@@disdoncable Have you tried taking your ignorance, indoctrination and Parasitic Capitalism and taking "a long walk off a short pier" and making the world and humanity better of by doing so.
Nice try. Will never happen. Commie-nism was tried & proved to be a complete, unhappy failure. Remember the iron curtain? Ask people, who survived it. The happy medium, the golden middle, is between the monsters of commie world & crony capitalism. Maybe, it's how the US still was, like, say, in 1959.
What do you mean by to own the means of production? You can buy a sewing machine for $100-$2000, a production mill and lathe for $4000, a guitar for $100, a high end laser printer for $700, a 3d scanner for $400, a top end laser cutter for $2000, a tig welder for $800 and a top end PC for $1000. You can spend $3000 for a large solar electrical system to run it for free, Communism is not the abolishment of class, it is about creating 2 classes, the serfs and the party leaders
this series has been really good. I've listened to a few others in this vein so far and this one is really helping me understand things more from a historical and chronological standpoint, thanks so much for making it, i can't wait for the 3rd episode!
Read the Communist Manifesto, honestly way better than this video in its conciseness and clarity. Also another one that's good is Socialism Utopian and Scientific.
One of the most wise and clear study of the socialism and communism in the last hundred years. People need to know the real meaning of these two words before they make any statement or argument. Thanks for the hard work!
Thank you professor. I feel the class tensions rising in the nervousness of the wealthy and those who believe they are middle class. We’re reaching a point of no return.
I grew up in Italy at the time when the Italian communist party (PCI--partito comunista italiano) was the strongest in the west. I was born in Livorno, the city where in 1921 Gramsci split with the socialists to form the PCI. I went to a state school, and still I was never taught all this. So, it's not just the US. 🙌🏽❤
I grew up in the USSR in a small Ukrainian city with a big railway depot, a middle-size prison, and a military base the size of which is still unknown, these were so-called city-forming enterprises (градообразубщие предприятия). In the center of the city, there was a big shiny white building -- the city communist party community headquarters (Горком партии)ю I went to a state school, before WW2 the school's main building belonged to the local department of the NKVD( НКВД) the People Internal affairs Committee aka the Soviet secret police, large basements thick walls closed perimeter. During WW2 this building was used by the Gestapo aka the Nazi secret police. Our grandparents knew what happened in these basements. But after the war, they built a new compound for the KGB and the Police, and the old building became a school. Every Monday we had a political information lesson, a teacher told us about the working class struggle in the decaying West, how we are lucky to live in the USSR, and how we should be grateful to comrade Brezhnev for our happy childhood, later we were promised communism in the year 2000. The USSR collapsed in 1991, not in 1989, they say President. Reagan did. I'm not so sure about it. I studied Socialism and Communism at the University in free Ukraine my professors were the same old Soviet professors who were free of the Soviet dogma. It wasn't my major. Studying economic models of Socialism/Communism and their realization in practice was fascinating but useless. Communism in theory is beautiful in practice it is ugly and evil. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. PS I am not even fond of the Scandinavian or German models of Socialism.
@@zxksj There is a quote attributed to Friedrich Engels. "There is one way to destroy a nation: to punish the innocent and not to punish the guilty" or "...: to punish the innocent and reward those who don't deserve it" And that's exactly how it works in the USSR. I'd like the guilty to be held accountable. National Socialism was put on trial Bolshevik Socialism was not. I am not fully satisfied with the result of the Nuremberg trials, but at least it was something. I'd also like that those who earn it to be rewarded.
Wolff is making it seem like Bernstein vs. Luxembourg was just a subjective disagreement amongst socialists. When in fact it was Luxembourg who was correct in her analysis and understanding of capitalism, and how to overcome it. Bernstein basically watered down the ideas of Marx to fit into his and his ilk's careerist interests in Germany.
Yes, the professor is not all knowing and is incorrect on the specifics, but overall it's a fine introduction that serves as a beginning of one's study on the subject. It's more complex than he lays out and he has his own bias of what aspects are more important. Still a decent summary nonetheless.
@@anopinionatedlaymanappears9052 I disagree, I think it's important to point out what is correct and incorrect, who had the right analysis and who didn't. That is not too complex for people to understand.
@@Zayden.Marxist I didn't say it wasn't important to point out what is correct and what isn't correct or that it would be too complex for people to understand. I said it serves as a useful introduction. Did you even read what I said or are you just looking for an argument?
@@anopinionatedlaymanappears9052 Then maybe you can explain why all of the economic variants involve the ownership of "the means of production" but none of Wolff's "understanding" does?
