@@GlenBoylan look again. john mearshiemer, an admitted liberal, says & provides tons of evidence that liberalism is a crusading ideology. it's a totalitarian one too.
I enjoyed this education time. Scotland UK 👁️🙏👁️. Is china going to be worse than the UK and USA France Germany Australia Canada. Scary times ahead in the UK. Scotland UK
Yes some work of Lenin is valid and some work of every comrade could be valid Nothing to turn things into leninism as he was quite on question of proletariatization
Réveille toi, la Russie est aussi un pays impérialiste. L'ennemi est dans notre propre pays, ça vaut autant ici sous la ditature du capital que là-bas pour nos camarade sous le régime des oligarches.
Imperialism is not the highest stage of capitalism. Imperialism is the basic prerequisite for feudalism to become capitalism. I would argue that capitalism is nothing more than imperial feudalism.
I don't think I agree - feudalism is a socio-economic system that bases itself on the serfs who pay tribute to their lords and to the church. Wage labour and capitalism are based on the unpaid wages of the working class who sell their labour in order to survive. Yes there was a massive wave of colonization towards the end of the feudal period of European history, but this mainly served to accelerate the development of capitalism within the broader feudal system. Merchants and bankers invested in the ventures and made massive profits, and on the basis of this then led the revolutions in Holland, England, France, and elsewhere that led them to take political power. We always have to look at the social and economic foundation that the society is built on to be able to then go on to analyse how t reflects itself politically.
@connorb.5368 as europe invaded and enslaved america, the initial feudal systems they established in America extracted so much material wealth that a single king or even a single company would be unable to handle it. The others who got wealthy from this robbery established the new system of capitalism to maintain their neo-feudal dominance over large portions of the world. The european serfs, being small in number, could be kept under control by violent repression and still allowed to own their own production, forcing them to deliver back to their lords. The americas and the rest of the world, on the other hand, would not accept this. Instead, europe established a new way to maintain the power that feudal lords had, but under a more oppresive system that would not allow them to fall the way kings had fallen: capitalism. This is why Russia was the only country that could have had a successful communist revolution: they still had a feudal power structure that could be overthrown.
Hello, I would like to pose various counter-arguements. Hopefully I can get feedback. Before anything, I agree that men have committed horrible injustices and crimes via corporations (corporations aren't sentient) for unjust gain. I hate how much they control the government via bribery. Concerning Marx, is anyone aware of Marx, the man. He was Bourgeois himself, never having worked a proper job, instead living in handouts from family and friends. His own economic situation was horrible, as he lived in squalor due to his prolific materialism. He had a maid (given by his wife's family) whom he refused to pay while he drank excessively. He later repaid the maid by getting her pregnant and refusing to acknowledge the resultant child, Engels taking the blame for him. See Thomas Sowell on Marx. In short, the man was a scoundrel, a hypocrite, harbored destructive delusions of grandeur and his life displayed he knew nothing of actual economics nor had any real consideration for the proletariat. How can one support his teaching? Moving on to Lenin, the speakers mention how mega corporations spark wars, exploit the worker and trample on human rights. But isn't this exactly what Lenin did? How many did he slaughter (its in the millions, btw)? How many conflicts did he incite? How many slaved away in the gulags (full of political prisoners whose only crime was disagreeing with Communism)? How many group "cleansings" did the Communists carry out (e.g. Lenin wanted to utterly stomp out Christians)? And didn't the USSR in itself become imperialistic? Did the communists represent democracy? Socialism had always been about the Elite Bourgeois Intellectual determining what's best for the proletariat and enforcing it via mandate. There's much more to say, but Communism began violently and continued as such. Consider this factoid. The problem is not capitalism. Tyranny, oppression and hate preceded capitalism. African tribes oppress and slaughter one another. Capitalism enables people to be greedy. Yes. But so did Communism. The problem is our heart. Unless you can change the human heart, no political or economical system will be perfect.
