great at helping me understand these ideas and politics as a whole so thank you for making these videos they are amazing.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I think it's pretty smart, honestly. No force on earth has done more damage to communism than communists ("communists.") Maybe this goes some way in resolving the perception problem.
@@5ivearrows If the video helps convince you to turn your back on centuries of massive successes by the blood sweat and tears of workers and communists alike. Was it really that different than a McCarthist screed? The result is the same: you are enabling capitalism.
thanks for the learning daniel! the explanation of petty bourgeois helped me put a few thoughts in line finally, i think. i think everyone is born with a so called 'left or right' lean, but it's fairly weak and because most people dont study politics or think about it all that much it remains undeveloped, and therefore everyone can be pushed and pulled and manipulated in whatever direction. but! on top of that is material conditions, which can over ride *any* innate personality traits or manipulations/persuasions. and so you have the rural plumber that is coded 'working class' culturally but is actually bourgeois and whose material conditions push them to adopt conservative 'values'.
yes! and yes, i think people have sort if innate liberal vs conservative dispositions, and that PR political industry preys on this, but it’s style not policy. people with conservative dispositions often support left policy - like traditionally all those kansas quasi socialist farmers etc.
@@pinguinocomentador9743 haha, i said that people have liberal or conservative innate dispositions, but that’s not why they are socialist or capitalist or fascist or right wing or left wing - many socialist revolutionaries had conservative dispositions! those dispositions today track with mainstream left and right because of PR industry
Thank you for adressing the question instead of trying to deflect. It gives greater context to other problems that arose in communist countries. Subbed.
Most countries that have embraced communism were never stable democracies and russia for example went from serfdom to communism; meaning most of the population had zero choice in the matter. It should be noted that there are just as many cases in history of far right totalitarian takeovers as so called leftist varieties and in such cases quite often it was modern democracies that were and are taken over by the fascist right wing governments, not backwards poor countries.
yes, the countries that adopted marxist-leninism were all poor 3rd world countries rebelling against imperialism (aside from the warsaw pact countries), whereas the fascist coups were mostly alliances between the ruling elites with the fascist parties to stop the growing power of urban workers and socialist parties
According to Anarchist though this is a prime example for why the unity of means and goals is so important, seizing the state still reproduces the state as a power structure and creates a new class who have a vested interest of keeping the state alive, just with a change of flavour. actually abolishing the state requires you to not wait for the revolution but start building alternative power structures right now. Network within your region and actively do it based on Democratic principle and preventing hierarchies to establish, those networks we build now are our best hope for the future, IF there is a sudden change (collapse or revolution) and those networks are not already in place, someone else will grab power.
Absolutely incredible, thank you! I kept hearing tiny pieces of this part of history from other channels, and even sought out more content on it and kept getting dead ends! As always, looking forward to the next part!
Cuba wasn't marxist leninism before USA, trough its brutal and unjust sanctions, forced Cuba in to the pocket of the USSR. There is a reason why Fidel Castro didn't admit to being marxist leninist until after they hade to rely completely on the USSR for trade. The imperialism of the cold war screwed many socialist countries.
Hey Daniel, great video as always. Thank you for your hard work. Think I learned a few things but for sure will get much more out of it when rewatching and reading the comments. Meanwhile, there's two things I'd like to ask you: -How do you see your chances of appearing on Lex Friedman's podcast? I've seen a few episodes (none about politics, I believe) and liked them a lot. That exposure could do a great deal to help your channel grow. Any idea of how to get noticed and brought on as a guest? -Is it possible for your viewers to contribute translated captions? Non-English-speaking folks, too, would benefit _a lot_ from this content. I have always loved translating Eng-Spa and I might get some free time in the coming weeks, so who knows what could happen 😄
haha, i’d love to be on lex fridman, but i think the chances are zero for anytime soon - i actually think he’d find this series interesting, but i don’t see how he’d ever hear of it unless one of my viewers is friends with him or something! i think the channel would have to be like 10x at bigger at least to have a chance of him hearing about it. I really should be asking viewers/listeners who have hookups with bigger producers to recommend my stuff to them - the best thing that happened to the channel so far is when saint andrew mentioned one of my videos on his chat section, i suddenly doubled my audience overnight also i’m a housing lawyer, not a professional anthropologist or historian etc, so there might be an element of not being taken seriously. if you want to translate episodes that’s amazing - i have one guy putting out brazilian portuguese versions of the videos - if you want to make spanish captions and let me know how to add those to the videos that would be amazing, you can contact me by email and we’ll figure it out
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Well, we can only keep trying to give you a boost. I just linked this video on a comment in Fridman's Wolff interview. Hope at least some of his listeners give your material a shot. A while back, anyone could contribute their captions to videos that allowed it, but it seems that's not the case anymore. According to this video by YT itself, there's a few ways to add captions, but all have to be done from your account. th-cam.com/video/rB9ql0L0cUQ/w-d-xo.html Maybe I could write a translated transcript and mail it to you. I'll think about it until I actually have free time to do the translating and then contact you. If you have any other idea, let me know over here. Wish you good health, rest, joy, and prosperity. See you around!
@@drarp same to you! and yes, you can send it to me and i can do it if you give me instructions - the amount of shit i have to do to post these and the audio versions and then respond to all the arguments - on top of actually making the videos and researching them is insane! so i want it to be as easy as possible for me! but very interested in having spanish and other versions
@@drarp hey - i made a mistake - the guy is translating them onto a blog - so it’s not the video - so far he’s done episode 4 only, but he plans to do the dawn of everything series and others: ominhocario.wordpress.com/2022/10/24/como-as-definicoes-politicas-moldam-a-realidade/
I’ve finally fully caught up with all your content. I find it very valuable, as good articulations of the “perspective from the left” are sorely missed from public understanding/discourse. Thanks for your work, and I hope you keep it up. I’ll be recommending your channel every chance I get.🙂
vietnam has more freedoms in some respects - you can leave when you want or move away - my friend moved TO vietnam from USA to start a university and is happy there - but the average worker can’t elect the top leadership, and neither can the rank and file party member, so it’s still a dictatorship. they’ve accomplished a lot despite the american war, but they still aren’t approaching the goals of socialism, so that’s what we’re looking at with this question.
@@anubis2814 btw, im not sure if it’s the same in vietnam, but cuba has excellent democracy at the local level, for fixing street signs, building a school, etc. much more than USA or western countries - but still zero democracy at the level of leadership
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks, I was wondering about the truth about that. Several pro-communist podcasters have said that Cuba has excellent democracy because of their local elections, but I felt like there was more to the story. Cuba luckily came into communism under Khrushchev so didn't get Stalinism, but was confused as to why Cuba and Vietnam were considered dictatorships, which pretty fair local elections. BTW been digging into a lot of the confusion around community, as it appears to be something that neo-liberalism destroyed and why anarchism seemed ridiculous for the longest time and without a social revolution repairing community and teaching how to make it work sustainably anarchism really is a fools errand but most anarchists I know only talk about "the" political revolution but are neo-liberals when it comes to community. th-cam.com/play/PLzgsBSEiEgLicP7NueALmKby4MoDtDItE.html I made a playlist on the topic of videos I made. If you get the time check it out and add or correct any confusion I may have. Being on the spectrum and living in neo-liberal communities, healthy sustainable community people always talk about is nebulous to me and confusing, and a complete blind spot in my understanding but it appears I'm not alone in this or there would be more of those communities out there.
Cuba has elections though. People still call it a dictatorship. While a single party state, people can still choose between different people from the party. Most democracies, like the USA, only have a “Pretense of democracy”
yes, all the Marxist-Leninist states had elections. But they are all one party states where decision making is concentrated in a small group of people and where there is normally little or no workplace democracy and where workers have very little or no input on the major policies of the country, and where the individual freedom of workers is severely curtailed (like people can’t even emigrate in most countires) in sharp contrast to the goals of socialism. Yes there is some measure of democracy at the local level (like Cuba has more local democracy than the US probably) but it’s still a dictatorship. Ironically we are so used to the cartoon idea of a dictatorship meaning one crazy guy with a chest full of military decorations making literally all the decisions, that we think that because there are elections (where candidates are controlled by the leadership, who also control almost everything else of national importance) that this means there is a vibrant democracy… The more important point is they have no workplace democracy, which is the whole point of socialism. And yes, capitalist democracies are not very democratic and they are also corrupt - but that’s a whole other story.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 That makes sense. Thanks for the reply. Very good point about workplace democracy. I'm a big supporter of that. Through the workplace experience and the union it become obvious to me that not only would be more fair to have workplace democracy, it would also be more productive and efficient.
@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan yes, most often when workplaces switch to cooperatives, they get more productive, they raise wages and lower costs for consumers. the world could be such a better place with changes like this. and historically that was the big aim of socialism - to end the employee/employer relationship and the landlord/tenant relationship
Damn, I clicked expecting a hit-piece on leftism considering the title, so that was a pleasant surprise. You should try making the titles sound anti-leftist when possible, it will draw more views to the video from the moderate and even rightist people. Top shelf theory lecture that still covers a lot of the basics, if not all of them, so it's already accessible to the moderates. I'm more of a Marxist than an anarchist and the video gives me a lot of food for thought.
thanks, i appreciate that! and yes, that’s what i’m going for, trying to reach out to people who aren’t familliar with this stuff at all, and get them to understand what socialism is, while also trying to get people who do have more knowledge to think about what mistakes not to make in the future
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I would suggest that the majority of those either referred to as the left, or that give themselves that label, have very little idea what socialism/communism/libertarianism/anarchism mean. That includes most of Leftube too unfortunately. Or am I being unfair? Anyways, we have you and Lucky Black Cat to provide good information. I’m not really aware of other many other channels that are currently doing so. My comrade, Martin Wright, has a channel called Red and Black TV who posts two minute videos every morning commenting on current affairs with a strong and rather sneering polemical style and an extreme rejectionist insurrectionary narrative. It’s really juicy stuff. If you’re interested I’ll select some choice items from his back catalogue. Do you have a public email? If not I can get them to you via LBC, I don’t do social media. Finally, great work mate, super high quality video.
@@Libertarian606 hi thanks - i give my email at the end of the video, check the last two minutes or so - i haven’t seen any LBC videos lately, i need to check, maybe the algorythm just buried her from my feed, so annoying!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Hey,I wanted to know your opinion on this. You think social democracy is leftist? Where would you place it in the political spectrum
@@lalitthapa101 well the political spectrum is relative so it’s relative to the centre, which i guess is the sort of average of where power lies - so social democracy is on the left if you’re looking at the US, but it’s in the centre if you’re looking at Sweden, centre left if you’re looking at France etc. i actually hate the term social democracy because to modern ears it sort of equates capitalism with democracy - “we’re like socialisty, but democratic” which implies socialism isn’t democratic. i think “welfare capitalism” best describes what we call social democracy. Originally social democracy was just marxism! but it devolved over time…
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 which subreddit? I mean, if you want the world, or at least the country you live in, to be socialist and/or anarchist instead of capitalist with the goal of maximizing human freedom and wellbeing, we have to talk about examples of past socialisms to learn what to do and what not to do! Past experiments and Marxist-Leninist states are still one of my biggest hangups with the feasibility of socialism (I identify as one nonetheless). Where did they go wrong? What did they do well? Why dictators and shit and not mutual aid, co-ops, collective ownership, etc.?
@@theodore-gottlieb communism vs capitalism sub, and stupidpol sub - and on youtube comments! these crazy cult victims downvoted me like mad, im at like 81% now! but it’s still my most popular video at this stage of release, by like 4x. and yes, i agree with you - the next episode is going to explore why the russian revolution failed so that we can learn from the mistakes.
Yo great video. Two slight nitpicks.. i dont think Marx was a proponent of the mass strike version of revolution but more a political battle. Also i think that the Czech went to a soviet style system by pressure from below afaik. They were not forced into it by the russians. Loved the video though.... T
hey tom! your praise means a lot especially when it comes to this topic! ah, i was just projecting on to marx about the general strike, i hear about it so much that i assumed it originated in his era. and i will have to double check on the czechs… i might have halluncinated them into a statement that I read in a book that wasn’t meant to include them… looking forward to reading your book chapter by the way, very excited by that project!