@@jgalt308@ajmeekins3885 Fix the money, fix the world. Money is the foundation of society. It allows us to trade (labor, services, goods) efficiently. A manipulated monetary system where money is printed from thin air and debt/credit can be endlessly piled up allows those in control of the money system to pick winners and losers. Those that have access to endless loans buy up resources and competition, centralizing control...creating cartels and near monopolies...leading to poor quality of service and goods...essentially leading to haves and have nots. Many people fall into marxist ideas looking for solutions but fixing the money is the solution then more cooperative solutions can be found for higher level problems. Hard money and individual liberty is the best way. People must understand that freedom requires responsibility. And luck is inherent in the universe as well, so all people will never have the same opportunities as each other. You need to work with what you can and we need to have a basic set of societal rules such as no killing, stealing (that goes for gov too, the worst offenders have always been those in government supposedly doing good for people), and trade based on a hard monetary system (barter will not suffice for an advanced civilization, and without a hard monetary system a system of control with leaders will be ever more needed to dictate how a token fiat monetary system will be used...which means your wants and needs are subordinate to those of the dictators). History of Money and Banking: th-cam.com/video/vbiZSUAFcrQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=yKXioj3NzOlAygfQ So very similar to todays financial and political woes. Politicians and Financiers are the true ultimate parasites of the world. Endless examples in past and present.... stop future parasitic behavior! Any politician or academic that doesnt point this out is ignorant or leading you astray.
What is Communism?: th-cam.com/video/Y0Ud71Unluo/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared Understanding Communism PART 1: th-cam.com/video/-L9rxsESNGU/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
One of the best educators in political economy, I enjoy listening to him, never give up of freeing the mind of oppressed class thru educational program like this, big up👍🏾👍🏼
Yeah, the "commies" have been using propaganda in the educational institutions for over a century now...and you have bought into most of it if not all of it.
The continuously changing economic conditions in our society have made it necessary for thousands of people to find additional sources of income. Personally, I am looking at the stock market to fuel my retirement goal of $2m, my concern is the recent market crash.
buying the dip has proven to be profitable although for majority, the solution to their problem can be found only in specialized knowledge hence they seek guidance from well experienced advisors
Agreed, despite my rookie knowledge of investing, I have a financial advisor who did the trick in a bit more than 6 months after a lump sum capital of $500k, and I've so far made a fortune. I'm now buying real estates, gold and silver as advised by my FA.
truly appreciate the implementation of ideas and strategies that result to unmeasurable progress, thus the search for a reputable advisor, mind sharing info of this person guiding you please?
Katherine Nance Dietz is the licensed FA I use. Just google the name. You’d find necessary details to work with and set up an appointment. To be honest, I almost didn't buy the idea of letting someone handle growing my finance, but so glad I did.
curiously inputted Katherine Nance Dietz on the web, spotted her consulting page and was able to schedule a call session, no sweat. Ive seen commentaries about advisors but not one looks this phenomenal
Socialists everywhere did not look to the USSR as their main model and example. Many opposed it. Kautsky. The Mensheviks, the Social Revolutionaries, Emma Goldman, Plekhanov just to name a few examples.
Yeah, the traitors of the socialist cause, the _Western_ “socialists”/“marxists”/“communists”/“leftists”, the social-chauvinists, the imperialist Western “left”, the traitors of the global south, the social idealists without any real intention, interest or will to pursue actual transformation of the global capitalist imperialist system. Yes, they were absolutely critical of the Soviet Union (the same kind that are critical of China today). Sometimes, not only “third-campists” (neither Washington nor Moscow/Beijing), but outright (tacit or open) supporters of the Western wars of imperialism. Many of the names you mentioned were even aligning with their own bourgeoisie in the First World War. If you’re a true supporter of reaching socialism in the future, you shouldn’t be opposed to actually existing socialism in the global south - you should support it! _Western Marxism_ and _Stalin: The History of a Black Legend_ by Domenico Losurdo is a good start! _Critical Theory Workshop_ is also a good TH-cam channel to start with. One day we will all be socialists (states included), and we will thereby be one step closer to reaching communism. But that won’t happen in our lifetime, I bet.
Kim Iversen needs to follow this multi-part series on communism! Sometimes she precisely states the exact problem AND proposes communism (i.e., workers should have control over the means of production) and then says, "but that would be communism" and rejects the solution! Capitalist realism at its finest. Charlie, please reach out to Kim!! Go Charlie, go!!
@@jgalt308 I don't know what this means. Kim is emotionally wedded to the 'communism is when government does stuff, including dictator' notion. As a regular listener, she exudes 'I get off on Rand's chapters with the sex scenes' vibes.
@@falsificationism I didn't accuse her of being "consistent," but she HAS interviewed Wolff and forced him on the "defensive" almost immediately. I doubt she followed up up on her "challenge"...( to verify his claim ) or that she even remembers what it was... but HE AIN"T going back. Actually, watching it would make this clearer...although clarity has never been Wolff's forte or intent.
Peaceful attempts until no other option than revolutionary attempts are available. Would this be a just way of approaching this issue or is revolution never ok? Interested in the everyone's opinion.