Poor man. You clearly was a victim of propaganda and misinformation. How was Marx Bourgeois when his economic situation was horrible? Here, you clearly show a misunderstanding of the term bourgeoisie. And even if he indeed was bourgeois, it doesn't matter. Engels was one, and his ideas are not diminished by that. You are making an ad hominem fallacy.
I think that your argument that "oppression and tyranny come from the human heart" are flawed honestly. This human nature argument has been used to justify all kinds of brutal regimes throughout history, and it's a way to dismiss why violence and exploitation exist. For example: "why is there a genocide going on in Gaza? Because human beings are genocidal." That actually doesn't help us explain anything. Why isn't there a genocide going on right now in Canada? Why was there a genocide in North America against indigenous peoples in the 1500-1800s? The "Human Nature" argument is a cop-out. The fact is, that yes brutality and exploitation predate capitalism - this is because class society itself predates capitalism. The roman slave masters were extremely brutal, but they were not capitalists - their class took a different form. Unless we understand the social and economic roots of exploitation and violence, how the structures which keep society functioning perpetuate and rely on various forms of exploitation and violence, we will never understand history. The point is to study WHY and HOW these things came about in the first place, and then fight to remove their social roots. We need to end class divisions and create a democratic society in which everyone has access to a decent life. Also, a lot of what you said about Lenin and Marx is categorically false. You're taking talking points out of right-wing critics of Marxist revolutionaries and repeating them without actually investigating them for yourself. "How many people did Lenin slaughter?" The statistics they cite for this include those killed by the invading White Army that wanted to reintroduce the monarchy in Russia, it's a dishonest metric used cynically. "Lenin wanted to cleanse Christians." Lenin was opposed to the Orthodox church because it had propped up the Tsarist regime for centuries - he wanted to loosen the grip of religion on the working class, not by murdering christians (which is how you make it sound, and which is frankly insane) but by giving the working class access to philosophy, science, and literature that were previously held only by the propertied classes. Sorry for the rant, but you said a lot of stuff that is frankly dishonest. Worth clearing up.
@@gabri41200 Hi. You may well have that opinion of me. That said, there have been scholars who, upon studying Marx's life have come to that conclusion. Marx recieved money from his family (i.e. a freeloader), equating to well beyond what the average worker earned (his family was well off). Marx, however, indulged various appetites and attempted to maintain bourgeoisie appearances. In short, he was prodigal (i.e. mismanaged money). He had later grew dependant on Engel's, himself a wealthy man. Marx was a freeloader thru and thru. So Marx was Bourgeois in the sense that he had plenty of money and indulges in Bourgeois habits, but given his actual lack of income he ended up living in squalor. For example, if I went out and bought a BMW and the latest gadgets just to show off my status, I'd be in debt as well, but I would have no reason to blame anyone but my own self. Marx was like this. As for the ad hominem defense, that's fair, if the person keeps their darker values out of the picture. Both Marx and Engels hated the established order, although they both profited from it. Marxism calls for the upheaval of all. I am for reform, but upheaval implies throwing the baby out with the bath water. Countless of times this has been attempted, and it always ends up the same. Envy, hatred and violence is at the core of Marx's philosophy as well as an utter disdain for things such as religion, the family (Marx edited it out of the 2nd edition of the CM), etc. It is so consumed with destroying the perceived evil that it ends up destroying the beautiful and functional with it.
