Hmm, I guess this wasn't really the purpose of this video, but in the last section, where you talk about the critique from revolutionary marxists/anarchists of this new wave of reformist democratic socialism, the thing I would add, is that the critique is not just that they will be corrupted by the new power they wield, so to speak, but also that their project is, in the end, different, aiming for, as you said, "market socialism", which is at best a more equitable form of the management of capitalism (on the account of the capitalist class as an independent class not existing), but doesn't really overcome its relations and therefore dynamics. Basically that it's not the society described in the rest of your videos, and also not really a step toward it either, because the foundation is left intact. Though of course, from a revolutionary perspective, one could say that during the struggle of self-organized workers for even just this change, the path to overcoming capitalism altogether could become visible. Not so much in the election of politicians though. Like I said, not a critique of the video, as I don't think discussing this was the purpose of it.
This idea that, through reformist democratic socialism, the path to overcoming capitalism could become visible is the exact reason I think the movement for social democratic reform is important--at least, or especially, in the US, where so many of our laws are aimed at disempowering the working class, and people are so propagandized to believe an empowered working class is not even desirable. I believe a wave of popular, successful reforms is necessary, before we as a society can even break the spell of capitalist realism and Red Scare nonsense.
The problem with d.s is that it focus on redistribution policies rather then the relations of production being that the mode of distribution is an outcome of the relations of production. Demsoc's also make the mistake of viewing legal changes, changes in the law. As the establishment of socialism not the relations of production and abolishing the Value form.
I disagree. Dem Socs are actually demanding for partial ownership of the means of production (worker representation and power at the top corporate bodies). Bernie Sanders himself sponsors and advocates for this. And i think this partial ownership is a great political foundation for combating the problems of unemployment and an increased automation of production (something that Yang's UBI cannot address). On top of that, they are also spearheading dialogues on a new form of social ethics thru campaigns such as M4A and Green New Deal, which are needed to combat the current basis of neoliberal ethics.
@@redstatesaint I think their critique is that partial (or even full) ownership of the means of production, does not yet change the relations of production and abolish the value form.
@@redstatesaint Partial owndership is still just capitalism though... by definition it means people who aren't doing the work are getting a disproportionate amount of money. That isn't socialism; it's just a re-branded form of social democracy. I'll still vote for DemSoc/SocDem candidates when given the opportunity though. I think it's fine to want to alleviate some of society's misery while waiting for an actual change to the status quo, hopefully in the form of a peaceful revolution.
If i may raise a subtle objection here (or may be a further elaboration more than an objection): I think what is required is a politics that *creates* a category called *the people* . We cannot assume that *the people* are an already existing mass in a society, whose interests (now hidden, now apparent) can be known by theory, and all that is required of us is to lift the mask off of the corrupt media, military, and mainstream political parties. As the left, we have to come to terms with the radical possibility that people can in fact desire their own repression; desire an erosion of liberty; and finally, desire fascism itself. In so many countries across the world (in the past, as well as the present) people are voting for right wing parties, and they are not doing so simply because they are being "fooled" by the media. Our societies, and relationships with both human and non-human entities is one that has structurally embedded alienation, precarity, and isolationism. These provide a breeding ground for the rise of any right wing movement. We need to build technologies (i see political organisation as a kind of technology) that give rise to and produce a sense of collective and multitudinal humanity. We need to equip people with technologies that produce particular desires, and finally kill the conditions that make fascism possible in the first place.
We very much agree. As you mention, we think that's more an addition than an objection, since it uses the 'people' in a very different sense than we do. We think the latter is one of the reasons why, among other things, we need certain kinds of prefigurative politics and why cultural struggle is important.