The legitimacy of the 1948 Czech coup is still debated. The KSČ (The Czech communist party) won 38% of the vote a year before. There exist disclosed documents of Stalin urging the KSČ to seize power and the party used the Red Army as a threat when performing the coup. As far as I know, the coup was bloodless (Except for the only non-communist minister, who fell out of a window 2 weeks after the coup)
@@pyjonyr5029 super interesting thanks - that’s more or less what i had understood - there was a lot of grass roots support for marxist leninism all over europe right after WWII - but enough to sustain a revolutionary government with majority support and without the USSR enforcing it … my impression is that was only true in the poorer eastern countries like yugoslavia - but i def need to read more to know
@@pyjonyr5029 I keep telling people the solution to these problems are better designed window guards but people in Eastern Europe and Russia keep mysteriously falling out of windows. They even have a special word for it . . . defenestration.
The Dead Kennedy's also have a great version of the song Take this Job and Shove It. God I love that song. I actually prefer the twangy ass Johnny Paycheck version. I can't believe Wolfe flubbed it so badly on Lex's podcast. The answer is so simple. I'm so glad to see you with new content :) Great piece
especially the points about 20th century socialism being more of an attempt at industrializing and kicking out foreign nations and that a lot of marxist dont seem to conceive of a communal or local communism is smth that ive thought about a lot
Lex Fridman's question is inherently fallacious; It's an appeal to nature combined with a gross oversimplification of humanity's relationship with hierarchies, which attempts to make egalitarianism synonymous with dictatorship. A fallacy + a misrepresentation does not magically make contradictory terms equivalent. Dr. Wolff's answer was just as empty of substance as the question itself, which is kind of fitting, in a depressing way. Your video manages to transform a linguistic & logical mess into something simultaneously enlightening and entertaining, well player sir
thank you! i think lex has conflicting thoughts on it, he seems interested in the possibilities of socialism, while also being very aware of the flaws of the ML regimes
I am really glad you popped up on my feed today. I know I’ll listen to more of these videos at work lol. Definitely worth the sub and I’ll try and share your videos to my like 2 friends in convos
Great explanation of the topic! A very solid approach with ample argumentation and citing of sources. Much looking forward to the continuation of this.
This is great! It does such a good job tackling the common misconceptions and misinformation about socialism and communism. If I try to put myself into the shoes/mind of someone who believes that misinformation, I'm quite sure this video would succeed in its purpose (unless I was dogmatically attached to that misinformation). I hope the algorithm carries your video to those in need of this message (i.e. most people in the world). Speaking of which, it's wonderful that your channel has been doing well in the algorithm lately... it's about fucking time!!! That shit is overdue. Here's hoping that trend continues. I'm amazed at how you wove together so much information into less than one hour yet it didn't feel rushed or underexplained. And as always you make your case so smoothly and clearly. Just one criticism on a minor point: you called the Paris Commune a communist system and said that anarchists consider it an example of what anarcho-communism could be like, but neither of those things are true. Btw, for the first time I listened to the podcast version of the episode, but I've come to TH-cam to like, comment, and let the video play on mute for the algorithm. I never noticed before but you have a great podcast voice. I'm excited for part 2! When do you think it will be ready?
hey, thanks - i always love hearing from you! and where’s your next video you’ve been working on stuff in secret forever now…. why do you say that about the commune? it was organized by “proudhonists” (basically anarchists) and blanquists (kind of vanguardist communists) - and anarchists often cite it as an example of what anarchism could look like. i’ve heard that a zillion times. and it was a communist system by their own description - what do you mean by it wasn’t this video is doing great minus being like 20% downvoted by stalinist cult kids who are giving me no rest for calling one party states dictatorships
@WHAT IS POLITICS? Yeah, my long upload absence is causing me big anxiety. I've been working on six videos, and I've basically finished five of them (a couple need some finishing touches). The final video I'm working on will be the first one that I release, it's a behemoth that will probably be like two and a half hours long. The Paris Commune never got around to transforming the economy, which remained capitalist. There were some workers' co-ops created, but the majority of the means of production stayed under control of capitalists. As for the political structure, my memory of it is kind of hazy, and I'm not super well informed, but I don't think it would qualify as anarchist. The Paris Commune was a working-class revolution, though, and had strong democratic tendencies, as well as many anarchists and socialists involved in it, so of course anarchists are supportive of the Paris Commune and have a mostly positive view of it. But not as being an anarchist society, but rather as something which had great potential. I'm not surprised there are anarchists saying it was an anarchist society but my guess is that in most cases they're not sufficiently informed on the Paris Commune and are just going by vague descriptions. Paris Commune had neighborhood assemblies and elected recallable delegates. Anarchists advocate that delegates stay in communication with the assembly that they're delegated from, in order to receive guidance, direction, and clear mandates. But it seems the delegates in the Paris Commune tended to act more like representatives, just doing their own thing. I'm not saying this was the case for every delegate and I'm not even sure if that level of detailed information is available. I haven't studied the Paris Commune in depth so I could be wrong but this is my impression from what I've learned, that the delegates behaved quite independently from the assemblies, that there was a disconnection. The official Commune government was a mix of authoritarian socialists (Blanquists), mutualist anarchists, and republicans. There was tension between those who wanted to boost the more democratic and grassroots power and those who wanted more centralized top-down authority in a small committee. These tensions never really resolved themselves as the Commune was crushed after a couple months. I think by the end of it there were even two different power groups (one of them the more authoritarian) each claiming to be the government? But I forget. Btw, I think all the downvotes are a good sign. It means the algorithm is bringing your video beyond the echo chamber and you have a greater chance of changing minds rather than preaching to the choir.
@@LuckyBlackCat the downvotes are all marxist leninist kids though, so i don’t know if that’s “outside the bubble” in the sense i was looking for! just another more ridiculous bubble… i think i need to make tik toks to reach normal people cause only crazy people like us watch hour long videos… ok i see what you mean about the commune - and yes, that’s all accurate, and i knew that, but i call it “communist” in the sense that that’s what they were going for, but didn’t have time to get there with the economics, and the political structure was representative, but like you described recallable delegates etc, a bit similar to the early soviets - ive heard many anarchists cite it as an example of a stateless society, and marx talks about the communards approvingly as having smashed the state from the getgo etc. but yes you’re right jeez 6 part series and 2.5 hours long first installment! no wonder you’ve been on the DL! can’t wait to see what you’re concocted!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks! Most of the videos will be shorter than that though, lol. I was thinking more about the theory that Communist Party led revolutions after the Russian one were mainly interested in economic development and national independence than in communism. I'd never heard the theory before but it immediately made intuitive sense. So initially it felt like a light bulb moment for me. But then I considered it a bit more and started to think that perhaps this theory is overgeneralizing a mere tendency within these revolutions. I'm sure that the members of these Communist Parties were diverse in their political goals, and that there were certainly genuine communists among them. That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if development out of poverty and national independence were the foremost goals for a large portion of members, perhaps even the majority. But I'd be cautious about overstating this. To reach a firm conclusion you'd have to do an opinion survey on the members of these parties, or at least their leaders, and I doubt that kind of research was ever done. So basically, I think it's a good theory so long as it's not overstated.
Now I listened to the whole hour. Marx wrote much more about capitalism than how a socialist society would look like. We still say this to this day: how would socialism look like in (insert country here)? Nobody knows, the development always depends on the material conditions. The difference between utopian and scientific socialism is an important one. The utopian socialism has been tried and didn't work, that is planing something first on one's head and then trying to apply it. I don't think Marx and Engels meant to sound bitchy and snob when explaining the difference between the two :P I'm so excited for the next episode. I really want to hear what you have to say about Lenin. On another note, isn't TH-cam putting ads on any video nowadays, even if you turn them off? I have TH-cam Premium so I don't know. If it is true you should turn the monetization on.
I think it really was a libertarian impulse based on his theoretical understanding. For Marx, imo, socialism was an emergent process due to the concrete practices of the organized working class attempting to build a free classless society in accordance with their current local conditions. This necessarily meant an open ended approach, instead of a one size fits all schema. Now i do think more generally applicable rules, a sort of framework for developing 'best practices' for socialization can be and needs to be developed. Which is why I got interested into looking into cybernetics as giving a general framework to theoretical and workout oraganization problems that will vex socialists as they did before.
i think some non monetized videos have ads - like if you’re doing cover songs or have copyrighted material. but i watch many videos that have no ads, so i assume it’s that way with mine. if anyone sees ads on my videos let me know
It’s very trendy to say communist countries were not really communist but this is revisionist. They thought they were communists and the leaders consistently used communist language and precepts.
yes, and there’s a guy on my street who insists he’s the king of england and constantly uses medieval british phrases and concepts, but he just has bipolar disorder… the point of the video is to understand why the communist countries deviate so distinctly from the objectives of socialism as understood before the russian revolution
@WHATISPOLITICS69 You're being disgeneous here. You basically ask why reality is different from idealized propaganda. When you state question like this, the answer is quite simple. The same question you could direct towards feudalism: why theory of noble god-given rulers taking care of simple men differ from reality of hereditary military landlords.
It would be pretty dishonest to call the revolution in Spain ‘crushed’ by the USSR. They were wholly dependent on the USSR for logistics and materiel. They operated with a centralised, military authority, but did not want the USSR to have a stake in decision making.
the anarchists didn’t have a centralized military - they had decentralized democratic militias where they elected their commanders. orwell noted that the republican military commanders were shocked that these militia were actually effective, but they were. the russian revolution armies had a similar structure until trotsky forced them back into normal hierarchy. In spain the anarchists collectivized the trains, the ambulances, the telephone companies, many factories, and also most of the agriculture in the areas where they worked. unlike USSR it was direct democratic control at the local level, and delegates to coordinate activities at the wider levels. i.e actual socialism, actual dictatorship of proletariat. the USSR forced the anarchists to dismantle ALL of this in exchange for weapons which they badly needed. so yes the USSR crushed the revolution, even before the fascists won the war. many report that the anarchists lost the will to fight once the revolution was gone, and blame this for losing the war, though i think at the end of the day they were just outgunned by the fascists.
Hey fellow kid! It's been so long that I had time to radicalize myself. No, Soviet Russia, Mao's China, Cuba etc. are not dictatorships. There are proof of how democratic they were/are. Those countries were never communists. We never achieved Communism (yet) but these countries are a great example of what Socialism can do, despite the pressure of imperialist countries. Now, after a socialist revolution one does not simply end all the contradictions. You are free to disagree with me, of course. But when I look at Soviet Union, a country with no industry, basically still a feud that manage to win the Second World War and send the man to the Moon without colonizing other countries (that's very important) and in the middle of dirty propaganda and embargoes I see a very successful experience. I'm not trowing the baby with the bath water out of the window. Plus Khrushchev lied.
The video never contested the rapid economic development of Russia and other countries that emulated the Russian model. But to deny that those were dictatorships seems quite silly. The leader of a dictatorship has no limits to his own power and that, it seems quite obvious to me, very accurately describes the socio-political and economic systems of the aforementioned countries. Additionally, the video put the "communist" in quotes to denote that those countries are self-styled like that, or at least that they were ruled by communist political parties. So I'm not sure if you just didn't watch the video or your comprehension skills are somewhat impaired.
@@communistpinkcat Hey you're the one who just asserted that the "communist" countries weren't actually dictatorships without any supporting argumentation, basically doing a "no u" to the video. I at least compared those countries with the common definition of dictatorship. If you can contest that, feel free to do so.
the marxist leninist states had/have some degree of democracy - local affairs, professional organizations etc. but all major policy is monopoly of the CP and deviations are supressed. and these countries are not socialist or communist. lenin changed the definition of socialism in state and revolution, but socialism always meant workers control their workplaces and political life, not party control
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 how come not? Socialism is the independence and emancipation of the working class and when the working class has ownership of the means of production. Now I'm not saying that that's all and that mistakes were not made. But a new society takes years, centuries to be built. After the revolution there are still many contradictions to be dealt with. I'm not part of the left that the right loves and will always give credit where credit is due to these experiences. There is no democracy when people are hungry. Nor when people doesn't receive good education.