@@connorb.5368 Thank you for replying. Several other socialist leaning folks won't so much as show their face, so to say. They prefer their echo chambers. In response to your comments on the argument of human nature, who here is defending the atrocities we commit? I am not. I condemn them. I condemn what Nestlé did in Africa, causing the death and deformation of babies for profit. I condemn Coca-Cola sucking Mexico dry. Amazon is not my friend. Mao was evil. Stalin was evil. A lot of what the CIA dies, with all the international coups, is evil. I do not defend any evil, not even in myself. Concerning Gaza, I have been studying it for a while, and what I can say is it is very complicated. There appears to be a lot of bad actors on both ends, and a lot of innocents caught between. But that's a whole can of worms I don't want to discuss right now. The genocide of Native Americans? Because the U.S. wanted the land and resources. Simple. It's also why the Meso-Americans killed each other. Let's not play the innocent indigenous person card. Whenever, in history, a group of like minded individuals amassed sufficient power, they have used it to oppress. From schoolyard bullies, to older siblings, to managers, to liberals, to communists. Is it evil. Yes. This is not a permission to do it, but we have to admit there is something fundamentally evil in our hearts, something that will taint whatever political and economic system we might fathom. Do I believe that a political system should seek to protect the oppressed, prevent corruption, etc. Yes. Unfortunately, Communism has never done that. Democratic Socialism, to a degree, seems to be better. As for the class society leads to oppression argument, this, I believe, is an oversimplification. In it's purest form, hierarchies exist in human relations. Parent's to children, for example. There also exists a difference of abilities. For example, if one of you were to start some business and (without dishonesty or oppression) make $300k a year, you'd more than quadruple what I earn. You would be in a class above me, by Marxist definition. You would probably have employees as a result, who by definition would be under your governance. If you were a moral manager, you would treat those employees well within your capacity. So in the purest, hypothetical sense (allow me this as much of Communist theory is hypothetical as of today), class structure in itself is not evil. Even the Marxists believed that an elite class had to lead the ignorant proletariat. That said, it is often the fact that people in authority positions abuse their power as soon as they feel they can leverage an advantage to their own gain (be it for money, fame, power, pleasure, etc). Siblings abuse their weaker siblings. In hispanic culture, lighter skinned folks look down on darker Meztizos (of which I am one). Marx abused his housemaid and had sex with her behind his wife's back. By focusing so much on his political ideas, Marx neglected his family. Engels hated being bourgeousie, but enjoyed the fruit of it as he traveled to France often to sleep with women. In other words, he hated the oppresion he allowed but loved the money too much to stop it. So again, oppression is not a matter of class structure. Oppression comes from our own selfish, violent hearts and will manifest no matter the political or economic system. I.e. if you think that the salvation for man's woes is Communism, you will find yourself either corrupted, disappointed or dead upon its implementation. Speaking of Lenin, I have read about the White Army. Discounting them, how about the Cossacks (tens of thousands killed)? Or the Kulaks, who were labeled enemies for being prosperous farmers. Lenin sent men to forcibely take their grain and when they refused he ordered his men to "Hang no fewer than 100 known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers... do it in such a way that for hundreds of km the people will see, tremble, know, shout..." Or let's speak of the Tambov Rebellion where peasants (the most vulnerable of proletariats) rebelled against oppresive Soviet mandates after being pushed too far (the Soviets had come demanding grain from the impoverished people and had beaten an elderly man in the public square). They refused and were in turned murdered and or forced into concentration camps. Lenin ordered Vladimir Smirnov to "immediately execute a large number of strikers for the crime of sabotage", i.e. protesting. THousands were killed over four years. Or let's discuss the gulags; speak against Lenin, become a slave. Sounds just. As for Christians, they were oppressed, and many were sent to the gulags for having been opposed to Soviet mandates. Richard Wyrmbrand (though I believe this is under Stalin) is an example. Lenin himself despised religion and related it to venereal disease, necrophilia and outright stated that it was abominable. He took advantage of the famine, in which millions died, to command his men to "pursue the removal of church property with the most energy frenzied and ruthless and (to not) hesitate to quell the opposition." Finally I will point out the Kronstadt rebellion. The people demanded freedom of speech, the end of deportation to work camps and various other reforms (sounds familiar, eh?). Lenin had them massacred (at least 2000). Let us not white wash our historical figures.
This was world changing to listen to. Loved it
Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!
Solidarity! 🚩
Solidarity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
liberalism is the highest form of capitalism
Liberalism doesn't mean much in terms of economic and international policy, it's just a vague identity
@@GlenBoylan look again. john mearshiemer, an admitted liberal, says & provides tons of evidence that liberalism is a crusading ideology. it's a totalitarian one too.