@@conniekousen7460 We think we're really lucky with our comments in general. Most TH-camrs we know have comment sections full of kinda terrible stuff, but ours are awesome.
today's social democracy and democratic socialism expand the real power the people have over their own lifes, but it is correct to point out that only by fundamentally changing the relations of production and the organization of the state, we can move beyond capitalism. thats why I think the idea of radical democracy should be a significant step on this path - for example bringing back some notion of sortition as f.e. David Van Reybrouck (Against Elections) or Paul Cockshott argue. and then we can go even further, but its a long struggle...the long march of the 21st century so to speak
@@freegeorgia4808 Libertarianism originally referred to anti-capitalists who wanted to abolish the state, i.e. socialists. All Communists, including Lenin, want to abolish capitalism and the state as well. _"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State"_ Lenin, State And Revolution
You, and the people you are quoting, are confusing Socialism with Communism. These political philosophies are different and their distinctions need to be recognized.
Watch the great Doc: a Batalha do Chile, it's about the Chile's experience of the Marxist president. Read about it, tells a little bit more about how a liberal democracy deals with socialist democratically in Power.
What if we formed the party to work within the current state with a voluntary representative whose role is not dictated by themself, but exclusively by the members of the party. A parallel power structure both inside AND outside of the current state, built into a politician who is absolutely bound by the votes of those who selected this person as their spokesperson. They would not be able to vote differently than the majority vote they represent.
At the end you talk about people joining to create pressure for lawmakers to change things. This seems to show that people actually do have power in the current system? Also, if corporations are all ruled by employees/state etc what incentive is there for innovation? New businesses? Invention? Problem-solving? If there is no or reduced incentive, not only is forward growth stopped or stunted, it seems like it could become a national security issue if authoritarian regimes use power to push power, progress, and dominance and gain power over democratically socialist nations.
Good video. I would however describe this as "social democracy" rather than actual "democratic socialism". Democratic socialism is also distinguished from Third Way social democracy because democratic socialists are committed to the systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, while social democrats use capitalism to create a strong welfare state, leaving many businesses under private ownership. -Wikipedia
@@truedarklander he starts talking of Corbyn and Sanders, who are definitely socdems and not socialists. Green New Deal is a socdem policy. I suppose he gets to explaining dem socialism kind of at the last fourth of the video, but most of it is just defining socialism or social democracy.
I think Bernie may very well be a demsoc at heart but I mean he would not really have a chance in American politics if he openly stated he believes capitalism is fundamentally flawed and should be replaced. His policies are definitely not very socialist. I think he may be calling himself socialist anyway because he wants to remove some the negative connotation of the word in order to make people more open to more radical changes someday?
All of these positions were created public opinion researchers and serve to empower one party/foundation or another. What do Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and Corbyn have in common? They all become more powerful and influential under this "new" order.
I wonder if you are knowledgeable of the "form-critique" of the state. As I know you're familiar with the Neue-Marx-Lectüre, which is fantastic, have you read their form-critique of the state and democracy. I'm not that familiar myself and would gladly be corrected but doesn't Heinrich, in his introduction to the critique of political economy, argue against democracy? Especially focusing on how democracy as a form _is_ the capitalist form of governance. That the semi-autonomy of political power from economic power is the optimal way of managing class conflict. And even better acting ad the _ideal total capitalist_ i.e. At least theoretically being able to act in favour of capital as such rather than the wims of individual capitalists? From his point of view, and he states this quite directly, calls for increased democracy are purely a chimera as capitalist democracy is actually democracy. And he points out how for example "more" democratic states, such as Switzerland, are hardly more radical than any less complete democracy. My point with this is not to dismiss your claims, especially as you make an interesting point in regards to democracy in the athenian sense and the liberal one, but at the same time I find it hard to belive that communism would be democratic, in the sense of having a demos that rules, rather it being the movement that abolishes the present state of affairs in favour of the free association of producers? To me, at least, would communist movement need to work against the mediation of social relations, both of production, but also of politics and society as such?