This is the most accurate video of socialism on TH-cam. Amazing job! I appreciate you not glossing over market socialism which is one of the most popular ideas in the west again!
yeah i think the main problem with markets is when the participants don’t have equal bargaining power. adam smith thought the same thing. the market isn’t appropriate for everything, but it does get things where they need to go - in conditions of equality.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I think the kind of equal exchange market mutualists advocate for would be quite different though. A society without rent to proletarianize workers via dispossession, without interest to exploit borrowers, and in which cooperatives and sole proprietorships are the dominant mode of production would be vastly more free than any mass society that currently exits. If such a thing actually existed it would feel like a utopia compared to why we have now, so critcism of that kind of market sort of fall flat for me. We haven't even got to that level let alone the next level. I think my problem with economic planning as an immediate goal is that it puts the cart before the horse. The first step should be to make sure every worker is a sole proprietor or associated in a cooperative. From there I think if workers want to form federations for planning as Proudhon suggested they could, and the abolition of commodity production could take place gradually by free association. I think if we immediately attempt to implement planning in a hypothetical revolution it will still be far more prone to corruption than a decentralized socialist market economy. Revolutionary Catalonia had a lot of issues with this. The revolution proved that workers can self manage the means, and it proved that stateless societies can function, but I don't think it proved much in the way of planned economies. I think on that level it was a very mixed bag, and in that regard I'd much prefer the economy of the Paris Commune, which was a mutualist society not a communist society. That's not to say Catalonia wasn't a massive improvement over what existed before, but i think if it existed long term they would have probably had to continue reverting to a market socialist economy to combat bureaucracy, with perhaps some forms of planning. Anyway that's my two sense!
@@MrSickNoodle yes i more or less agree with most of that - i don’t know or care that much about the abolition of commodities though - at the end of the day if people are equal - and what you’re describing is a giant step in that direction - markets will work - but at the same time i think you need some elements of planning and also some methods to ensure equality between coops etc - so that the coops who are sitting on important resources don’t become dominant over others, or some dont become much richer than others etc
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 that's fair, I'm not a purist. Most world economies are mixed and I think libertarian socialism will be no different! I think some things would be better planned like healthcare, child care and education. If states can do it so can libsoc societies. I supposed I'm just critical of the idea that we must abolish all commodity production or else everyone will be horribly oppressed, I think that's a little dogmatic. I'm personally fine with workers selling goods on an equal exchange market via cooperatives or sole proprietorships. As long as there is no employer-employee relationship, no state and no landlordism all be much better off.
Aaand done, it took me 40 mins to realize there was no way this was going to be a 1 part thing haha. I think there can be a little more to scientific socialism but yhea, scientific is usually used as a non deserved, self-aggrandazing adjective. I've heard some maoists recognize so, and it's frustrating how uncommon that is. I like the balance of recognizing the achievements of 20th century revolutions while confidently calling them failures from a communist perspective. Anyway, good stuff as always. Already waiting for part 2, and I hope I finally get someone else to listen to this podcasts, this episode seems promising en that front.
thank you! yes, i thought this might appeal to people outside of the usual bubbles. and yes, i think calling socialism scientific makes it cultish. other socialists also had materialist understandings of revolution despite being constantly denigrated as utopians… and ultimately the USSR government took on a utopian task of trying to create socialism in the “wrong” conditions…
They are failures because they didn't turn their respective agrarian monarchies under the boot of imperialism into picture perfect utopias in a single lifetime...? Do you not realize building communism is a centuries long project, and that little to none of it has been done by the Western leftists and liberals whining in the background?
Actually Wolff's answer is an example of what I call "Bastiat's Theorem". Here is the quote for context: “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” --Frederic Bastiat Basically, Friedman implies that socialism is bad, so Wolff's reply implies that Friedman doesn't want any government at all, which is an insane leap to make. It's as if socialists think that socialist methods of doing things are the only methods that even exist. They know that's not true, of course. They're just being disingenuous. As to why communist/socialist countries always turn into dictatorships, it's because they have to, in order to continue existing. Humans are individuals, and it's human nature to reject being on the receiving end of collectivist ideology--this is why you don't see anyone tunneling into North Korea, building rafts/trying to swim to Cuba, or climbing the Berlin Wall to get into East Berlin. We love to wield power--which is why such ideologies exist in the first place--but we don't like having it wielded over us. People just won't put up with it forever.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 According to your paraphrasing, he basically said "Well, civilization is against human nature...but surely we wouldn't want to do without civilization!" Basically that some changes are important enough to discipline ourselves for. While I maintain that socialism is not one of those changes, I'll admit my interpretation jumped the gun there. He wasn't saying that not having a socialist society is equivalent to not having a society at all...but from my end it did sound a lot like that. I guess I'm just so used to hearing Bastiat's Theorem from socialists that I tend to see it before it's there.
Great work! Clear, accurate and very accessable. It's interesting that the "sucessfull" revolutions all happened in countries that hadn't industrialised and made the full transition to capitalism. Do you have any thoughts on why advanced capitalists societies never had successful revolutions, as would be in keeping with Marxist theory? Gramsci put the failure of revolutions occurring in advanced capitalist societies down to the cultural hegemony of the capitalist class. What are your thoughts on this? Is Gramsci not moving back towards an idealist/non-matrialist position with his theories on the power of ideology?
i think part of it is that socialists and unions got people welfare states and rights and prosperity which ironically made revolution less interesting. i also think that because the bolsheviks ended up fucking up so badly, that it scared off peasants and working people in the rich countries. and the USSR presenting itself as socialism, made people in rich countries not want socialism… the USSR model had something to offer for poor countries, but not rich ones.
Interesting video. I literally JUST uploaded a video on this exact same topic. It's a loose response to vaush where I explain my view on why socialist countries go authoritarian. We disagree alot (but have some overlap). My take (that I get into on my video) is the typical ML one where I view the reason being that democratic (by liberal standards) governments are significantly less likely to be able to withstand western imperialism, and that "authoritarianism" is an unfortunate but unavoidable (and in some cases necessary) requirement for these countries to continue to exist, with me giving specific examples and general studies to try and bolster my point Your video is interesting from an anarchist perspective though, and I think you are fairer then most. Cheers.
i’ll have to check out your video - it’s the argument all the angry ML teenagers keep yelling at me (that and china is a democracy, cuba is a democracy, stalin was a democrat…) certainly that’s a contributing factor, but I just don’t see that as a main cause. russia for example became authoritarian during the civil war - but the civil war ended, the military threat ended, and they stayed authoritarian. nothing in their speeches even used military threat as an excuse, they just assumed the peasants were their natural enemies ,and the working class was “gone” and the only real working class left was the party etc etc. is venezuela an authoritarian state on the level of ML states? bolivia? they faced US agression, embargo etc. they still have competitive elections. the ML states can withstand outside force better, because a non ML communist state would have to face the US AND the USSR!
The ussr had the most impressive espionage apparatus in the world targeted at them so the idea that they could just stop the state after the Russian civil war is naive. More importantly they also had to defend themselves in general at least as a deterrent.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 states are inherently authoritarian. To put up liberal democracy on some pedestal from a one party state is silly. Why do we need more than one party if we should collectively be working towards communism. Disagreements should be handled through discourse not factionalism.
@@rosaconnolly3485 no one put up liberal democracy on a pedestal - again, who are you arguing with? Unless your party is an organization which encompasses the entire population, and is structured in a democratic responsive fashion, then you need more than one party because parties seek their own interests and very quickly become corrupt. Very early on in the russian revolution, corruption was a problem. by the last years of lenin’s life he was dedicating all of his attention to corruption. julius nyerere, the socialist leader of Tanzania and head of state for 30 years, instituted a system on one party democracy with competitive elections etc - but by the end, even he realized that the one party system was a recipe for corruption and advocated for it to be dismantled.
The picture of Ho Chi Minh at 7:37 is him in France. Long story short he helped found the Communist Party of France and tried to get French socialists to help him push France to leave Vietnam, but it didn't work partly because the French working class were still kind of racist. He went to the USSR later.
yes thanks - someone else pointed this out too - i thought it was russia because all the websites where i see that photo they said it was russia - but thanks, i didn’t know he helped found the french CP!
this is dog shit
said your mama as you were being born
Lol, come on man.
While I completely disagree with communism and socialism (at least the kind that doesn't recognize property rights, free association, free contract, and the right to trade property and labor), you have to have a better dialog than that. You're not converting anyone to individual liberty and property rights with name calling.
Imo, The video was 10X more of a respectful conversation than any other communist/socialist apologist on TH-cam. And unfortunately I've seen a lot.
@@thorns deez nutz
agree
@@user-us1yu8gx9s Yeah, great example. I instantly don't respect anything you say and assume that you are mentally handicapped. No chance of a dialog.
I'm so glad to see a new wave of socialist, communist and anarchist youtubers who aren't afraid to tackle the hard questions in a way that is actually accessible to average folks.
thanks that was my aim
Can you suggest other channels that are part of this new wave please Antonio?
@@Libertarian606 check out Fight Like an Animal (audio podcast only), Alpha to Omega, Varn Vlog, This is Revolution, General Intellect Unit, Mortal Science, Swampside Chats
I thought this guy was anti communist and shit from the title of the video
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 it still wouldnt work humans are competitive and the best way to build a great society is to use that competition to invent new stuff america has ruled the world for the last 200 years because wwre fast learners
Witnessing the rare triumvirate of "someone who knows what they're talking about", "someone who knows how to talk about what they're talking about", and "someone who knows how to stay interesting while talking about it". Amazing stuff.
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.”
― Mikhail Bakunin
Irrelevant -- not what Marxists support.
To be fair - Who is to decide what is worse and what is better?
@@missk1697 there are many factors you can look at:
level of poverty, crime rates, infrastructure upkeep, mental health statistics, the age at which people marry (19-20 means stuff is good, 27-28 means people are really stressed out). There's 1000 I didn't mention, but these are a good starting place.
@@missk1697 I think this is a rhetorical remark, mostly saying no one particular party can have the monopoly of political power.
@@marinielgalvao5259 Concentration of power is the enemy. You can control this by check and balances, Federalism, free market economy with regulation.
Every time I watch a new video of yours, I'm shook to the core at how manipulated I feel from my public "education" in regard to politics. Phenomenal stuff, thank you endlessly.
Even calling it "public education" is part of the propaganda system. The "rigid and formal mass brainwashing", is a central component of the capitalist ruling class system of population wide mass indoctrination and social control of the working class. Children are brainwashed for a decade or two, all of them. I think it is easy to underestimate the unbelievable damage this does to us and our society.
My 11th grade history teacher actually provided us definitions of capitalism and socialism that were quite on point
according to whatever you learned since then (if that's anything) @@TheGalaxyWings
Sorry I'm just following WHATISPOLITICS' lead in replying snarkily to comments
This isn’t politics . It’s dogma .
Those referenced images really show your passion for the subject. Still, your narating style is a good indicator of your stoicism, ie. you not being biased by that passion. Subscribed.
The answer is that marxist economic policy is often misinterpreted, that communist states generally have to have come about by revolution and are more prone to authoritarianism, and that the leaders of these movements generally need an "us vs. Them" mentality to gain a popularity with the people. Or at least that's my solution
A major issue, and one that Lenin talked about is that he would’ve loved to have many parties, but that they immediately needed to produce for the war effort. So because of capitalist nations interfering or threatening, they had to resort to “authoritarianism” in order to defend themselves. This is almost always the reason why nations become “authoritarian”.
@@Agueroooo yeah I kind of agree. But that's not really an excuse for the continuation of that practice after the war.
@Agueroooo but what about when the wars had ended, yet the authoritarian practices still endured? There's no outside threat, but the usually brutal practices are continous.
@mixkid3362 it's often much harder to get out of the authoritarian mindset once you're in it. It also requires that the authoritarian give up that power which is basically impossible.
@hatter5834 yeah that is true. You can see it in the USSR. Some people tried to ease up on the iron fist, but others stopped or interfered and brought the fist back down hard.
I'm currently in my history undergrad and have studied Russia quite a bit. I was kind of expecting some very Cold War take on communism but you clearly did a lot of actual research and it was so fun to watch a video in conversation with things I'm currently studying. Can't wait for the next part
cool! curious to see what you think of the next episode, the conclusion i come to is pretty rare in the literature
I agree! I jumped to a conclusion but later found this video to be intelligent and informative.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 May the episode come out soon, I love your channel!
@@alx3183 a few more weeks - i had a draft script ready when i recorded the first episode but since then ended up reading a lot more to get certain details down
I was in the Soviet Union it really really sucked. Couldn't buy a goddamn sausage if your life depended on it and you had a million rubles and were walking down the street Moscow. The KGB was everywhere and people were afraid to talk publicly about politics.
Another really solid video, can't wait for part 2!
thank you andrew - i can’t wait either! i wish someone would make it for me! these burn me out each time! i think the next one is going to be a doozy, the stuff I’m reading now is really blowing my mind…
Got to re-paste this here, cause there will be a chance this comment will get delete:
I watch to the "Long answer" time stamp. And it is obvious many thing is wrong with your video, a very similar problem to Kraut, another history and economic liberal TH-camr analysis of Yugoslavia civil wars, and blame the Serbs for commit the majority of the atrocities, on the basic that the Serbians politics sphere had a large influence on Yugoslavia army, thus majority Yugoslavia army members are Serbs, or puppet of Serbs, who thus commit the most atrocities.