🫡👍🏼❤️
I enjoyed this education time. Scotland UK 👁️🙏👁️. Is china going to be worse than the UK and USA France Germany Australia Canada. Scary times ahead in the UK. Scotland UK
Yes some work of Lenin is valid and some work of every comrade could be valid
Nothing to turn things into leninism as he was quite on question of proletariatization
Vive le combat anti-impérialiste de la Russie contre l'axe otano kiévien!
Réveille toi, la Russie est aussi un pays impérialiste. L'ennemi est dans notre propre pays, ça vaut autant ici sous la ditature du capital que là-bas pour nos camarade sous le régime des oligarches.
Imperialism is not the highest stage of capitalism. Imperialism is the basic prerequisite for feudalism to become capitalism. I would argue that capitalism is nothing more than imperial feudalism.
You should read Lenin
The term imperialism has a specific meaning in this context.
I don't think I agree - feudalism is a socio-economic system that bases itself on the serfs who pay tribute to their lords and to the church. Wage labour and capitalism are based on the unpaid wages of the working class who sell their labour in order to survive. Yes there was a massive wave of colonization towards the end of the feudal period of European history, but this mainly served to accelerate the development of capitalism within the broader feudal system. Merchants and bankers invested in the ventures and made massive profits, and on the basis of this then led the revolutions in Holland, England, France, and elsewhere that led them to take political power. We always have to look at the social and economic foundation that the society is built on to be able to then go on to analyse how t reflects itself politically.
@connorb.5368 as europe invaded and enslaved america, the initial feudal systems they established in America extracted so much material wealth that a single king or even a single company would be unable to handle it. The others who got wealthy from this robbery established the new system of capitalism to maintain their neo-feudal dominance over large portions of the world. The european serfs, being small in number, could be kept under control by violent repression and still allowed to own their own production, forcing them to deliver back to their lords. The americas and the rest of the world, on the other hand, would not accept this. Instead, europe established a new way to maintain the power that feudal lords had, but under a more oppresive system that would not allow them to fall the way kings had fallen: capitalism. This is why Russia was the only country that could have had a successful communist revolution: they still had a feudal power structure that could be overthrown.
Hello, I would like to pose various counter-arguements. Hopefully I can get feedback.
Before anything, I agree that men have committed horrible injustices and crimes via corporations (corporations aren't sentient) for unjust gain. I hate how much they control the government via bribery.
Concerning Marx, is anyone aware of Marx, the man. He was Bourgeois himself, never having worked a proper job, instead living in handouts from family and friends. His own economic situation was horrible, as he lived in squalor due to his prolific materialism. He had a maid (given by his wife's family) whom he refused to pay while he drank excessively. He later repaid the maid by getting her pregnant and refusing to acknowledge the resultant child, Engels taking the blame for him. See Thomas Sowell on Marx. In short, the man was a scoundrel, a hypocrite, harbored destructive delusions of grandeur and his life displayed he knew nothing of actual economics nor had any real consideration for the proletariat. How can one support his teaching?
Moving on to Lenin, the speakers mention how mega corporations spark wars, exploit the worker and trample on human rights. But isn't this exactly what Lenin did? How many did he slaughter (its in the millions, btw)? How many conflicts did he incite? How many slaved away in the gulags (full of political prisoners whose only crime was disagreeing with Communism)? How many group "cleansings" did the Communists carry out (e.g. Lenin wanted to utterly stomp out Christians)? And didn't the USSR in itself become imperialistic? Did the communists represent democracy? Socialism had always been about the Elite Bourgeois Intellectual determining what's best for the proletariat and enforcing it via mandate.
There's much more to say, but Communism began violently and continued as such. Consider this factoid. The problem is not capitalism. Tyranny, oppression and hate preceded capitalism. African tribes oppress and slaughter one another. Capitalism enables people to be greedy. Yes. But so did Communism. The problem is our heart. Unless you can change the human heart, no political or economical system will be perfect.