How can anyone look at the last century and where we are heading right now and still believe there is a peaceful reformist way to get to a post capitalist world? Revolution (one that has to be extensively and meticulously prepared) is the only option left. Every peaceful option has been exhausted. And I am not talking about that romanticized version of revolution people with a Che Guevara poster on their wall dream of. This revolutionary movement has to be comprised of hardened revolutionaries (the part with the meticulous preparation) who do understand that they are not fighting for themselves and their benefits, that this revolution is not about them, but that they are truly fighting for future generations. Their revolution has to be one of yet unheard of selflessness.
1917 Russia was a 'top-down' terror & revolution organized in the west. That is, the instigator, Lenin, was trained in Switzerland, where he lived for some years. The point for the West was to get rid of the tsar, who they deemed to be an obstacle to obtaining better exposure for western finance in Russia. Lenin was their man. Of course, they had to 'sell' this somehow to some of the public. They used the poorest masses, the so called proletariat, including sailors of the Black Sea & promised them "communist heaven" & sent them against the tsar. The Tsar died, Lenin gained full power, till in a few years he, too, just like the Tsar, died due to dissatisfaction of the masses, who did not get to the promised land. The west still has not obtained what it wants either, which is full power over Russia. That's why the battles around the Black sea today. By the way, Lenin installed the communist system in Russia.
Peaceful attempts is irrealistic. Lust is deeply rooted in human nature. Take Chinese communist founding stage experiences as an example, a lot of early party members fell into capitalist privilege temptations. Only through blood shed revolution during war time, a large group of people reached at the same level of awakening and moved towards one goal at similar pace. Obsession of making everything work for all my benefits not thinking of others is spontaneously in human nature. To get out of this mindset needs a painful treatment
How about if people ask their state government representatives and senators to experiment with worker coops more. Maybe I district or city could operate worker coops and other cities do usual capitalism and compare results after maybe a year.
Education isn't just uncritically accepting what someone says. Read the sources. Consider the works and how the concepts apply yourself. And then you can decide whether or not this is in fact education.
this is why progress cannot be made. most people arent willing to put in the effort to learn. instead they want others to tell them the answer. this is why things are in the state they are in.
Because the societies that participated in ww1 were mostly capitalist countries with a capitalist class structure it was therefore a capitalist war....well if thats the depth of his analysis i guess thats the depths of his thoughts also.
@@keffinsg..you got fooled by him. he said it was a capitalist war, then described what people did because they also believed it was a capitalist war. Nothing to do with national identity, scientific progress undermining religious beliefs. nietzsche predicted it 30 years prior. It's fine if the professor comes to the same conclusion for historical events then that's fine.
The Great Depression is an example of how rewarding banks for bad business practices instead of protecting the public can cause the masses to suffer for decades. Banks were broken and all the mortgages they had a procession of should have been returned to the homeowners and businesses est... This act would have created equity among the masses and prevented the years of banks having worthless mortgages that people couldn't afford to buy.
Thank you. However, you failed to address the dictatorship aspect of the USSR and China. That issue is used by western capitalists to condemn socialism and communism via propaganda claiming that dictators are socialist/communist. Please address this huge misconception especially in the ideal goal of communism. Also, why were these countries so terribly totalitarian under Stalin and Mao?
These countries were birth out of civil war, it was polarised, rightwing nationalists vs communists. The communists just barely won. So it was more out of a sense of protecting the revolution from these rightwing elements within society that were out to sabotage the revolution
Communism is totalitarian: zero freedom of speech, zero digression from the one party line. University professors get disbanded from their positions & sent to shovel at roadwork. They are replaced by unqualified individuals who used to be farmhands, or machinists. All this, in the name of "equality & fairness". Well, sooner or later it is realized that society has become dysfunctional, and do, or die, some changes have to be made. Then, the system slowly becomes somewhat more reasonable & less restrictive. - Stalin & Mao ruled at the earlier, initial stages of communism. Hungary & Czechoslovakia had the so called "counter-revolutions" in 1956 & 1968. These two happened exactly to abolish the restrictive, anti-people systems and they were semi successful.
Because any nation wide change in the economic system [ here from Feudalism to Communism] will have in-built violence. Think of the Industrial Revolution in the West which is considered as the great shift from Feudalism to Capitalism. Do you think the cotton factories that started the Industrial Revolution would be able to run without the Colonies and Slave Plantations? Just because Capitalism has been able to out-source some of the totalitarianism and horror, it doesn't automatically washes clean the blood.
A wise man once said - "Just because YOU don't know what they're doing, doesn't mean that THEY don't know what they're doing." They're not only sentient, they're also extremely treacherous, calculating, and rational, given the standpoint of their class interests.