You take historical events, and historical politics in the USSR governments, simplify it as mere actions to support a conclusion you already have in minds, that is "All Communist country is a Dictatorship". You already didn't cares to takes those events, like the funding of Communist parties outside USSR, Laws that take away the Capitalist, and landlord powers in it wide context of what was going, and the point of what they were doing in a larger historical and political context.
Another thing is your "Communist revolution is also Nationalist Revolution", that is untruth, while some bare some Nationalist charactered, they, after gaining brief control of their country, realize how "Getting rid the former Elite" just turn into creation of another Elite group, and If you equate this new Elite groups gaining power after a Revolution is the same as working class people, because there are some working class who rose to powers after a Liberal Revolution, then you, already decide your conclusion before looking for evident to support that conclusion of your.
I brought up the Yugoslavia civil wars because Kraut made many dishonestly and short sight conclusion, which you also made , but not for Yugoslavia, but, just an example, in your short and long answer section, about the USSR and why other Communist party try to replicate it failure, which your statement about it being Undemocratic can only exist if you think the Bolshevik party is allow to exist, without the West trying to kill it from the beginning, blah blah blah English this English that.
I brought up Kraut, in his video about Chomsky talk about the Yugoslavia civil war, but Chomsky isn't Important, Kraut comment "Serb was blame the most, because they cause most of the atrocities" or something like that, which is Incorrect, and I hopes he wasn't thinking about this, as oppose to him wanting to reach that conclusion. BECAUSE He equate "Serbs have the most representation in Yugoslavia after TITO" to mean absolutely anything, including the Yugoslavia military, which, by that logic above, meant the Yugoslavia Army during the early Civil Wars, is majority Serbian services or heavily dominate by Serbian will, thus the Yugoslavia army commit more genocide on Croatian and Bosnian, on the assumption that this about quitting mass of protestor and about ethnicities more than a broader picture. His Analysis is like your Analysis, close off, bog down and only make sense in the most Liberal Nationalist possible, because it does not taken into consideration of the REAL situation when the Russian Revolution happen.
Like your comment about "Socialist Revolution also are Nationalist Revolution" and "Getting rid of the former Ruler and Elite class" and why Lenin, Karl Marx didn't even think Socialist/Communist revolution in poor countries is even possible, which that terms, I don't know if Richard Wolf said or not, and It doesn't matter.
Do you think the point of "getting rid of the former Elite" is just to replace them, with the working class as the ruler? Sure, that is true, AND it is only 1 part of a 1000 parts series of why they did that. If it was just to remove the Monarchy or a "few rich Capitalist" Elite, then the Russian Revolution would became another Liberal Republics doing may be control Capitalism instead of free market capitalism. Did you even read how the Economy work in USSR, and trade between Socialist Countries??? Of course, "Read" from places that aren't Richard Wolf, which I don't know how much of his influence in political theory work Is in this video, but from a man that said "Communism is when the Government does more stuff", How does Anyone who wasn't ignorant of how the USSR government work, can look at this, and say this is an accurate assessment???
Lenin and Marx didn't even think Socialist/Communist revolution is possible? and? Does French people think the French Revolution is possible before they did it? Did Britain and those country who splits from the Vatican think it was possible before they did it? Obviously NOT. What does it matter on what Karl and Lenin thinks when they was growth up in an Era when an entire Working class runs the government is literally a pipe dream, and they didn't even think, well Marx was dead by then, but Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky even think the Bolsheviks winning and control of Russia alone was possible? OBVIOUSLY NOT, they did it, and they found out that it was possible, like a Cave man picking up a stick on fire, and didn't know that Fire can cooks food before he actually put food, on top of another stick, press it again the Fires?
Or did among the First colonialist thinks that Colonialism, in which they enslaves and exploit the native on the first ever colonialism process was possible, even morally can be ignore before they try it? Obviously Not. Or did the SS suddenly exist, and decide to kills Eastern Europe on mass, because one day they decide that they can run Eastern Europe Better. I felt have to repeat myself, cause people like you, said thing, that only exist when there are no world outside of it, and IT isn't a evolution of something, that been going on for centuries before, Like Trench Warfare suddenly just happen, suddenly spicy chemical weapons is very effective, or why Western world, now including China, Russia also sends poor people out to dies so they can take control of this region and it resource, and not let it fall in the hand of their rival for example, these thing, event in wider history doesn't happen in a night, nor a month, nor 10 years, nor just 100 years, and it just exist.
Your entire Short answer and Long answer section is concentrate on what the Bolshevik does, the Bolsheviks party and it leader did, ignore how it leader is only the lead of a teams, and it member had dies in the thousand during the course of USSR history, including the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil Wars, which already had killed the most of the earliest Bolsheviks members, often by the Russian White Nationalist faction and their sponsor, the Western Powers to kill Socialism in it track and fail to do so, which they proceed to put the heaviest economic embargoes and sanctions on Russia possible, one of which include removing the values of Russian Currency and Russia Gold standard of it values, and only will trade, still with heavy embargoes, in Grains. NONE OF THESE THING, you, like Kraut had taken into account that there are a bigger Power supporting the destruction of Socialism before it had been turn into a political party in the government office, let alone allow it to run a region, let alone a government.
Policy toward foreign relation, public spending, the military and rights are all develop in the decade and THUS are effected by what the situation around it, which doesn't just include Russia, it also include the Rest of the ruling world, thus Britain, France, Germany and America. Lenin didn't even lives to see WW2 starting, so why would IT MATTER, that He didn't think decolonization effort that Stalin USSR and Tito Yugoslavia undergoes with the rest of the "Poor countries" or rather ex-colonial countries COULD develops their socialism or not? He dies before the Soviet Russia is even stables, he see and do less thing, because he dies earlier than HCM and Castro, and they, but especially Castro policy underwent different directions to the core concept of a democratic Working class countries have everything to do with it surrounding, such as the USA, which had try to deletes it from exist, past 50 commit genocide on it, to protect US corporation interest.
OH please, you didn't think about why these Communist countries, in socialist phase still have to be so militarize to begin with, as if it is a must to kept those in worker, the so call "Communist Elite" in power, and NOT actually to protect the countries and it foundation as a Socialist countries from the power that want to destroy it, again after USSR collapse, the only power left are EU and NATO, both are created to oppose to Socialism. As if Vietnam government do this Neoliberal reform in the 1980s for capitalism, and not have to make some sacrifice against it own Socialist policy in order to be allow to trade with other countries.
UN let the US bombs Yugoslavia, when they was protecting their sovereignty
right as an existing countries, and were dealing with their domestic problems in the form of Nationalist Revolution, just as those in Croatia, Bosnia and Albania, which all try to form French style Revolution because they are Croatian, Bosnian, and Albanian etc, the "not-Serbian" fighting against the Serbian Overlord are what they think they were doing during the Civil Wars, and when they cleanse the local Serbian population, which are everywhere, they will achieve a National revolution when they outed all of the "not-them" from "their land". This alone I think you can agree as acts of Terrorism.
But America use the excuse of Yugoslavia central Government was doing "genocide on" some ethnic groups instead of them putting down a Nationalist Insurgent, to get UN approval in making sure, after USSR is gone, no more big influential Socialist Block can exist no longer. NONE OF THIS, you taken into consideration, you nor Kraut even think about what going on outside these Socialist block countries, which let me remind you, Socialist, just the Social Democrat are shots, dispose of, then discredit intensively to begin with, in Italy, in America, In Mexico, In Brazil all during the Cold Wars, and here you are demanding that Socialist countries must be proper Democratic Socialist country and complain about my English.
@@Huy-G-Le Dude - I’m commenting on your english because you’re writing a 5000 word essay and i literally cannot understand what you are fucking saying.
Maybe I’m being generous in assuming that you can actually make sense in your own language - maybe you also spit out reams of incomprehensible gibberish in that language as well, but I am spending my precious time to ask you to write in your language and then put it into google translate so that we can actually have a discussion, and you are just being a dick about it and writing even more torrents of nonsense.
I can’t respond to anything you’re saying because I literally have no idea what you’re saying or what ANYTHING you said in this insane giant post has to do with my video or my ideas!
I have spent about 25 hours in the past two days responding to about 300 comments here and on reddit, and if you want to get your fucking points across then do what I said and write in the language that you are proficient in and put it in google translate, instead of writing a bunch of incomprehensible gibberish and then being pissed off that I can’t understand it.
I was so terrified going into this video. "Oh, this is going to make me so angry, isn't it? This is going to be like FEE and full of misinformation..." Then I see the top comment is Andrewism, and now I am excited.
This was awesome. Great references. I'm glad that as an Anarchist you still read Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, for me, it reframed the discourse coming from parts of the Left.
in the next episode i’ll be getting a lot deeper int what lenin was thinking and saying, and marx, and marx’ other followers, it’s super interesting to see the fucked up choices lenin made and why he made them, and how almost no one today is grappling with any of that, we’re either trying to make excuses for it or demonize his intentions instead of learning from it.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Really glad to hear you say this. The left does itself no favours by not be able to discuss past socialist projects and important works objectively. I'm from an African country and trying to learn about China and the many transformations it underwent over the 20th century. Its ridiculous that any mention of Mao must be followed immediately with total condemnation and if not, the only other crowd are those that immediately jump to apologia.
@@MrOzzification exactly - the reason i made this video (and the one that will follow) is first to introduce normal people to socialist ideas, to dispel caricatures about socialism and communism and show the reasons for their appeal in the poorer countries, but then to get leftists to think about the mistakes that others have made so that we don’t repeat them. there is much to criticize in china and russia and all the other communist and socialist dictatorships, and i believe that in russia there were alternatives not taken that could have applied around the 3rd world - but if not for these regimes most of these countries would instead be variations of 3rd world banana republics with most of the populations illiterate and economies geared largely towards supplying rich countries abroad.
What left? Liberal is not left its center. If you are a real leftist in America the FBI will have you killed. Ask Fred Hampton.
@@wilsonpatterson6729 i don’t think anyone here is arguing against this
I was beginning to get worried you were no longer producing content. This was sorely needed!
just need periodic breaks - last time i was doing this for 9 months straight!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 totally hear that! This was such a great vid, and I always look forward to your stuff.
As a side question, I haven't read Bakunin, but I keep hearing Marxists dismiss him as authoritarian. The little I know about him makes this claim sound like nonsense, but is there any credence to this claim?
@@phithinker02 yes actually - sort of - despite his anti authoritarianism when it came to the state, he had this dumb idea that you needed a secret core of revolutionaries to push the society in this or that direction - honestly i forget - it’s not like state rule, but it’s like he wants him and his clique to still have disproportionate influence - not very well thought out and rather hypocritical
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 oh, I did read about that bit from a presentation on anarchism once (by Marxists who basically were criticizing anarchism). I thought that part sounded a bit like what anarchists do with affinity groups, but maybe it really is as conspiratorial as it sounds on its face.
@@phithinker02 i remember reading it in bakunin years ago thinking wtf is this?? but last i heard it was tom obrien referenced it a few times on alpha to omega
I just watched that Lex Fridman interview a few hours ago and I also noticed Professor Wolff dodging that key question.
yeah it really stands out given that he’s probably been asked that question hundreds of times over the years!
What a good breakdown. You have a real talent for clarity of speech and a teacher's understanding of how to explain topics. Great stuff!
thank you that’s exactly what i’m aiming for!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 🤣
What you’re doing here is really great! Very clear. And very well thought out. Thanks!
My theories, as a non-communist who has started to lose trust in capitalist thought, from most forgiving to least forgiving theories:
1. Communist countries were too weak to survive as democracies due to foreign political meddling and wars
2. Communism is difficult to manage as a democracy, because having the state control so much is very difficult and complicated
3. It's impossible to create a power structure which can manage communism without it being easily exploited by those hungry for power
4. Communist governments were all just a deception against the working class, and the people should have just unionised and opted for liberal democracy to liberate themselves from the capitalist class
Watch the video! Good analysis, though. You don't know much, but you're understanding the key points with Marxism-Leninism.
I like your perspective on it! I'm a Marxist but I find hearing your perspective at this early radicalization stage and perspective nice to see
State control is just a different monopoly. And thus doesn't change the factors Marx was pointing out as a problem. In fact it exacerbates the one he missed... it gives the regulatory agencies a perverse incentive to not regulate.