Poor man. You clearly was a victim of propaganda and misinformation. How was Marx Bourgeois when his economic situation was horrible? Here, you clearly show a misunderstanding of the term bourgeoisie. And even if he indeed was bourgeois, it doesn't matter. Engels was one, and his ideas are not diminished by that. You are making an ad hominem fallacy.
Lenin slaughtered millions? Where are the evidences? When did he do that? What are the dates? Where did they die?
I think that your argument that "oppression and tyranny come from the human heart" are flawed honestly. This human nature argument has been used to justify all kinds of brutal regimes throughout history, and it's a way to dismiss why violence and exploitation exist. For example: "why is there a genocide going on in Gaza? Because human beings are genocidal." That actually doesn't help us explain anything. Why isn't there a genocide going on right now in Canada? Why was there a genocide in North America against indigenous peoples in the 1500-1800s? The "Human Nature" argument is a cop-out. The fact is, that yes brutality and exploitation predate capitalism - this is because class society itself predates capitalism. The roman slave masters were extremely brutal, but they were not capitalists - their class took a different form. Unless we understand the social and economic roots of exploitation and violence, how the structures which keep society functioning perpetuate and rely on various forms of exploitation and violence, we will never understand history. The point is to study WHY and HOW these things came about in the first place, and then fight to remove their social roots. We need to end class divisions and create a democratic society in which everyone has access to a decent life.
Also, a lot of what you said about Lenin and Marx is categorically false. You're taking talking points out of right-wing critics of Marxist revolutionaries and repeating them without actually investigating them for yourself. "How many people did Lenin slaughter?" The statistics they cite for this include those killed by the invading White Army that wanted to reintroduce the monarchy in Russia, it's a dishonest metric used cynically. "Lenin wanted to cleanse Christians." Lenin was opposed to the Orthodox church because it had propped up the Tsarist regime for centuries - he wanted to loosen the grip of religion on the working class, not by murdering christians (which is how you make it sound, and which is frankly insane) but by giving the working class access to philosophy, science, and literature that were previously held only by the propertied classes.
Sorry for the rant, but you said a lot of stuff that is frankly dishonest. Worth clearing up.
@@gabri41200 Hi. You may well have that opinion of me. That said, there have been scholars who, upon studying Marx's life have come to that conclusion. Marx recieved money from his family (i.e. a freeloader), equating to well beyond what the average worker earned (his family was well off). Marx, however, indulged various appetites and attempted to maintain bourgeoisie appearances. In short, he was prodigal (i.e. mismanaged money). He had later grew dependant on Engel's, himself a wealthy man. Marx was a freeloader thru and thru. So Marx was Bourgeois in the sense that he had plenty of money and indulges in Bourgeois habits, but given his actual lack of income he ended up living in squalor. For example, if I went out and bought a BMW and the latest gadgets just to show off my status, I'd be in debt as well, but I would have no reason to blame anyone but my own self. Marx was like this.
As for the ad hominem defense, that's fair, if the person keeps their darker values out of the picture. Both Marx and Engels hated the established order, although they both profited from it. Marxism calls for the upheaval of all. I am for reform, but upheaval implies throwing the baby out with the bath water. Countless of times this has been attempted, and it always ends up the same. Envy, hatred and violence is at the core of Marx's philosophy as well as an utter disdain for things such as religion, the family (Marx edited it out of the 2nd edition of the CM), etc. It is so consumed with destroying the perceived evil that it ends up destroying the beautiful and functional with it.
@@connorb.5368 Thank you for replying. Several other socialist leaning folks won't so much as show their face, so to say. They prefer their echo chambers.
In response to your comments on the argument of human nature, who here is defending the atrocities we commit? I am not. I condemn them. I condemn what Nestlé did in Africa, causing the death and deformation of babies for profit. I condemn Coca-Cola sucking Mexico dry. Amazon is not my friend. Mao was evil. Stalin was evil. A lot of what the CIA dies, with all the international coups, is evil. I do not defend any evil, not even in myself.