I really don't get why Wolff is calling China "socialist" when it's state capitalism, and calling Nordic countries "socialist" when they're social democracies/capitalism. Socialism is worker ownership and control, if workers own a business then it's a socialist business, if most businesses are owned by workers then it's a socialist country. But if most businesses are owned by employers like private individuals or the state who exploit employees then it's capitalism. Communism is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society. If someone supports state capitalism then they aren't "communists".
china isn't state capitalism in its entirety there are plenty of privately owned and operated businesses in china if you were correct about china being solely state capitalism. then no private capital or privately owned businesses would be allowed. that's why he said something about being the "hybrid", and also the chinese identify their economy as "socialism with chinese characteristics" so why not let the chinese identify their own economy, in their own terms, it's self determination at its best
@@hujiannong Maybe "state capitalism" wasn't the best term to explain what I meant. What I meant is that a socialist business is a worker-owned business that is run democratically, so a socialist economy is one where most if not all the businesses are worker-owned, the thing is, most if not all the businesses in China are employer-owned, whether it's the state or a private individual being the employer. That's what I meant when I said that China is capitalist. You shouldn't listen to what some dictator or party says about the economy, you should instead look at the economy itself and ask yourself this: *Is most of the economy or businesses owned by workers or employers?* If most of the businesses are owned by an employer(state-owned or privately owned) then it's a capitalist economy, and if most of the businesses are owned by workers(worker-owned or community-owned) then it's a socialist economy.
Do I have this right? The Revolutionary Socialists called themselves Communists while the Evolutionary Socialists called themselves Socialists. But Communism is an ideal that no one has attained yet?
The socialist & communist way does not align with normal, human psychology. That people don't get exploited in communism, that is a fallacy. They get exploited big time by their communist government. Older people, who worked, applied themselves diligently, then all of a sudden the communist state confiscates their flat, and their little corner vegetable shop they ran diligently all their life, are devastated. Young ones, instead of the promised high life, work for meager wages that are no better than before, get disillusioned. While losing the giant, corporate company owner, they gain an all powerful, distant boss who governs them via party officials in the workplace, eliciting discrimination & discontent.
Capitalists own all the capital and the media. Getting the capital from them requires strong taxation, regulation and enforcement, which requires broad public support as well as police/military cooperation. These are difficult to attain, as capitalists can use their wealth to lobby and fund the capitalist political parties and use their media to turn public support against socialist policies. When in power, capitalists strip countries of their wealth, exploiting natural resources, labor, and govt. subsidies. Capitalists will leave the country at the first sign of socialism and go to a lower tax country, taking all the assets with them that they can. This puts any socialist govt. at an immediate disadvantage, as they need capital to build infrastructure, fund education, and reduce poverty. The govt. therefore needs to take on huge loans from other countries or international capitalists. Other countries/capitalists won't want to lend money to you because they can't guarantee you will pay them back, and because you would use their money to implement policies which are not in their own interests or are even detrimental to them. Any loans you can get will have high interest rates. You get into huge amounts of national debt, and the high interest payments reduce what you can spend to improve your economy. If you miss interest payments, you default which makes it even harder to get financing. Wealthier capitalist countries (e.g. the US) and capitalist organizations (e.g. World Bank, IMF) can exert pressure on you by sanctioning you and cutting you off from finance and international markets unless you implement the policies they tell you to. The entire Cold War was capitalist countries screwing over nascent socialist economies. Look at how the US has consistently undermined socialist governments of South American countries under the Washington Consensus and the innumerable coups carried out by the US. Read about how the European sovereign debt crises impacted countries like Greece and Ireland after the 2008 financial crash and how international capital subverts democracy.
I wasn't requesting a history lesson,@ace9840. I was implying that it hadn't failed anywhere before. Maybe Mussolini's Italy. Even then, it wasn't allowed to flourish at all.
To the anarchists, socialism and communism were the same thing. So I certainly wouldn’t suggest that they are ignorant. Simply that they disagree with state socialists. But to capitalists who conflate the two, then yes you are correct.
While China is accused of subsidizing their companies (which succeeded), Solyndra took $1B from the US Government and then declared bankruptcy (a "rationality" we do not question). While in the West we stress greed and justify human nature (read Aesop's fables), China values respect and contribution to community (read Confucius's analects). This has not been a triumph of dictatorship over democracy, or one of centrally planned economy over free market ... it has been one CULTURE more effective than the other.
Anarchism is so bourgeois … it’s communism, only without any root in reality. It’s idealist and without any real power. It’s individualistic, without any ability to create larger organizations, groups or parties. It’s self-satisfied, without any veritable will to change the system fundamentally. Communists also want the state to disappear. But they realize that you have get through socialism before you can reach that state.
I think there is more promise in the Nordic than in the Chinese model becoming more socialistic , and in the process the former have democracy, freedom, clean air...