Way to go, I've been missing you. Thanks for all the hard work, this is an awesome presentation, and I mean I do feel awe at how clear you make this.
thanks - wait till you see the next one!
This is a fantastic video, top tier education, especially with the bibliography. Really amazing work, thanks so much.
Jesus Christ this video is cathartic to watch. I’ve been trying to explain to people for ages that Soviet-style “communism” would be better described as “Leninism” and that the vast majority of “Communist” revolutions throughout history based their ideologies either directly on the writings of Lenin, or indirectly through the writings of others, who were themselves heavily influenced by Lenin, and I have repeatedly been called an idiot for it.
I’m bookmarking this video and using it in place of my own explanations from now on, because you’ve done a way better job than I ever have or could at making this subject accessible for the layman.
You’ve got a new subscriber in me, I’m really looking forward to watching the rest of your videos.
thanks! yes this take for some reason is very rare, though it’s been around since the beginning. hopefully i can help it become *the* main take!
youre awesome man thank you for such insightful commentary. I also loved your commentary on the wisdom of Kandiaronk and how it showed that indigenous people werent just dumb savages but were also intellectuals in their own right and possesed so much generational shared wisdom about communal living and social hierarchies. Ive gotten so much insight into literature I only knew superficially or referencially before because of your videos so thank you
I stumbled upon your channel about a month ago, and I just want to say it's probably the most well-written and thought-out content in all of the so-called "breadtube" (I kinda like the Kropotkin reference of the name, ngl). If I have to single out one quality of these videos it's NUANCE. Going back to the sources, to evidence, to understanding the complexities of our political life, taking the time to dismantle ideas to expose its cogs and pieces; that's a huge lot of work and a huge love for politics and for humankind.
Thanks, and greetings from South America.
haha thanks - ironically the david graeber fanatics always yell at me YOU’RE MISSING ALL THE NUANCES!!!
This has to be the best explonation/breakdown of socialism/communism I've ever heard, keep up the good work!
The real answer is that in Communist Manifesto, Marx literally instructed that you need a dictatorship to steer the country to communism. Then once communism had been established the government would give power back to the people.
Well, turns out dictators always conveniently forget this final step and never willingly give up their power.
The fact Marx didn't think this through should be telling enough.
that’s actually not right (you guys need to watch the videos before commenting!!) - the word dictatorship didn’t have the same meaning in the 19th century as today - what marx meant by “dictatorship of the proletariat” was “dominance of the proletariat” - the regime that he described as the dictatroship of the proletariat in other works was clearly supposed to be democratic for workers.
lenin also thought this up until after the revolution - the next episode will talk about what changed his mind
Great video. I've been studying these topics for a number of years now and it is obvious you have done your homework--keep up the good work!
yeah i had to read 10x as much as i wanted to, especially for the forthcoming epsiode, that i’m still reading for…
Communism was tried multiple times before Soviet Union and always failed. The 1st Communist community was New Harmony, Indiana in the 1800s. New Harmony failed in 18 months, people started to starve, no one wanted to put in their fair share, they ended up leaving. Every attempt since has been as bad or worse.
communism was the main system on planet earth among humans from when we emerged as a species around 300,000 years ago until 5000 or so years ago… lots of mini “communist” agricultural colony experiements failed because it only works in certain conditions. also those communities usually weren’t democratic to begin with, so that’s not communism.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 And look how far we’ve come since 3000 BC
@@wingsofwindxd2403 in some way, certainly, in other ways, we’ve gone backwards
I have so thoroughly enjoyed this series!
I'm a gen psych undergrad pleb, and I chose that major largely due to the influence of a certain, lobsteresque, PhD doctor professor 🥴
Nonetheless, in the years since that time, to say that I have learned much, from various disciplines, and completely dismantled my previously prevailing worldviews, would be an understatement..
Well-written and accessible, critical, scholarly content like this has proven absolutely crucial to my endeavors to study, and to deliberate, and to hold meaningful discussions with people.
Thank you very much for your hard work, comrade.
Sincerely,
A Long-Disillusioned Lobster
honestly, even though i disagree with so much of it, and think he’s partly lost his mind, peterson is a lot of fun to listen to so can’t blame you! glad you’re enjoying my work!
@WHATISPOLITICS69 I recall a classroom lecture where he correctly identified the left/right, equality/hierarchy dichotomy, and simply proceeded to justify existing hierarchy.
Then he turned fanatic/grifter. Anyhoo, yes, keep doing your thing! You're helping to facilitate real discourse, and it's appreciated
I have a question, isn’t one of the biggest reasons that we don’t really have egalitarian societies anymore war? It seems to me that egalitarian societies have a disadvantage when it comes to war and therefore unless all societies are egalitarian there will always be non egalitarian societies that end up overpowering. Also it should be unstable to have all societies be egalitarian because of this disadvantage since there is always the incentive to be able to gain more resources thru war and therefore to be more suited to war
Oooh, excellent question
First thing to note to keep in mind, is that the formula for hierarchy is that you need some people to be able to control access to resources that other people need to survive. I talk about this in my anthropology and dawn of everything episodes.
War is always hell, but but it’s a double edged sword when it come to egalitarianism.
On one hand, when you’re being attacked it’s a good excuse to concentrate power and increase authoritarianism because the population will tolerate more than in normal times. So there’s always that tendency for that to happen - and sometimes it’s for efficiency at defence, and often it’s an excuse to concentrate power, and very often it’s both, kind of like how supply chain inflation is an excuse for companies to raise prices on products that have no supply chain inflation.
On the other hand, war creates a big chunk of the population who knows how to use weapons and who has a high degree of solidarity. And the sacrifices made by the general population generate a high sense of entitlement for more of a share of resources because they just saved the elites’ asses. And they now know how to use guns. There are also spillover effects for womens’ equality because they take over a lot of production and meet eachother and form coalitions with which they can advocate for their rights.
WWI was a huge factor in women’s suffrage, WWII was a huge factor in creating welfare state in the US and west, constant wars in ancient athens is what created the democracy there, war in spain made the anarchist revolution possible, even though it didn’t survive, WWI is what made the russian revolution possible, even though the second revolution turned into dictatorship and failed.
So it depends on circumstances - war is often an excuse for concentration of power, but it’s also one of the biggest factors in creating more egalitarianism.
. 42 socialist countries that failed.
th-cam.com/video/eup1vMSL1Ik/w-d-xo.htmlsi=RnbZU9b57W7XEEzI
45:30 "...they start talking about the working class as if it's some kind of giant horsey that they can ride into power on." 😂 so true
Thats their only purpose in socialism. They dont really give a shit about them
Great to see another video by you! I hadn’t seen one for awhile and was afraid u had stopped. I’m 50 pages into dawn of everything and really enjoying it so far.
thanks! i needed a break after working on it 9 months straight - and yes as much as i criticize it, it’s very stimulating and a good read
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 that’s very understandable lol it seems like you work really hard on these. I’ll be joining your Patreon
@@cheezew1zz thank you, im always blown away that people want to give me their money
This is really well made, I look forward to your future work.
Well made, not well thought
Some of your best work yet, which is really saying a lot. Keep up the outstanding work, you're a truly phenomenal thinker and communicator.
Really well done, appreciated all the deep cuts on lesser known figures. Cobrahhhhhh
we all know gijoe were the imperialist bad guys in real life!
Main flaw is that you don't analyze the context and how international pressure affects the decisions in socialist countries. You only mentioned how Salvador Allende was overthrown by a dictator backed by US but failed to stress how widespread this is. Cuban revolution has been under constant harassment and pressure by the US government and under strict economic sanctions that also shape the decisions made in its government. The same applies to other socialist countries or others where ideas are born which are not aligned with what imperialism expects. Other than this, I found the video very interesting and looking forward to seeing the sequel, since here you didn't answer the question. Maybe later you will give international pressure the role it deserves
yes you’re right - you’re also the ONLY person (out of like 5 millions furious maniacs) who made this critique without insulting me!
and yes, i think i’ll mention it a little next time. I didn’t include it because it’s often just an excuse - like it’s very real, and pushes all regimes towards authoritarianism, but since lenin they were inventing imaginary saboteurs and secret whites as enemies to blame for all protest.
As soon as I am able I will become a supporter. I would like to read the books you have read. I have some ideas about how to change our society to one without inequality. I'll get back to you on that.
thank you! i will talk about that more in the future, but it’s going to be very general ideas, i have no detailed blueprint, and i don’t think anyone can really have one at this point
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I’m a software engineer without benefit of degree. I’ve make 6 figures and worked at Walgreens. Also I studied philosophy, mostly interested in the analytical. So I’ve seen the low and the high. I’m pretty motivated for the many and weak and against the few and the strong.
I just re watched your latest video about socialism and I can’t tell you how re impressed I am with it.
Much better than I expected, good job and thanks for this video
The economic calculation problem has been reduced to an infantile talking point that is just from a lack of researching the actual issue. I'm glad that you touched on this very briefly and pointed out that there are very well laid out solutions. However, for anyone actually interested in getting in the weeds on the economics of the presence or absence of markets and centralization of economics I would highly recommend searching out Paul Cockshott. He breaks down these issues with ease, although beware if you're not in love with economics you'll be asleep in a matter of minutes.
thanks - i haven’t done a deep dive into it myself, but i’d like to do an episode on it - i linked to cockshott in the bibliography, found out about him from alpha to omega
The idea that the solution of this problem is "computer" is technological solutionism in its dumbest form.
@@sacha9593 well, I personally never said it was but I find it funny the level of pretentiousness one has to have to say we have super computers that can perform unheard of calculations and physics models but it couldn't come close to pretty accurately modeling small scale supply chains and gradually work in higher levels of inputs directly from individual areas of the market to the point of being able to pretty closely determine day to day economic adjustments. Especially considering the fact that we already have "markets" that do this to a smaller degree that are the size of the Soviet union at its highest point.
@@sacha9593 the problem is that you need a huge number of inputs in realtime to calculate demand and preferences over fast timeframes - “computer” does exactly that.
“computer” solves all kinds of problems, which is why “computer” was invented. “wrench” also solves lots of problems. so does “calculator”
The pretentiousness is thinking you can manage the whole economy using computers while implicitly comparing people preferences to particules in some "physic models".
this was a really interesting video, I disagree on a lot of the things said but I appreciate the different points of view, the good explanation and some new informations
thanks i appreciate that! don’t be afraid to cite your disagreements, it helps me know what things to address (or if i made any important mistakes!)
Just found your channel today in the morning, been thinking about this shit all day dude. Thank you!
thanks, hope you get a lot out of it!
So glad I stumbled onto your channel, this was an excellent video.
this was excellent. can't wait for part 2!
Great video as always! Thanks for your obviously well researched work.
some of it decently researched but . . . unfortunately quite a bit of room for improvement
If there's no difference between communism and socialism, then (by your logic) there should be no difference between those two terms and "social democracy" since they were all used interchangeably by everyone including Marx, Engels and Lenin until later in the 1920s(?).
In fact, all these definitions have never been static. They are always evolving depending on the material (or environmental) conditions they're trying to explicate.
Entertaining video, as always.
thanks - you can always use language any way you want - i’m choosing to stick with the 19th century use (socialism is the broader term, and communism is more specific) because i think that’s just a much more productive way of thinking about it. when you have competing definitions, you have to pick one, or invent a new one…
see episode 4 for more on that, how i choose terms, and why etc
Please do more of these!!!
thanks! yes part two coming up next!
Nice presentation. It's refreshing to see someone on TH-cam articulate their position in a thoughtful manner.
Looks like your channel is about to finally blow up like it deserves to. We need more in-depth original analyses like yours. Everything else on left tube has become very repetitive.
You and Luna Oi are my favourites
yeah, i really want to break out of everyone just mindlessly copying 100 year old political identities and turning socialism and communism and anarchism into new identity groups…
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 The clarity with which you present these is impressive. I suppose that is difference between knowledge and understanding.
Congratulations on 20K views! I hope your content reaches millions
@@paranoah1925 thanks - and i need to check out luna oi, never heard of them - and wow i never imagined the marxist leninist kids would get so upset at this…
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I would strongly suggest you approach Luna Oi's work with a veeeery critical eye. In my opinion, she is one of the classic ML types who tout nationalistic dictatorships as communism and twist almost every point of Marxist ideology to fit into their authoritarian framework. I wouldn't even consider her a socialist.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Luna Oi is anti democracy
Wow this was amazing and totally my strain of thought that doesn't get talked about so much you feel like you're being gaslighted
I am 16 and I found this video to be deeply insightful about things like communism and socialism, im barely learning about a lot of these more radical ideas so your channel has been great at helping me understand these ideas and politics as a whole so thank you for making these videos they are amazing.
thank you! since you’re new at it, make sure not to trust me entirely and to get all different points of view on this stuff!