Concerning Gaza, I have been studying it for a while, and what I can say is it is very complicated. There appears to be a lot of bad actors on both ends, and a lot of innocents caught between. But that's a whole can of worms I don't want to discuss right now. The genocide of Native Americans? Because the U.S. wanted the land and resources. Simple. It's also why the Meso-Americans killed each other. Let's not play the innocent indigenous person card. Whenever, in history, a group of like minded individuals amassed sufficient power, they have used it to oppress. From schoolyard bullies, to older siblings, to managers, to liberals, to communists. Is it evil. Yes. This is not a permission to do it, but we have to admit there is something fundamentally evil in our hearts, something that will taint whatever political and economic system we might fathom. Do I believe that a political system should seek to protect the oppressed, prevent corruption, etc. Yes. Unfortunately, Communism has never done that. Democratic Socialism, to a degree, seems to be better.
As for the class society leads to oppression argument, this, I believe, is an oversimplification. In it's purest form, hierarchies exist in human relations. Parent's to children, for example. There also exists a difference of abilities. For example, if one of you were to start some business and (without dishonesty or oppression) make $300k a year, you'd more than quadruple what I earn. You would be in a class above me, by Marxist definition. You would probably have employees as a result, who by definition would be under your governance. If you were a moral manager, you would treat those employees well within your capacity. So in the purest, hypothetical sense (allow me this as much of Communist theory is hypothetical as of today), class structure in itself is not evil. Even the Marxists believed that an elite class had to lead the ignorant proletariat. That said, it is often the fact that people in authority positions abuse their power as soon as they feel they can leverage an advantage to their own gain (be it for money, fame, power, pleasure, etc). Siblings abuse their weaker siblings. In hispanic culture, lighter skinned folks look down on darker Meztizos (of which I am one). Marx abused his housemaid and had sex with her behind his wife's back. By focusing so much on his political ideas, Marx neglected his family. Engels hated being bourgeousie, but enjoyed the fruit of it as he traveled to France often to sleep with women. In other words, he hated the oppresion he allowed but loved the money too much to stop it. So again, oppression is not a matter of class structure. Oppression comes from our own selfish, violent hearts and will manifest no matter the political or economic system. I.e. if you think that the salvation for man's woes is Communism, you will find yourself either corrupted, disappointed or dead upon its implementation.
Speaking of Lenin, I have read about the White Army. Discounting them, how about the Cossacks (tens of thousands killed)? Or the Kulaks, who were labeled enemies for being prosperous farmers. Lenin sent men to forcibely take their grain and when they refused he ordered his men to "Hang no fewer than 100 known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers... do it in such a way that for hundreds of km the people will see, tremble, know, shout..." Or let's speak of the Tambov Rebellion where peasants (the most vulnerable of proletariats) rebelled against oppresive Soviet mandates after being pushed too far (the Soviets had come demanding grain from the impoverished people and had beaten an elderly man in the public square). They refused and were in turned murdered and or forced into concentration camps. Lenin ordered Vladimir Smirnov to "immediately execute a large number of strikers for the crime of sabotage", i.e. protesting. THousands were killed over four years. Or let's discuss the gulags; speak against Lenin, become a slave. Sounds just. As for Christians, they were oppressed, and many were sent to the gulags for having been opposed to Soviet mandates. Richard Wyrmbrand (though I believe this is under Stalin) is an example. Lenin himself despised religion and related it to venereal disease, necrophilia and outright stated that it was abominable. He took advantage of the famine, in which millions died, to command his men to "pursue the removal of church property with the most energy frenzied and ruthless and (to not) hesitate to quell the opposition." Finally I will point out the Kronstadt rebellion. The people demanded freedom of speech, the end of deportation to work camps and various other reforms (sounds familiar, eh?). Lenin had them massacred (at least 2000).
Let us not white wash our historical figures.