Are they all controlled by Nato and EU nowadays? 😂😂😂No freedom to decide which path to go on in the future other than following Neocon orders. China is free to decide what and how to develop, with whom to make friends..
Not only are you comparing small European nations to a large Asian one with 1.4 billion people. You're comparing the beneficiaries of Colonization to a country that was the victim of one. Nordic countries, like the U.S. and other colonial powers, still benefit from the overexploitation of the Global South. The rewards of the welfare systems that are the selling point of Nordic Socialism are largely possible due to the profits of ongoing colonization. While the Nordic welfare state is definitely a laudable undertaking, it can not possibly be replicated in Southeast Asia or Africa or South America, or West Asia in the same way; simply because there is nobody else left to turn into our colonial vassal state like the West did with us. This was the same problem that Soviet Russia and China ran into after their respective rise of the Communist Movement when they tried to modernize their largely agrarian nations without having the benefits of Colonization. To achieve these goals, they had to become more of a command economy and somewhat authoritarian. The USSR ultimately lost the Cold War or as it probably should be called the Propaganda Wars and the US punished the Russians with their shock treatment that liquified the country's economies for decades. China persevered somewhat by merging the command economy on essential goods which was reserved for public consumption with market competition on the rest of the economy. I think Cuba is a better example of how to achieve Communism with democracy, freedom, and clean air. Their economy is obviously hemorrhaged by the US sanctions. But they have a largely popular democratic nation and constitution. They have arguably one of the most vigorous public healthcare systems in the whole world, far better than anything in the US or UK. They even passed personal liberty laws like gay marriage acts long before anybody in the US would even dare to make it into a political issue.
@@troubadour0663 it can be. It will just take 200 years like it took for Sweden to go from a poor to a a wealthy nation. The problem with communism and forceful regime change is that it hopes for instant results and they never materialize. There are no quick fixesbnot for communism, nor for capitalism, socialism or any other ism. Get to terms with it and grow up. As for colonialism go and talk about the wonderful time the soviet iron curtain and other associated cold war states had and then come back.
@@TennesseeJed Oh I see, at first I thought you were talking about socialism/communism. Yeah, absolutely, the dynamics of neoliberal capitalism are only showing tendencies of getting worse.
What you mean by state capitalist in the USSR, is absolutely correct for the period from 1961 to 1991. In 1961, Khrushchev abolished the MAIN law of socialism - the dictatorship of the proletariat. And what did the USSR turn into? Now the proletariat had no power, do you understand? Therefore, the party was not a people’s party! BUT, during Stalin's time, from 1936 to 1953 (formally until 1961) - the USSR had full-fledged socialism. Because the party consisted of proletarians elected by other proletarians in two-stage elections. The party was proletarian. Well, of course, at that time there was no poverty, there was no unemployment - all the needs of the proletariat were satisfied. Until Khrushchev destroyed everything.
I think that’s too simple. The USSR was always inheritly democratic. Like in liberal democracies people voted for representatives that represent their interests. The difference is that in the Soviet Union there was no capitalism. There was no bourgeoisie that controlled the government. It was a planned economy that was ultimately controlled by the proletariat and not the interests capital. Was it perfect? No. Of course, the further you progress towards communism the more direct power the people should have, but the vanguard party was absolutely needed. State „capitalism“ was needed. Although calling it capitalism is wrong in my opinion considering it was not a market oriented profit making mode of production, but a planend one.
@@Joseph_thefather Sorry for my English, I'm from Russia and use an online translator. In Russia, and unfortunately, democracy is expressed differently than in Europe or the USA. The people do not decide anything, it was the same in the Russian Empire and now, in the Russian Federation. Elections are for show, in reality everything has long been decided. In the USSR it was different only in the period from 1917 to 1953, when there was a Bolshevik party, and until the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1961. After that, power was concentrated in the CPSU. Regarding state "capitalism", true-true. I exaggerated when I said "absolutely correct". I meant something else. Comrade Wolff said state capitalism in a different context. If I understood correctly, of course. He meant state capitalism equivalent to the power of the bourgeoisie. That is... the power of the minority over the majority. This affected the economy too! I give an example. Take the same Khrushchev. He abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1961, and in 1962 he raised food prices, artificially. The people went on a legal strike to have them lowered. But Khrushchev simply... shot the people. Read about the "Novocherkassk massacre". If during Stalin's time prices only went down and never went up (for the first time in history), then after that prices started to go up again.
@@FieldOfRational ok, i am probably too ignorant. So how exactly did the dictatorship of the proletariat ended? I mean power was always kinda centralized in the party, but the people could still decide the course the party would take. It was a representative democracy more or less with the difference that there was only one party, which isn’t really relevant for it being democratic (I mean it doesn’t really matter if two political camps are part of the same party or are different parties all together, considering that in the US and France after the revolution there weren’t multiple parties but camps that would become their own parties) and it was democratic centralism. Once a decision has been taken it has been taken, but people had still a say in the decision making progress. So what exactly changed after Khrushchev?