Awesome video. I clicked on it anticipating a McCarthyist screed or whatever, and was like hey! Great stuff, thanks.
you got baited by the clickbait…
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I think it's pretty smart, honestly. No force on earth has done more damage to communism than communists ("communists.") Maybe this goes some way in resolving the perception problem.
@@5ivearrows yes i agree, and that’s my aim - thanks!
@@5ivearrows If the video helps convince you to turn your back on centuries of massive successes by the blood sweat and tears of workers and communists alike. Was it really that different than a McCarthist screed? The result is the same: you are enabling capitalism.
Thanks for this! I absolutely adore your videos.
Great analysis, brother. Thank you for your time and patience. You have earned a subscriber.
These countries are state capitalism not communist countries
Lmao
Technically true, but communism cannot be achieved by humans.
"Real communism has never been tried before"
Every. Single. Time. 🙄
Communism is not a thing that can be established in a day!!! It will take time.
Coping mechanism kicks in lmfao
thanks for the learning daniel!
the explanation of petty bourgeois helped me put a few thoughts in line finally, i think.
i think everyone is born with a so called 'left or right' lean, but it's fairly weak and because most people dont study politics or think about it all that much it remains undeveloped, and therefore everyone can be pushed and pulled and manipulated in whatever direction. but! on top of that is material conditions, which can over ride *any* innate personality traits or manipulations/persuasions. and so you have the rural plumber that is coded 'working class' culturally but is actually bourgeois and whose material conditions push them to adopt conservative 'values'.
yes! and yes, i think people have sort if innate liberal vs conservative dispositions, and that PR political industry preys on this, but it’s style not policy. people with conservative dispositions often support left policy - like traditionally all those kansas quasi socialist farmers etc.
It is genetic? 😁 That's not very leftist
@@pinguinocomentador9743 haha, i said that people have liberal or conservative innate dispositions, but that’s not why they are socialist or capitalist or fascist or right wing or left wing - many socialist revolutionaries had conservative dispositions! those dispositions today track with mainstream left and right because of PR industry
you're fucking insane and I hope you stay far away from normal people
You for one, are sure as shit bourgeois.
@@cole8834 what’s this all about?
Thank you for adressing the question instead of trying to deflect. It gives greater context to other problems that arose in communist countries. Subbed.
see the next episode 11.1 where i start getting into the background of what happened in russia
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 thank you!
Wow. This was incredibly informative thanks so much.
Most countries that have embraced communism were never stable democracies and russia for example went from serfdom to communism; meaning most of the population had zero choice in the matter.
It should be noted that there are just as many cases in history of far right totalitarian takeovers as so called leftist varieties and in such cases quite often it was modern democracies that were and are taken over by the fascist right wing governments, not backwards poor countries.
yes, the countries that adopted marxist-leninism were all poor 3rd world countries rebelling against imperialism (aside from the warsaw pact countries), whereas the fascist coups were mostly alliances between the ruling elites with the fascist parties to stop the growing power of urban workers and socialist parties
According to Anarchist though this is a prime example for why the unity of means and goals is so important, seizing the state still reproduces the state as a power structure and creates a new class who have a vested interest of keeping the state alive, just with a change of flavour. actually abolishing the state requires you to not wait for the revolution but start building alternative power structures right now.
Network within your region and actively do it based on Democratic principle and preventing hierarchies to establish, those networks we build now are our best hope for the future, IF there is a sudden change (collapse or revolution) and those networks are not already in place, someone else will grab power.
The Italian word for employee is "dipendente", which, surprisingly, means "dependent".
amazing, that’s even more clear and degraded than the word “employee!”
Absolutely incredible, thank you! I kept hearing tiny pieces of this part of history from other channels, and even sought out more content on it and kept getting dead ends! As always, looking forward to the next part!
thanks! I made it because i felt like no one seems to have put it together in this way before
You forgot Trudeau and Arden in the thumbnail
@@paulatreides0777 but she’s such a babe
Cuba wasn't marxist leninism before USA, trough its brutal and unjust sanctions, forced Cuba in to the pocket of the USSR.
There is a reason why Fidel Castro didn't admit to being marxist leninist until after they hade to rely completely on the USSR for trade.
The imperialism of the cold war screwed many socialist countries.
yes i agree
Hey Daniel, great video as always. Thank you for your hard work. Think I learned a few things but for sure will get much more out of it when rewatching and reading the comments.
Meanwhile, there's two things I'd like to ask you:
-How do you see your chances of appearing on Lex Friedman's podcast? I've seen a few episodes (none about politics, I believe) and liked them a lot. That exposure could do a great deal to help your channel grow. Any idea of how to get noticed and brought on as a guest?
-Is it possible for your viewers to contribute translated captions? Non-English-speaking folks, too, would benefit _a lot_ from this content. I have always loved translating Eng-Spa and I might get some free time in the coming weeks, so who knows what could happen 😄
haha, i’d love to be on lex fridman, but i think the chances are zero for anytime soon - i actually think he’d find this series interesting, but i don’t see how he’d ever hear of it unless one of my viewers is friends with him or something! i think the channel would have to be like 10x at bigger at least to have a chance of him hearing about it.
I really should be asking viewers/listeners who have hookups with bigger producers to recommend my stuff to them - the best thing that happened to the channel so far is when saint andrew mentioned one of my videos on his chat section, i suddenly doubled my audience overnight
also i’m a housing lawyer, not a professional anthropologist or historian etc, so there might be an element of not being taken seriously.
if you want to translate episodes that’s amazing - i have one guy putting out brazilian portuguese versions of the videos - if you want to make spanish captions and let me know how to add those to the videos that would be amazing, you can contact me by email and we’ll figure it out
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Well, we can only keep trying to give you a boost. I just linked this video on a comment in Fridman's Wolff interview. Hope at least some of his listeners give your material a shot.
A while back, anyone could contribute their captions to videos that allowed it, but it seems that's not the case anymore. According to this video by YT itself, there's a few ways to add captions, but all have to be done from your account.
th-cam.com/video/rB9ql0L0cUQ/w-d-xo.html
Maybe I could write a translated transcript and mail it to you. I'll think about it until I actually have free time to do the translating and then contact you. If you have any other idea, let me know over here.
Wish you good health, rest, joy, and prosperity. See you around!
@@drarp same to you! and yes, you can send it to me and i can do it if you give me instructions - the amount of shit i have to do to post these and the audio versions and then respond to all the arguments - on top of actually making the videos and researching them is insane! so i want it to be as easy as possible for me! but very interested in having spanish and other versions
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 By the way, where can I find the Portuguese versions of your videos?
@@drarp hey - i made a mistake - the guy is translating them onto a blog - so it’s not the video - so far he’s done episode 4 only, but he plans to do the dawn of everything series and others: ominhocario.wordpress.com/2022/10/24/como-as-definicoes-politicas-moldam-a-realidade/
I’ve finally fully caught up with all your content. I find it very valuable, as good articulations of the “perspective from the left” are sorely missed from public understanding/discourse.
Thanks for your work, and I hope you keep it up. I’ll be recommending your channel every chance I get.🙂
thank you!
Vietnam may be the one exception to being a full dictatorship. It was able to avoid Stalinism for geopolitical reasons.
vietnam has more freedoms in some respects - you can leave when you want or move away - my friend moved TO vietnam from USA to start a university and is happy there - but the average worker can’t elect the top leadership, and neither can the rank and file party member, so it’s still a dictatorship. they’ve accomplished a lot despite the american war, but they still aren’t approaching the goals of socialism, so that’s what we’re looking at with this question.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Makes sense
@@anubis2814 btw, im not sure if it’s the same in vietnam, but cuba has excellent democracy at the local level, for fixing street signs, building a school, etc. much more than USA or western countries - but still zero democracy at the level of leadership
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks, I was wondering about the truth about that. Several pro-communist podcasters have said that Cuba has excellent democracy because of their local elections, but I felt like there was more to the story. Cuba luckily came into communism under Khrushchev so didn't get Stalinism, but was confused as to why Cuba and Vietnam were considered dictatorships, which pretty fair local elections.
BTW been digging into a lot of the confusion around community, as it appears to be something that neo-liberalism destroyed and why anarchism seemed ridiculous for the longest time and without a social revolution repairing community and teaching how to make it work sustainably anarchism really is a fools errand but most anarchists I know only talk about "the" political revolution but are neo-liberals when it comes to community.
th-cam.com/play/PLzgsBSEiEgLicP7NueALmKby4MoDtDItE.html
I made a playlist on the topic of videos I made. If you get the time check it out and add or correct any confusion I may have. Being on the spectrum and living in neo-liberal communities, healthy sustainable community people always talk about is nebulous to me and confusing, and a complete blind spot in my understanding but it appears I'm not alone in this or there would be more of those communities out there.
Cuba has elections though. People still call it a dictatorship. While a single party state, people can still choose between different people from the party.
Most democracies, like the USA, only have a “Pretense of democracy”
yes, all the Marxist-Leninist states had elections. But they are all one party states where decision making is concentrated in a small group of people and where there is normally little or no workplace democracy and where workers have very little or no input on the major policies of the country, and where the individual freedom of workers is severely curtailed (like people can’t even emigrate in most countires) in sharp contrast to the goals of socialism.
Yes there is some measure of democracy at the local level (like Cuba has more local democracy than the US probably) but it’s still a dictatorship.
Ironically we are so used to the cartoon idea of a dictatorship meaning one crazy guy with a chest full of military decorations making literally all the decisions, that we think that because there are elections (where candidates are controlled by the leadership, who also control almost everything else of national importance) that this means there is a vibrant democracy…
The more important point is they have no workplace democracy, which is the whole point of socialism.
And yes, capitalist democracies are not very democratic and they are also corrupt - but that’s a whole other story.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 That makes sense. Thanks for the reply.
Very good point about workplace democracy. I'm a big supporter of that. Through the workplace experience and the union it become obvious to me that not only would be more fair to have workplace democracy, it would also be more productive and efficient.
@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan yes, most often when workplaces switch to cooperatives, they get more productive, they raise wages and lower costs for consumers. the world could be such a better place with changes like this.
and historically that was the big aim of socialism - to end the employee/employer relationship and the landlord/tenant relationship
Damn, I clicked expecting a hit-piece on leftism considering the title, so that was a pleasant surprise. You should try making the titles sound anti-leftist when possible, it will draw more views to the video from the moderate and even rightist people. Top shelf theory lecture that still covers a lot of the basics, if not all of them, so it's already accessible to the moderates. I'm more of a Marxist than an anarchist and the video gives me a lot of food for thought.
thanks, i appreciate that! and yes, that’s what i’m going for, trying to reach out to people who aren’t familliar with this stuff at all, and get them to understand what socialism is, while also trying to get people who do have more knowledge to think about what mistakes not to make in the future
Just another delusional prick that cannot accept how communism NEVER worked.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I would suggest that the majority of those either referred to as the left, or that give themselves that label, have very little idea what socialism/communism/libertarianism/anarchism mean. That includes most of Leftube too unfortunately. Or am I being unfair?
Anyways, we have you and Lucky Black Cat to provide good information. I’m not really aware of other many other channels that are currently doing so. My comrade, Martin Wright, has a channel called Red and Black TV who posts two minute videos every morning commenting on current affairs with a strong and rather sneering polemical style and an extreme rejectionist insurrectionary narrative. It’s really juicy stuff. If you’re interested I’ll select some choice items from his back catalogue. Do you have a public email? If not I can get them to you via LBC, I don’t do social media.
Finally, great work mate, super high quality video.
@@Libertarian606 hi thanks - i give my email at the end of the video, check the last two minutes or so - i haven’t seen any LBC videos lately, i need to check, maybe the algorythm just buried her from my feed, so annoying!