To us (and maybe we're wrong here, if so please let us know how), this looks like the kind of disagreement that essentially comes down to using the same word in different senses. On the one hand, let’s say that by A you just mean the collective self-rule of a group of people, such that a society, an institution, or whatever is 'A’ if and only if all its adult members collectively self-rule it. (This doesn't necessarily have to be an institution distinct from society as a whole, mediating between its different parts, factions, or whatnot.) That sounds like precisely something that Marx says communism will bring about, because it’s something a free association of producers will have (if they don’t, then either some one person or a minority will rule, and the association won’t be free). On the other hand, let’s say that by B you mean something like a distinct political institution like the modern state, which comes with a bunch of variations like how often you have elections, whether you can have the odd plebiscite, and so on. That sounds like something that Marx says that communism will get rid of. Now, A and B are two very different things, but they sometimes get mixed up. One reason is they sometimes get mixed up is that people often label both ‘democracy’. Another reason they sometimes get mixed up is because people wrongly think that B achieves A, which we think is empirically false (as we see e.g. in the Gilens & Page and the Schakel studies we cite). When Marxists (we think this goes for Heinrich as well) criticize ‘democracy’, they’re usually criticizing something like B, rather than A.
@@RedPlateausThank you for the great answer and great content! I think you are correct in this assessment and that the disagreement is largely based on terms. At the same time I don't think it can be reduced to it. And I would argue that while democracy can mean something else it is preferable to abandon the concept so infused with liberal-burgoise sentiment. Especially as democracy as understood is based on a methodological - individualism, rather than one that takes the totality of society as a starting point. In that regard, while I agree that the critique is primarily against A, I would, as said, argue that we can leave democracy behind in favour of saying what we want, communism.
@@theowlofminverva5592 I don't think the ancient Greeks who came up with that concept had methodological individualism yet, but I could be wrong. But yeah, then it essentially comes down to a disagreement about the usefulness of the term.
@@RedPlateaus No you're right, I would expect the concept of individual being unknown to the Greeks. What I mean is the current understanding of democracy as in capitalist modernity. But that doesn't really matter. Anyways great chat, and keep the good content going.
The concept of democratic socialism seems to be mainly used in the USA. In Europe, in countries like the Nordic countries, the concept of social democracy is rather used, to describe their system. Those countries are capitalistic societies with a big social component. So do not accept being a socialist system, as the government does not control the economy.
I really don't see Bernie as being any less capitalistic than Warren. I never here him talking about giving the means of production til a year after Warren put forth Codetermination in the workplace. Both are Social democrats by European standards.
Social democrats in Euroupe call themselves "democratic socialists" in their programs, it is basically the same thing. Not to defend Bernie Sanders but he did put forward a Löntagarfonden-like program for how labor unions should take over the economy. jacobinmag.com/2019/10/bernie-wants-you-to-own-more-of-the-means-of-production
I think Bernie is an actual democratic socialist who believes that that would have a hard time winning an election, so is focusing on the socdem stuff. I think that's power level hiding though
@@relaxationstation7634 Nope, he's a social Democrat, just like Warren. Not a bad thing. He still isn't talking about seizing the means of production. I'm for both of them but he's not a decision socialist at least in practice, he may secretly hope for communism
Well your video information is pretty close just simplified ... until I got to 10:42 and you have Senator Sanders on the screen saying "on how they are a bit hazy!" Lol too funny! You are a little hazy on your research lol ! Really! There are so many parts I don't actually blame you for not going through All of it ! 20% stoke for workers, 40% board for workers, unions if wanted 50+1 on card is Union! Community board and company participation???? Anything ring a bell yet lo! Sorry but I am getting tired of weeks of this when ALL OF THE POLICIES AND PLANS ARE PUBLIC! Cover page or in depth!!
I think there's a misunderstand about what we're referring to here. When we said said they are a bit hazy on what their socialism will look like, we're not talking about various Democratic Socialists' short- or medium-term policies. As you point out, and we agree, those are clear enough (and not only in Sanders' case). What we were instead referring to was their long-term goals. In other words, their policies and plans are public and mostly quite clear, but that's not what we're referring to as 'hazy'.
There are two sides to this coin, on one hand, it’s gonna be hard to get enough votes for socialism, on the other hand, WE AREN’T GONNA HAVE A REVOLUTION.