@@Joseph_thefather To be honest, I also know very little, I'm still learning. Khrushchev killed Stalin's comrades for no reason, since they represented great political competition and could challenge Khrushchev's decisions, could prevent the destruction of the foundation of statehood. It was Beria and someone else no less famous. Well, he created the term "Stalin's personality cult" (someone calls it Stalinism) denigrating the achievements of the USSR under Stalin. There was the 20th Party Congress, closed. There he said a lot. And he tried to destroy the most important thing that was under Stalin. One of the most serious decisions in the transition from a socialist economy to a capitalist one was the transition from a cost-oriented economy to a profit-oriented economy. Natural real indicators of production were replaced by cost indicators. And the goals began to rise again. Rollback in economic strategies (the centralized ministries, which were the basis of the national economy, were destroyed. This was replaced by an outdated economic strategy - Soviet national economies. I will try to explain briefly. Soviet national economies are separate councils within settlements, which are not united by a central governing body, which results in low efficiency of joint work of these same separate national economies and slow decision-making due to the logistics of transporting information. Centralized ministries are a more developed form of governance, when there is a central governing body, which means that there are no problems in strategic or tactical planning. This was the progress achieved under Stalin. Khrushchev decided to roll back. A practical example: Stalin created a completely autonomous system of tractor stations for servicing and transporting tractors; so that, if necessary, tractors could be transported to where they were most needed, by order from the center; Khrushchev decided to get rid of service stations; this led to the fact that tractors took a long time to travel; this slowed down the agricultural economy). Degradation in the education system (the abolition of the subject "logic" in schools, changes in the presentation of information in self-education books (encyclopedias, for example. First, I bought the Khrushchev Small Encyclopedia (new, 11 volumes), then the Stalin Small Encyclopedia (old, 10 volumes), and compared. The method of presenting information changed, the structure worsened, the definitions became less integral. In Stalin, everything is good in this regard), Khrushchev also began an open war with the church (he demolished temples, churches, etc. Under Stalin, there was tolerance for religion and they simply adhered to Marx's words "religion is the opium of the people", and under Khrushchev, cruelty to the religious sphere was cultivated). How did he "corrupt" the party, you ask? How did he make it so that his disgusting decisions were supported by the party? He dispersed all the Stalinist party cadres who were extremely vigilant and stood on strictly socialist positions. He came up with the idea of dividing regional organizations into rural and industrial. Those who occupied key positions were sent to rural ones. And those who did not hold socialist positions were placed in industrial organizations. Thus, those who did not adhere to socialist positions became key figures in the party. And finally, there was a transition from the dictatorship of the proletariat to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, unofficially, secretly. Because there is no third option. And the state form of public property ceased to be a form of public property and became a form of private property. This is what Comrade Wolff was talking about, about the period from 1961 to 1991. This entire set of decisions is the first and most significant counterrevolution in the USSR. This is the main thing, I know little for now. Most likely, he did a lot more bad things.
@@FieldOfRational wow, thanks for the detailed answer. For knowing little you actually kinda know a lot. I often heard that people didn’t like Khrushchev, especially Marxist-Leninist, I guess i now know why. What do you think of Deng Xiaoping if I can ask? Many people say that he betrayed the revolution similarly to Khrushchev and Gorbatschow but I mean at least his policies made China more powerful and worked so you can say his policies of market socialism helped socialism in the long run even if it means making some short term compromises with capital.
Communism is an ideal system for people with no greed who love each other more than they love themselves. It is unrealistic since there are no such people in the real world. It's simple impossible to work. On the other hand Capitalism fits perfectly for us human beings. That's why it's more successful. Since it's impossible to eliminate greed the least we can do is to try to moderate it by some reasonable regulations trying to protect the small fish from the bigger ones. Which I believe what they call as socialism.
Can Socialism exist and work without weapinizing Capitalism? Can Communism exist and work by weaponizing Capitalism? Is Socialism weaponized as a means to justify Cspitalist intent? Would this make Socialism Anti-Communism?
I think we can all demonstrably see how well the electoral route has worked in the U.S. Obviously, the Bolsheviks' methods can be questioned, but to say that change can be made without revolution is just childishly silly. Capitalism has captured the government, the media, the elections... exactly how can that be changed by asking nicely? Civil, peaceful, non-violent revolution is preferable. But Capitalism is not non-violent, is it? Sometimes no other option is available. Homelessness, poverty, malnutrition, drug abuse, crime, lack of healthcare, lack of education... all these things are deliberate products of Capitalism and all of them are violent. They lead to harm & death. It has to change one way or another.