@@namedasurname3968 your mamma never worked
As we fracture into ourselves the ones who hold themselves together will hold the world.
thank you so much for explaining such basic tenets of socialism/communism and its history this is what we need
glad you’re finding it useful!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Hey,I wanted to know your opinion on this. You think social democracy is leftist? Where would you place it in the political spectrum
@@lalitthapa101 well the political spectrum is relative so it’s relative to the centre, which i guess is the sort of average of where power lies - so social democracy is on the left if you’re looking at the US, but it’s in the centre if you’re looking at Sweden, centre left if you’re looking at France etc.
i actually hate the term social democracy because to modern ears it sort of equates capitalism with democracy - “we’re like socialisty, but democratic” which implies socialism isn’t democratic.
i think “welfare capitalism” best describes what we call social democracy.
Originally social democracy was just marxism! but it devolved over time…
A new What Is Politics video? Fuck yeah!
thanks! hope you like it, lots of people mad on reddit…
My thoughts precisely
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 which subreddit? I mean, if you want the world, or at least the country you live in, to be socialist and/or anarchist instead of capitalist with the goal of maximizing human freedom and wellbeing, we have to talk about examples of past socialisms to learn what to do and what not to do! Past experiments and Marxist-Leninist states are still one of my biggest hangups with the feasibility of socialism (I identify as one nonetheless). Where did they go wrong? What did they do well? Why dictators and shit and not mutual aid, co-ops, collective ownership, etc.?
@@theodore-gottlieb communism vs capitalism sub, and stupidpol sub - and on youtube comments! these crazy cult victims downvoted me like mad, im at like 81% now! but it’s still my most popular video at this stage of release, by like 4x.
and yes, i agree with you - the next episode is going to explore why the russian revolution failed so that we can learn from the mistakes.
Remember that one time a stateless, classless, moneyless society became a dictatorship? Neither do I.
This just popped in my feed and I'm loving it, great work!
glad to be a happy surprise!
Yo great video. Two slight nitpicks.. i dont think Marx was a proponent of the mass strike version of revolution but more a political battle. Also i think that the Czech went to a soviet style system by pressure from below afaik. They were not forced into it by the russians. Loved the video though.... T
hey tom! your praise means a lot especially when it comes to this topic!
ah, i was just projecting on to marx about the general strike, i hear about it so much that i assumed it originated in his era.
and i will have to double check on the czechs… i might have halluncinated them into a statement that I read in a book that wasn’t meant to include them…
looking forward to reading your book chapter by the way, very excited by that project!
The legitimacy of the 1948 Czech coup is still debated. The KSČ (The Czech communist party) won 38% of the vote a year before. There exist disclosed documents of Stalin urging the KSČ to seize power and the party used the Red Army as a threat when performing the coup. As far as I know, the coup was bloodless (Except for the only non-communist minister, who fell out of a window 2 weeks after the coup)
@@pyjonyr5029 super interesting thanks - that’s more or less what i had understood - there was a lot of grass roots support for marxist leninism all over europe right after WWII - but enough to sustain a revolutionary government with majority support and without the USSR enforcing it … my impression is that was only true in the poorer eastern countries like yugoslavia - but i def need to read more to know
@@pyjonyr5029 I keep telling people the solution to these problems are better designed window guards but people in Eastern Europe and Russia keep mysteriously falling out of windows. They even have a special word for it . . . defenestration.
The Dead Kennedy's also have a great version of the song Take this Job and Shove It. God I love that song. I actually prefer the twangy ass Johnny Paycheck version. I can't believe Wolfe flubbed it so badly on Lex's podcast. The answer is so simple. I'm so glad to see you with new content :) Great piece
This was so informative thank you!
Yeah cool and all but I already made a soyjack of you so I win
really glad i clicked on this video. you articulate smth that ive noticed for a while but couldnt quite put into words
especially the points about 20th century socialism being more of an attempt at industrializing and kicking out foreign nations and that a lot of marxist dont seem to conceive of a communal or local communism is smth that ive thought about a lot
Awesome insights, thanks for helping me shake off years of residual propaganda! Love the Tim and Eric reference too, ha ha.
the world is just a giant tim and eric episode to me
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Good to know that there are others out there that also have bad taste in good humor.
Lex Fridman's question is inherently fallacious; It's an appeal to nature combined with a gross oversimplification of humanity's relationship with hierarchies, which attempts to make egalitarianism synonymous with dictatorship. A fallacy + a misrepresentation does not magically make contradictory terms equivalent. Dr. Wolff's answer was just as empty of substance as the question itself, which is kind of fitting, in a depressing way.
Your video manages to transform a linguistic & logical mess into something simultaneously enlightening and entertaining, well player sir
thank you! i think lex has conflicting thoughts on it, he seems interested in the possibilities of socialism, while also being very aware of the flaws of the ML regimes
I am really glad you popped up on my feed today. I know I’ll listen to more of these videos at work lol. Definitely worth the sub and I’ll try and share your videos to my like 2 friends in convos
Great explanation of the topic! A very solid approach with ample argumentation and citing of sources. Much looking forward to the continuation of this.
This is great! It does such a good job tackling the common misconceptions and misinformation about socialism and communism. If I try to put myself into the shoes/mind of someone who believes that misinformation, I'm quite sure this video would succeed in its purpose (unless I was dogmatically attached to that misinformation). I hope the algorithm carries your video to those in need of this message (i.e. most people in the world).
Speaking of which, it's wonderful that your channel has been doing well in the algorithm lately... it's about fucking time!!! That shit is overdue. Here's hoping that trend continues.
I'm amazed at how you wove together so much information into less than one hour yet it didn't feel rushed or underexplained. And as always you make your case so smoothly and clearly.
Just one criticism on a minor point: you called the Paris Commune a communist system and said that anarchists consider it an example of what anarcho-communism could be like, but neither of those things are true.
Btw, for the first time I listened to the podcast version of the episode, but I've come to TH-cam to like, comment, and let the video play on mute for the algorithm. I never noticed before but you have a great podcast voice.
I'm excited for part 2! When do you think it will be ready?
hey, thanks - i always love hearing from you! and where’s your next video you’ve been working on stuff in secret forever now….
why do you say that about the commune? it was organized by “proudhonists” (basically anarchists) and blanquists (kind of vanguardist communists) - and anarchists often cite it as an example of what anarchism could look like. i’ve heard that a zillion times.
and it was a communist system by their own description - what do you mean by it wasn’t
this video is doing great minus being like 20% downvoted by stalinist cult kids who are giving me no rest for calling one party states dictatorships
@WHAT IS POLITICS? Yeah, my long upload absence is causing me big anxiety. I've been working on six videos, and I've basically finished five of them (a couple need some finishing touches). The final video I'm working on will be the first one that I release, it's a behemoth that will probably be like two and a half hours long.
The Paris Commune never got around to transforming the economy, which remained capitalist. There were some workers' co-ops created, but the majority of the means of production stayed under control of capitalists.
As for the political structure, my memory of it is kind of hazy, and I'm not super well informed, but I don't think it would qualify as anarchist.
The Paris Commune was a working-class revolution, though, and had strong democratic tendencies, as well as many anarchists and socialists involved in it, so of course anarchists are supportive of the Paris Commune and have a mostly positive view of it. But not as being an anarchist society, but rather as something which had great potential.
I'm not surprised there are anarchists saying it was an anarchist society but my guess is that in most cases they're not sufficiently informed on the Paris Commune and are just going by vague descriptions.
Paris Commune had neighborhood assemblies and elected recallable delegates. Anarchists advocate that delegates stay in communication with the assembly that they're delegated from, in order to receive guidance, direction, and clear mandates. But it seems the delegates in the Paris Commune tended to act more like representatives, just doing their own thing. I'm not saying this was the case for every delegate and I'm not even sure if that level of detailed information is available. I haven't studied the Paris Commune in depth so I could be wrong but this is my impression from what I've learned, that the delegates behaved quite independently from the assemblies, that there was a disconnection.
The official Commune government was a mix of authoritarian socialists (Blanquists), mutualist anarchists, and republicans. There was tension between those who wanted to boost the more democratic and grassroots power and those who wanted more centralized top-down authority in a small committee. These tensions never really resolved themselves as the Commune was crushed after a couple months. I think by the end of it there were even two different power groups (one of them the more authoritarian) each claiming to be the government? But I forget.
Btw, I think all the downvotes are a good sign. It means the algorithm is bringing your video beyond the echo chamber and you have a greater chance of changing minds rather than preaching to the choir.
@@LuckyBlackCat the downvotes are all marxist leninist kids though, so i don’t know if that’s “outside the bubble” in the sense i was looking for! just another more ridiculous bubble… i think i need to make tik toks to reach normal people cause only crazy people like us watch hour long videos…
ok i see what you mean about the commune - and yes, that’s all accurate, and i knew that, but i call it “communist” in the sense that that’s what they were going for, but didn’t have time to get there with the economics, and the political structure was representative, but like you described recallable delegates etc, a bit similar to the early soviets - ive heard many anarchists cite it as an example of a stateless society, and marx talks about the communards approvingly as having smashed the state from the getgo etc.
but yes you’re right
jeez 6 part series and 2.5 hours long first installment! no wonder you’ve been on the DL! can’t wait to see what you’re concocted!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks! Most of the videos will be shorter than that though, lol.
I was thinking more about the theory that Communist Party led revolutions after the Russian one were mainly interested in economic development and national independence than in communism. I'd never heard the theory before but it immediately made intuitive sense. So initially it felt like a light bulb moment for me. But then I considered it a bit more and started to think that perhaps this theory is overgeneralizing a mere tendency within these revolutions. I'm sure that the members of these Communist Parties were diverse in their political goals, and that there were certainly genuine communists among them. That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if development out of poverty and national independence were the foremost goals for a large portion of members, perhaps even the majority. But I'd be cautious about overstating this. To reach a firm conclusion you'd have to do an opinion survey on the members of these parties, or at least their leaders, and I doubt that kind of research was ever done.
So basically, I think it's a good theory so long as it's not overstated.
Dude, still the Gold Standard! Thanks!
you’re welcome - coincidentally i’m listening to “paranomia” by art of noise, featuring max headroom as i read this comment!
The first time as a communist to hear someone who knows the facts! Very good analysis!
Now I listened to the whole hour. Marx wrote much more about capitalism than how a socialist society would look like. We still say this to this day: how would socialism look like in (insert country here)? Nobody knows, the development always depends on the material conditions.
The difference between utopian and scientific socialism is an important one. The utopian socialism has been tried and didn't work, that is planing something first on one's head and then trying to apply it. I don't think Marx and Engels meant to sound bitchy and snob when explaining the difference between the two :P
I'm so excited for the next episode. I really want to hear what you have to say about Lenin.
On another note, isn't TH-cam putting ads on any video nowadays, even if you turn them off? I have TH-cam Premium so I don't know. If it is true you should turn the monetization on.
I think it really was a libertarian impulse based on his theoretical understanding. For Marx, imo, socialism was an emergent process due to the concrete practices of the organized working class attempting to build a free classless society in accordance with their current local conditions. This necessarily meant an open ended approach, instead of a one size fits all schema.
Now i do think more generally applicable rules, a sort of framework for developing 'best practices' for socialization can be and needs to be developed. Which is why I got interested into looking into cybernetics as giving a general framework to theoretical and workout oraganization problems that will vex socialists as they did before.
i think some non monetized videos have ads - like if you’re doing cover songs or have copyrighted material. but i watch many videos that have no ads, so i assume it’s that way with mine. if anyone sees ads on my videos let me know
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 have not seen any
@@darecarrasquillo good! thanks!
I'm so glad I found your channel, please do the second part of this vídeo.
ive ben working on it for 4 months straight… hopefully it will be out tomorrow
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I see I subscribed at the right time! On the meantime I'll be binge watching all your other videos.
Found you on the bread tube subreddit. I quite enjoyed the video and look forward to the next part.
thank you!
I love your videos, and this is an instant classic. I've already shared it.
thanks, love to hear that!
Thank you for an intelligent take on this matter.
Amazing thank you so much! This is such a generous and detailed introduction to these things and I'm so glad I stumbled across it :)
thank you! i never thought of the videos as “generous” - but i guess it makes sense in terms of how much time they take etc - appreciated!
This is such a great video I am definitely sharing this to all my friends!
thank you mr president!
The title was a little worrying. Fortunately i decided to watch this. Good video.
ha, well, we need need to reel in people who don’t already agree with us if we’re going to accomplish anything!
It’s very trendy to say communist countries were not really communist but this is revisionist. They thought they were communists and the leaders consistently used communist language and precepts.
yes, and there’s a guy on my street who insists he’s the king of england and constantly uses medieval british phrases and concepts, but he just has bipolar disorder…
the point of the video is to understand why the communist countries deviate so distinctly from the objectives of socialism as understood before the russian revolution
@WHATISPOLITICS69 You're being disgeneous here.