WE AREN'T GONNA BE ABLE TO VOTE IN SOCIALISM, revolutionary means are the only means. J.Corbyn was sabotaged through a media smear campaign and annexing from the party because he was too left wing and threatened hegemonic powers, this will be a repeating factor. Womens suffrages didn't vote to get a vote. The mass tresspassers didn't vote to be allowed to walk across our country sides. All socialist nations that have ever been didn't vote socialism into fruition, it was through organisation between the working masses in revolutionary organisations, not through bourgeois political systems
The only means to a revolution, is to take over the state bureaucratic apparatus, slowly, stealthy and methodically. And then you still will have a sizable population of the citizenry would be against socialism. They will be totally against your policies to confiscate and redistribute their property. You have to become Joey Stalin, 2.0 to put the counter revolutionaries down
@@cl5619 the only means to a revolution is to unite the people under a common cause, this means that revolution is not inherently hierarchical (as you claim) there are clear examples of revolution without the state in history such as the AANES in syria or the CNT FAI during the spanish civil war, both had/have sizable populations that revolted against their statist oppressors, and were successful (in the CNT FAI's case, only until internal sabotage from *pro-soviet* factions)
![Global Capitalism: Capitalism Turns to the Authoritarian State [July 2023]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w0c5Gfh2ZWY/mqdefault.jpg)
Hmm, I guess this wasn't really the purpose of this video, but in the last section, where you talk about the critique from revolutionary marxists/anarchists of this new wave of reformist democratic socialism, the thing I would add, is that the critique is not just that they will be corrupted by the new power they wield, so to speak, but also that their project is, in the end, different, aiming for, as you said, "market socialism", which is at best a more equitable form of the management of capitalism (on the account of the capitalist class as an independent class not existing), but doesn't really overcome its relations and therefore dynamics. Basically that it's not the society described in the rest of your videos, and also not really a step toward it either, because the foundation is left intact.
Though of course, from a revolutionary perspective, one could say that during the struggle of self-organized workers for even just this change, the path to overcoming capitalism altogether could become visible. Not so much in the election of politicians though.
Like I said, not a critique of the video, as I don't think discussing this was the purpose of it.
This idea that, through reformist democratic socialism, the path to overcoming capitalism could become visible is the exact reason I think the movement for social democratic reform is important--at least, or especially, in the US, where so many of our laws are aimed at disempowering the working class, and people are so propagandized to believe an empowered working class is not even desirable. I believe a wave of popular, successful reforms is necessary, before we as a society can even break the spell of capitalist realism and Red Scare nonsense.
Democratic socialism is the next step after Social Democracy.
The problem with d.s is that it focus on redistribution policies rather then the relations of production being that the mode of distribution is an outcome of the relations of production.
Demsoc's also make the mistake of viewing legal changes, changes in the law. As the establishment of socialism not the relations of production and abolishing the Value form.
I disagree. Dem Socs are actually demanding for partial ownership of the means of production (worker representation and power at the top corporate bodies). Bernie Sanders himself sponsors and advocates for this. And i think this partial ownership is a great political foundation for combating the problems of unemployment and an increased automation of production (something that Yang's UBI cannot address).
On top of that, they are also spearheading dialogues on a new form of social ethics thru campaigns such as M4A and Green New Deal, which are needed to combat the current basis of neoliberal ethics.
@@redstatesaint I think their critique is that partial (or even full) ownership of the means of production, does not yet change the relations of production and abolish the value form.
@@redstatesaint Partial owndership is still just capitalism though... by definition it means people who aren't doing the work are getting a disproportionate amount of money. That isn't socialism; it's just a re-branded form of social democracy. I'll still vote for DemSoc/SocDem candidates when given the opportunity though. I think it's fine to want to alleviate some of society's misery while waiting for an actual change to the status quo, hopefully in the form of a peaceful revolution.
@@Master00788They are wrong though because the whole point is to give workers ownership of the means of production.
@@t.n.3819False capitalism hires employees who have no say so within the company.
Worker Coops are democratic in nature.
If i may raise a subtle objection here (or may be a further elaboration more than an objection):
I think what is required is a politics that *creates* a category called *the people* . We cannot assume that *the people* are an already existing mass in a society, whose interests (now hidden, now apparent) can be known by theory, and all that is required of us is to lift the mask off of the corrupt media, military, and mainstream political parties.