The working class must operate the arms of the state, and production for-profit must end. It's really that simple, in a nutshell, so to say. 🤷♂ P.S. I understand that Dr. Wolff is limited by time, but left out of this entire historical lesson was description of what the forces of reaction did, in-response to the revolution in Russia. The Freikorps, the Black Reichswehr, and the Feme - working for the Prussian Junkers - eliminated, assassinated, freightened, disappeared, and tortured hundreds upon hundreds of potential revolutionaries, all across Germany in the years after the Great War. Not only that, but almost every prominent intellectual, labor organizer, community organizer, artist, musician, journalist, political democrat, etc., who could have or would have been a barrier to the rise of the Nazis, in 1933, was murdered (in 2 periods of murder) between 1919 and 1923, or later between 1928 and 1932. And virtually all of these murders went 'unsolved' by the authorities. Such was the shadow of fear cast over the doomed Weimar Republic.
there will always be those who make decisions on how to produce and distribute the 'fruits' of production in a capitalist society the private capitalist individuals are the deciders and distributors - while the government is the regulator in a socialist society, like the USSR, the government is decider, distributor and regulator - "all in one" in a China "hybrid" society, the government allows private capitalist individuals to be deciders and distributors in some sectors - but not all leaving the rest to the government to be decider, distributor - and "over all" regulator of the economy there is no such thing as true communism where government just "withers away" without any clear delineation of responsibilities - for deciding, distributing, and regulating the economy communism as an ideal - will never be achieved. Period.
"The most important event, birthing Communism", the Soviet Revolution"? Hold on. Last time you said the USSR wasn't ever Communist, they even only called themselves Socialist, no? no-make-sense..
You're NOT supposed to "remember" things that have been said. Each and every episode is a standalone proposition...and consistency is NOT a requirement. The history that is convenient is the rule...contradictory facts are verboten. This way you learn things every time. This way you can move FORWARD, "unburdened by what has been.!"
No one has ever been able to achieve true communism, every economy has been mixed with some measure of capitalism in there. The Russian Revolution produced the first Communist Party but they know that they were never able to achieve true communism, they were stuck in what Lennin called state capitalism.
None of what happened in any socialist country. not in Russia, China, Cuba or anywhere else, was communism. It was supposed to become communism but that never actually happened. Only some tribal groups practiced or practice real communism. I don't like to use incorrect language because we Americans are so propagandized that socialism or communism are thought of as dirty words. But socialism would be more acceptable in this country where the real idea of a communist society using that word is a scary to Americans. The two ideas are not interchangeable and one thing we must do is to defuse the reaction to those two ideas. You, Professor Wolff, are good at explaining, and the words you use are important in our time. Your explanation of the split between the socialists and communists still does not make clear that there is no communism and it has not been tried in a big way. I find that a true communal society is a seductive idea. But it's necessary to include the concept of democracy as the glue that holds a communal society together. A synthesis of much of the good parts of all of left thinking is more interesting than dogmatic labeling. But to think that the mostly capitalist economy of China. with all its ills and deviations, is any kind of either socialist or communist society is false. China has capitalism with benefits, similar to what the Northern European "socialist" countries have, except the Chinese system is much more authoritarian. It does not need to be but it is. As long as there are bosses and employees I will never call what exists in China either socialist or communist. That is authoritarian capitalism with a strong dose pf propaganda and nationalism and even economic imperialism. Anything else is misuse of the words Communist and Socialist. Chinese social benefits are more like the benefits I used to get from my capitalist bosses in the 1960s. I got health insurance for myself and my family paid for by the company. As an office worker at Blue Cross, I got life insurance in those days. If I remember correctly, that was paid for by the company too. I got death and dismemberment insurance. My bosses got all the profit from my labor and I got wages. In those days my wages paid for shelter and food. Things have deteriorated since then. Please stop confusing people. If workers do not own the means of production and the profit therefrom, make decisions about their work and are free from excessive rules, regulations and threats from the state or privately-owned bosses you don't have socialism or communism. You have capitalism with benefits only. It is not communist in China it's not really socialist either. The Chinese people work long, hard, don't have autonomy and the state has tremendous power over their lives, is coercive and is threatening especially if anyone protests effectively. Private bosses are becoming a privileged class and have begun speculating without consideration of what's good for the whole people of the country. There isvcorruption. Profit making has taken hold. The state is oppressive and there is now a military industrial complex that are only subordinate to a single authoritarian in the person of Xi Jin Ping. He is what holds the country together with his tame politicians and the police. and if necessary the military. He rules, not represents. I don't like what has happened in China. I'm a working class person. I want more than what China offers under their capitalist system. There are still employers and employees. That's not what I'm hoping for.