You basically ask why reality is different from idealized propaganda. When you state question like this, the answer is quite simple.
The same question you could direct towards feudalism: why theory of noble god-given rulers taking care of simple men differ from reality of hereditary military landlords.
It would be pretty dishonest to call the revolution in Spain ‘crushed’ by the USSR. They were wholly dependent on the USSR for logistics and materiel. They operated with a centralised, military authority, but did not want the USSR to have a stake in decision making.
the anarchists didn’t have a centralized military - they had decentralized democratic militias where they elected their commanders. orwell noted that the republican military commanders were shocked that these militia were actually effective, but they were. the russian revolution armies had a similar structure until trotsky forced them back into normal hierarchy.
In spain the anarchists collectivized the trains, the ambulances, the telephone companies, many factories, and also most of the agriculture in the areas where they worked. unlike USSR it was direct democratic control at the local level, and delegates to coordinate activities at the wider levels. i.e actual socialism, actual dictatorship of proletariat.
the USSR forced the anarchists to dismantle ALL of this in exchange for weapons which they badly needed.
so yes the USSR crushed the revolution, even before the fascists won the war.
many report that the anarchists lost the will to fight once the revolution was gone, and blame this for losing the war, though i think at the end of the day they were just outgunned by the fascists.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Orwells account of the spanish civil war is what made me initially consider socialism. Terrific work of literature.
Aside from anything, what is the soundtrack? Surprisingly interesting!
it’s all me! most of it is up on starsixnine.bandcamp.com and the stuff that isn’t there yet will be…
Great video! I learned a lot in a short time, hope to see more on this comrade.
Hey fellow kid! It's been so long that I had time to radicalize myself.
No, Soviet Russia, Mao's China, Cuba etc. are not dictatorships. There are proof of how democratic they were/are.
Those countries were never communists. We never achieved Communism (yet) but these countries are a great example of what Socialism can do, despite the pressure of imperialist countries. Now, after a socialist revolution one does not simply end all the contradictions.
You are free to disagree with me, of course. But when I look at Soviet Union, a country with no industry, basically still a feud that manage to win the Second World War and send the man to the Moon without colonizing other countries (that's very important) and in the middle of dirty propaganda and embargoes I see a very successful experience. I'm not trowing the baby with the bath water out of the window.
Plus Khrushchev lied.
The video never contested the rapid economic development of Russia and other countries that emulated the Russian model. But to deny that those were dictatorships seems quite silly. The leader of a dictatorship has no limits to his own power and that, it seems quite obvious to me, very accurately describes the socio-political and economic systems of the aforementioned countries.
Additionally, the video put the "communist" in quotes to denote that those countries are self-styled like that, or at least that they were ruled by communist political parties.
So I'm not sure if you just didn't watch the video or your comprehension skills are somewhat impaired.
@@cunjoz aren't you just so kind?
And intelligent since you read all about democracy and representativeness in socialist experiences.
@@communistpinkcat Hey you're the one who just asserted that the "communist" countries weren't actually dictatorships without any supporting argumentation, basically doing a "no u" to the video.
I at least compared those countries with the common definition of dictatorship. If you can contest that, feel free to do so.
the marxist leninist states had/have some degree of democracy - local affairs, professional organizations etc. but all major policy is monopoly of the CP and deviations are supressed.
and these countries are not socialist or communist. lenin changed the definition of socialism in state and revolution, but socialism always meant workers control their workplaces and political life, not party control
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 how come not? Socialism is the independence and emancipation of the working class and when the working class has ownership of the means of production.
Now I'm not saying that that's all and that mistakes were not made. But a new society takes years, centuries to be built. After the revolution there are still many contradictions to be dealt with.
I'm not part of the left that the right loves and will always give credit where credit is due to these experiences. There is no democracy when people are hungry. Nor when people doesn't receive good education.
This is the most accurate video of socialism on TH-cam. Amazing job! I appreciate you not glossing over market socialism which is one of the most popular ideas in the west again!
yeah i think the main problem with markets is when the participants don’t have equal bargaining power. adam smith thought the same thing. the market isn’t appropriate for everything, but it does get things where they need to go - in conditions of equality.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I think the kind of equal exchange market mutualists advocate for would be quite different though. A society without rent to proletarianize workers via dispossession, without interest to exploit borrowers, and in which cooperatives and sole proprietorships are the dominant mode of production would be vastly more free than any mass society that currently exits. If such a thing actually existed it would feel like a utopia compared to why we have now, so critcism of that kind of market sort of fall flat for me. We haven't even got to that level let alone the next level.
I think my problem with economic planning as an immediate goal is that it puts the cart before the horse. The first step should be to make sure every worker is a sole proprietor or associated in a cooperative. From there I think if workers want to form federations for planning as Proudhon suggested they could, and the abolition of commodity production could take place gradually by free association.
I think if we immediately attempt to implement planning in a hypothetical revolution it will still be far more prone to corruption than a decentralized socialist market economy. Revolutionary Catalonia had a lot of issues with this. The revolution proved that workers can self manage the means, and it proved that stateless societies can function, but I don't think it proved much in the way of planned economies. I think on that level it was a very mixed bag, and in that regard I'd much prefer the economy of the Paris Commune, which was a mutualist society not a communist society.
That's not to say Catalonia wasn't a massive improvement over what existed before, but i think if it existed long term they would have probably had to continue reverting to a market socialist economy to combat bureaucracy, with perhaps some forms of planning.
Anyway that's my two sense!
@@MrSickNoodle yes i more or less agree with most of that - i don’t know or care that much about the abolition of commodities though - at the end of the day if people are equal - and what you’re describing is a giant step in that direction - markets will work - but at the same time i think you need some elements of planning and also some methods to ensure equality between coops etc - so that the coops who are sitting on important resources don’t become dominant over others, or some dont become much richer than others etc
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 that's fair, I'm not a purist. Most world economies are mixed and I think libertarian socialism will be no different! I think some things would be better planned like healthcare, child care and education. If states can do it so can libsoc societies. I supposed I'm just critical of the idea that we must abolish all commodity production or else everyone will be horribly oppressed, I think that's a little dogmatic. I'm personally fine with workers selling goods on an equal exchange market via cooperatives or sole proprietorships. As long as there is no employer-employee relationship, no state and no landlordism all be much better off.
@@MrSickNoodle yeah i dont see any interesting reason to totally get rid of commodity production or prices, money etc
Aaand done, it took me 40 mins to realize there was no way this was going to be a 1 part thing haha.
I think there can be a little more to scientific socialism but yhea, scientific is usually used as a non deserved, self-aggrandazing adjective. I've heard some maoists recognize so, and it's frustrating how uncommon that is.
I like the balance of recognizing the achievements of 20th century revolutions while confidently calling them failures from a communist perspective.
Anyway, good stuff as always. Already waiting for part 2, and I hope I finally get someone else to listen to this podcasts, this episode seems promising en that front.
thank you! yes, i thought this might appeal to people outside of the usual bubbles.
and yes, i think calling socialism scientific makes it cultish. other socialists also had materialist understandings of revolution despite being constantly denigrated as utopians… and ultimately the USSR government took on a utopian task of trying to create socialism in the “wrong” conditions…
They are failures because they didn't turn their respective agrarian monarchies under the boot of imperialism into picture perfect utopias in a single lifetime...? Do you not realize building communism is a centuries long project, and that little to none of it has been done by the Western leftists and liberals whining in the background?
Actually Wolff's answer is an example of what I call "Bastiat's Theorem".
Here is the quote for context: “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” --Frederic Bastiat
Basically, Friedman implies that socialism is bad, so Wolff's reply implies that Friedman doesn't want any government at all, which is an insane leap to make. It's as if socialists think that socialist methods of doing things are the only methods that even exist. They know that's not true, of course. They're just being disingenuous.
As to why communist/socialist countries always turn into dictatorships, it's because they have to, in order to continue existing. Humans are individuals, and it's human nature to reject being on the receiving end of collectivist ideology--this is why you don't see anyone tunneling into North Korea, building rafts/trying to swim to Cuba, or climbing the Berlin Wall to get into East Berlin. We love to wield power--which is why such ideologies exist in the first place--but we don't like having it wielded over us. People just won't put up with it forever.
wolff wasn’t saying that fridman doesn’t want any government or civilization! just that socialism would be better than capitalism.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 According to your paraphrasing, he basically said "Well, civilization is against human nature...but surely we wouldn't want to do without civilization!" Basically that some changes are important enough to discipline ourselves for. While I maintain that socialism is not one of those changes, I'll admit my interpretation jumped the gun there. He wasn't saying that not having a socialist society is equivalent to not having a society at all...but from my end it did sound a lot like that. I guess I'm just so used to hearing Bastiat's Theorem from socialists that I tend to see it before it's there.
Great work! Clear, accurate and very accessable.
It's interesting that the "sucessfull" revolutions all happened in countries that hadn't industrialised and made the full transition to capitalism. Do you have any thoughts on why advanced capitalists societies never had successful revolutions, as would be in keeping with Marxist theory? Gramsci put the failure of revolutions occurring in advanced capitalist societies down to the cultural hegemony of the capitalist class. What are your thoughts on this? Is Gramsci not moving back towards an idealist/non-matrialist position with his theories on the power of ideology?
i think part of it is that socialists and unions got people welfare states and rights and prosperity which ironically made revolution less interesting.
i also think that because the bolsheviks ended up fucking up so badly, that it scared off peasants and working people in the rich countries.
and the USSR presenting itself as socialism, made people in rich countries not want socialism… the USSR model had something to offer for poor countries, but not rich ones.
Tankies not gonna like this one
they are furious all over reddit! i got that stupid CIA document that says stalin’s regime is a team not a dictatorship posted like 20 times already.
Interesting video. I literally JUST uploaded a video on this exact same topic. It's a loose response to vaush where I explain my view on why socialist countries go authoritarian. We disagree alot (but have some overlap). My take (that I get into on my video) is the typical ML one where I view the reason being that democratic (by liberal standards) governments are significantly less likely to be able to withstand western imperialism, and that "authoritarianism" is an unfortunate but unavoidable (and in some cases necessary) requirement for these countries to continue to exist, with me giving specific examples and general studies to try and bolster my point
Your video is interesting from an anarchist perspective though, and I think you are fairer then most. Cheers.
i’ll have to check out your video - it’s the argument all the angry ML teenagers keep yelling at me (that and china is a democracy, cuba is a democracy, stalin was a democrat…)
certainly that’s a contributing factor, but I just don’t see that as a main cause. russia for example became authoritarian during the civil war - but the civil war ended, the military threat ended, and they stayed authoritarian. nothing in their speeches even used military threat as an excuse, they just assumed the peasants were their natural enemies ,and the working class was “gone” and the only real working class left was the party etc etc.
is venezuela an authoritarian state on the level of ML states? bolivia? they faced US agression, embargo etc. they still have competitive elections.
the ML states can withstand outside force better, because a non ML communist state would have to face the US AND the USSR!
The ussr had the most impressive espionage apparatus in the world targeted at them so the idea that they could just stop the state after the Russian civil war is naive. More importantly they also had to defend themselves in general at least as a deterrent.
@@rosaconnolly3485 i didnt say they should stop the state after the civil war or before the civil war… who are you arguing with?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 states are inherently authoritarian. To put up liberal democracy on some pedestal from a one party state is silly.
Why do we need more than one party if we should collectively be working towards communism. Disagreements should be handled through discourse not factionalism.
@@rosaconnolly3485 no one put up liberal democracy on a pedestal - again, who are you arguing with? Unless your party is an organization which encompasses the entire population, and is structured in a democratic responsive fashion, then you need more than one party because parties seek their own interests and very quickly become corrupt. Very early on in the russian revolution, corruption was a problem. by the last years of lenin’s life he was dedicating all of his attention to corruption.
julius nyerere, the socialist leader of Tanzania and head of state for 30 years, instituted a system on one party democracy with competitive elections etc - but by the end, even he realized that the one party system was a recipe for corruption and advocated for it to be dismantled.
The picture of Ho Chi Minh at 7:37 is him in France. Long story short he helped found the Communist Party of France and tried to get French socialists to help him push France to leave Vietnam, but it didn't work partly because the French working class were still kind of racist. He went to the USSR later.
yes thanks - someone else pointed this out too - i thought it was russia because all the websites where i see that photo they said it was russia - but thanks, i didn’t know he helped found the french CP!