As the left, we have to come to terms with the radical possibility that people can in fact desire their own repression; desire an erosion of liberty; and finally, desire fascism itself. In so many countries across the world (in the past, as well as the present) people are voting for right wing parties, and they are not doing so simply because they are being "fooled" by the media. Our societies, and relationships with both human and non-human entities is one that has structurally embedded alienation, precarity, and isolationism. These provide a breeding ground for the rise of any right wing movement.
We need to build technologies (i see political organisation as a kind of technology) that give rise to and produce a sense of collective and multitudinal humanity. We need to equip people with technologies that produce particular desires, and finally kill the conditions that make fascism possible in the first place.
We very much agree. As you mention, we think that's more an addition than an objection, since it uses the 'people' in a very different sense than we do. We think the latter is one of the reasons why, among other things, we need certain kinds of prefigurative politics and why cultural struggle is important.
fucking ace comment right here, solidarity y'all
@@conniekousen7460 We think we're really lucky with our comments in general. Most TH-camrs we know have comment sections full of kinda terrible stuff, but ours are awesome.
%100 and furiously agreed.
I thought that they were social democrats?
They are.
When can we hope for a video about the controversy between Marx and Bakunin and generally the anarchists ?
Been talking to Anarchopac about doing one together, so hopefully soonish!
@@RedPlateaus Awesome !
today's social democracy and democratic socialism expand the real power the people have over their own lifes, but it is correct to point out that only by fundamentally changing the relations of production and the organization of the state, we can move beyond capitalism. thats why I think the idea of radical democracy should be a significant step on this path - for example bringing back some notion of sortition as f.e. David Van Reybrouck (Against Elections) or Paul Cockshott argue. and then we can go even further, but its a long struggle...the long march of the 21st century so to speak
But muh human nature my dude 😉
Who is Paul cockshott and what does he advocate ?
Thats absolutely backwards
Stop claiming to be libertarian. Your not
Even the Soviet Communist claimed to be democratic.
@@freegeorgia4808 Libertarianism originally referred to anti-capitalists who wanted to abolish the state, i.e. socialists.
All Communists, including Lenin, want to abolish capitalism and the state as well.
_"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State"_ Lenin, State And Revolution
Excellent video 👍🏽
A phrase from Cuba: if socialism was put in place in the Sahara Desert, in a short period of time there would be no sand.
You, and the people you are quoting, are confusing Socialism with Communism. These political philosophies are different and their distinctions need to be recognized.
Watch the great Doc: a Batalha do Chile, it's about the Chile's experience of the Marxist president. Read about it, tells a little bit more about how a liberal democracy deals with socialist democratically in Power.
For some reason this video doesn't have a thumbnail when I try to share it on Facebook. :/
We've had that issue as well for some reason!
I hope you do a video about U.S. "citizen united".
What movie/show are the clips played while talking about Marx and democracy from? And the ones about the CNT?
What if we formed the party to work within the current state with a voluntary representative whose role is not dictated by themself, but exclusively by the members of the party. A parallel power structure both inside AND outside of the current state, built into a politician who is absolutely bound by the votes of those who selected this person as their spokesperson. They would not be able to vote differently than the majority vote they represent.
nice
At the end you talk about people joining to create pressure for lawmakers to change things. This seems to show that people actually do have power in the current system? Also, if corporations are all ruled by employees/state etc what incentive is there for innovation? New businesses? Invention? Problem-solving? If there is no or reduced incentive, not only is forward growth stopped or stunted, it seems like it could become a national security issue if authoritarian regimes use power to push power, progress, and dominance and gain power over democratically socialist nations.
Good Video, thanks!
Good video. I would however describe this as "social democracy" rather than actual "democratic socialism".
Democratic socialism is also distinguished from Third Way social democracy because democratic socialists are committed to the systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, while social democrats use capitalism to create a strong welfare state, leaving many businesses under private ownership.
-Wikipedia
You mean Social Democracy right?
No, he's talking about actual Democratic Socialism.
@@truedarklander he starts talking of Corbyn and Sanders, who are definitely socdems and not socialists. Green New Deal is a socdem policy.
I suppose he gets to explaining dem socialism kind of at the last fourth of the video, but most of it is just defining socialism or social democracy.
@@eabea I think the difference between SocDems and DemSocs is how far they want to go.
@@truedarklander one is post-/anti-capitalist and the other is capitalist, and thus not truly socialist
I think Bernie may very well be a demsoc at heart but I mean he would not really have a chance in American politics if he openly stated he believes capitalism is fundamentally flawed and should be replaced. His policies are definitely not very socialist. I think he may be calling himself socialist anyway because he wants to remove some the negative connotation of the word in order to make people more open to more radical changes someday?
All of these positions were created public opinion researchers and serve to empower one party/foundation or another. What do Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and Corbyn have in common? They all become more powerful and influential under this "new" order.
I wonder if you are knowledgeable of the "form-critique" of the state. As I know you're familiar with the Neue-Marx-Lectüre, which is fantastic, have you read their form-critique of the state and democracy. I'm not that familiar myself and would gladly be corrected but doesn't Heinrich, in his introduction to the critique of political economy, argue against democracy? Especially focusing on how democracy as a form _is_ the capitalist form of governance. That the semi-autonomy of political power from economic power is the optimal way of managing class conflict. And even better acting ad the _ideal total capitalist_ i.e. At least theoretically being able to act in favour of capital as such rather than the wims of individual capitalists? From his point of view, and he states this quite directly, calls for increased democracy are purely a chimera as capitalist democracy is actually democracy. And he points out how for example "more" democratic states, such as Switzerland, are hardly more radical than any less complete democracy.
My point with this is not to dismiss your claims, especially as you make an interesting point in regards to democracy in the athenian sense and the liberal one, but at the same time I find it hard to belive that communism would be democratic, in the sense of having a demos that rules, rather it being the movement that abolishes the present state of affairs in favour of the free association of producers?
To me, at least, would communist movement need to work against the mediation of social relations, both of production, but also of politics and society as such?
To us (and maybe we're wrong here, if so please let us know how), this looks like the kind of disagreement that essentially comes down to using the same word in different senses.
On the one hand, let’s say that by A you just mean the collective self-rule of a group of people, such that a society, an institution, or whatever is 'A’ if and only if all its adult members collectively self-rule it. (This doesn't necessarily have to be an institution distinct from society as a whole, mediating between its different parts, factions, or whatnot.) That sounds like precisely something that Marx says communism will bring about, because it’s something a free association of producers will have (if they don’t, then either some one person or a minority will rule, and the association won’t be free).
On the other hand, let’s say that by B you mean something like a distinct political institution like the modern state, which comes with a bunch of variations like how often you have elections, whether you can have the odd plebiscite, and so on. That sounds like something that Marx says that communism will get rid of.
Now, A and B are two very different things, but they sometimes get mixed up. One reason is they sometimes get mixed up is that people often label both ‘democracy’. Another reason they sometimes get mixed up is because people wrongly think that B achieves A, which we think is empirically false (as we see e.g. in the Gilens & Page and the Schakel studies we cite). When Marxists (we think this goes for Heinrich as well) criticize ‘democracy’, they’re usually criticizing something like B, rather than A.
@@RedPlateausThank you for the great answer and great content! I think you are correct in this assessment and that the disagreement is largely based on terms. At the same time I don't think it can be reduced to it. And I would argue that while democracy can mean something else it is preferable to abandon the concept so infused with liberal-burgoise sentiment. Especially as democracy as understood is based on a methodological - individualism, rather than one that takes the totality of society as a starting point. In that regard, while I agree that the critique is primarily against A, I would, as said, argue that we can leave democracy behind in favour of saying what we want, communism.
@@theowlofminverva5592 I don't think the ancient Greeks who came up with that concept had methodological individualism yet, but I could be wrong. But yeah, then it essentially comes down to a disagreement about the usefulness of the term.
@@RedPlateaus No you're right, I would expect the concept of individual being unknown to the Greeks. What I mean is the current understanding of democracy as in capitalist modernity. But that doesn't really matter. Anyways great chat, and keep the good content going.
The concept of democratic socialism seems to be mainly used in the USA. In Europe, in countries like the Nordic countries, the concept of social democracy is rather used, to describe their system. Those countries are capitalistic societies with a big social component. So do not accept being a socialist system, as the government does not control the economy.
Bruh history starting all over again💀
11:01 Founded by a flat what tax???
im sorry but aoc is no socialist, she's a social democrat.
I really don't see Bernie as being any less capitalistic than Warren. I never here him talking about giving the means of production til a year after Warren put forth Codetermination in the workplace. Both are Social democrats by European standards.
Social democrats in Euroupe call themselves "democratic socialists" in their programs, it is basically the same thing. Not to defend Bernie Sanders but he did put forward a Löntagarfonden-like program for how labor unions should take over the economy. jacobinmag.com/2019/10/bernie-wants-you-to-own-more-of-the-means-of-production
I think Bernie is an actual democratic socialist who believes that that would have a hard time winning an election, so is focusing on the socdem stuff. I think that's power level hiding though
@@Silphanis What do you think social-democracy is?
I never hear*
And also I hope you've changed your mind about Bernie since you posted this a few years ago.
@@relaxationstation7634 Nope, he's a social Democrat, just like Warren. Not a bad thing. He still isn't talking about seizing the means of production. I'm for both of them but he's not a decision socialist at least in practice, he may secretly hope for communism
It's just a more palatable way to say communism.
No
Yes
Starting off smooth but pretending Marx is not a well-documented racist was unnecessary.
Norge!
Well your video information is pretty close just simplified ... until I got to 10:42 and you have Senator Sanders on the screen saying "on how they are a bit hazy!" Lol too funny! You are a little hazy on your research lol ! Really! There are so many parts I don't actually blame you for not going through All of it ! 20% stoke for workers, 40% board for workers, unions if wanted 50+1 on card is Union! Community board and company participation???? Anything ring a bell yet lo! Sorry but I am getting tired of weeks of this when ALL OF THE POLICIES AND PLANS ARE PUBLIC! Cover page or in depth!!
I think there's a misunderstand about what we're referring to here. When we said said they are a bit hazy on what their socialism will look like, we're not talking about various Democratic Socialists' short- or medium-term policies. As you point out, and we agree, those are clear enough (and not only in Sanders' case). What we were instead referring to was their long-term goals. In other words, their policies and plans are public and mostly quite clear, but that's not what we're referring to as 'hazy'.
BELL GANG
Yeah lets see how labelling Bernie Sanders as a socialist worked out foe you lmao
There are two sides to this coin, on one hand, it’s gonna be hard to get enough votes for socialism, on the other hand, WE AREN’T GONNA HAVE A REVOLUTION.
WE AREN'T GONNA BE ABLE TO VOTE IN SOCIALISM, revolutionary means are the only means.
J.Corbyn was sabotaged through a media smear campaign and annexing from the party because he was too left wing and threatened hegemonic powers, this will be a repeating factor.
Womens suffrages didn't vote to get a vote.
The mass tresspassers didn't vote to be allowed to walk across our country sides.
All socialist nations that have ever been didn't vote socialism into fruition, it was through organisation between the working masses in revolutionary organisations, not through bourgeois political systems
The only means to a revolution, is to take over the state bureaucratic apparatus, slowly, stealthy and methodically.
And then you still will have a sizable population of the citizenry would be against socialism.
They will be totally against your policies to confiscate and redistribute their property.
You have to become Joey Stalin, 2.0 to put the counter revolutionaries down
@@cl5619 the only means to a revolution is to unite the people under a common cause, this means that revolution is not inherently hierarchical (as you claim)
there are clear examples of revolution without the state in history such as the AANES in syria or the CNT FAI during the spanish civil war, both had/have sizable populations that revolted against their statist oppressors, and were successful (in the CNT FAI's case, only until internal sabotage from *pro-soviet* factions)
No European country has a real military
You were supposed explain it, not lecture us your views on capitalism
Too long
Lmao