Well about your comments on China are fair but not entirely correct because it provides a incomplete picture of China. This argument about about who is the real communist existed between the Soviets and the Chinese Communist CPC. For most of CPC, communism is a means to an end not the end itself generally. The end is a chinese ideal society which includes communism generally. So that is the difference with the Soviets. And CPC at this stage will not waste to much energy to argue with you about theories but will study them though. Their main aim is poverty alleviation, industrialization, education and balancing the different elements in the economy n society. You can call them any name you like, it does not matter if it is white cat or the black cat, the cat that catches the mice is a good cat, Maoism. This is just my point of view.
You are just projecting the prejudice against China, shaped by Western propaganda and mistakenly believe that China is under an authoritarian dictatorship. It is impossible to have any meaningful discussion of China's political system based on such deep-rooted prejudices.
China is a large Eastern country with a population of 1.4 billion and a territory of 9.6 million square kilometers, including 23 provinces, five autonomous regions, four municipalities, two special administrative regions, and bordering 14 neighboring countries… (1/2) Notes: TH-cam auto-deleting my comments, so I have to split it for repost attempt.
It is impossible for one person to be a "dictator" to effectively govern. If it were a "dictatorship", China would not be able to achieve today's comprehensive development achievements. Simply put yourself in Xi’s shoes… How do you dictate? (2/2) Notes: TH-cam auto-deleting my comments, so I have to split it for repost attempt.
Maybe take a look at Vietnam and their dialectic materialism. Best example of a fully functional communist nation. They are still implementing their policies to further the will of the citizens.
I'm sorry, but I can't get over how everytime I click on a video from this channel for a split second I think I'm getting blasted with a discount ginuwine song (because I keep forgetting that's the intro). Like the first time I genuinely thought for a bit that they had gotten some sort of a simplified karaoke version of pony as their intro (of course very off, I can hear that the melody in the chorus isn't actually the same). Anyway, just needed to get that off my chest lol, I appreciate the videos.
So imperialism is the lowest form of Capitalism....where Socialism is the highest form of Capitalism...still with private ownership....you agree or not it changes nothing...
So, Russia is not communist anymore. A national empire who respect orthodoxy religion and traditions. The economy is to the national people. China is Confúcio ideias. Traditional morality with technology. The economy is to national people. The human need resources and the society need some traditions to develop.
How about beeing a moderate people and between capitalism and socialism? That is İslâm. Private property is allowed. Private land is allowed as long as you work on them and produce. If you do not work, government takes from you and gives somebody else. There is the institution of the zekath which necessitates every rich man (above a fixed income) has to give ,%2.5 of his income to the poors. In our modern era, governments have multiple means such as tax revenues and subsidies to make leverage and prosper the paupers. If people can work let them free to work and become rich as long as he/she does not brake the right of the poors (pay tax and moreover they can give charity and be a good person in the eye of the God). This is more suitable for the character of the humanbeeing. Communism and socialism are not suitable from this perspective. On the other hand capitalism is based on the greedeness and limitlesness of the human desire. So it s not suitable either. But it is more suitable than socialism and communism, because people have unlimited desires and dreams. But the collective mind should limit and be on the side of goodness and rightness that means on the side of God. Therefore the unbridled and crony capitalism should be impeded and there must be some regulations made by governments to eliminate the disadvantages and bad sides of capitalism. This seems to me more realist and rational. Socialism and communism seems an utpoia. Communists killed millions of of innocent people in the name of their ideology and egality. Egality is impossible in this world but justice is possible. Some people were even not born in such an egality. İllnesses, parallyses etc impairs it. What is important for a just community is to take care of them and hold above a fixed certain social statute and income. There must be a certain minimum income wage levied by governments and coherent and efficient regulations to ensure it. Everbody should be happy at the certain level in terms of the humanitarian services such as healthcare enough food, housing etc. More of them would be given in the paradise if we be patient. This world is temporary and for our testing by God. So if we believe this it gives us tranquility, patient, ungreedeness, generouisty and understandings towards the other people. To be happy as a community belief of the hereafter, justice day, the Paradise, the Hellfire and the God. This makes people more humble, more generous, more hardworking and abstein from going too far and beeing greedy. Communism leads atheism which does not have these deeds. Capitalism fosters personal selfishness, leisure and greedeness. So none of them is suitable for the nature of the humanbeeing. What is suitable for us is known by the creator of us; that is the God who prescribed the cannons and princeps of a happy and just life in this world. So if we follow these principals we will be prosperous, wealthy and happy and awarded by Paradise as well. What a big reward is this if you think of this. Best regards to all of you.
So sad, 24K views for real knowledge and understanding about an important topic. I guess the masses rather bathe themselves in falsehoods about communism, and stoke the "red scare".
Wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about "communism". This system had never been implemented. It was insparation for Soviet Union, but never came to life. Biggest achivements for socialism in Russia, that people should rule, not monarchs or richests. Revolution must be done in Russia, because Monarchy failed the population.
He did say that communism was never achieved but only Socialism. The only thing he said is that these socialist states are aiming to establish Communism.
I'm disappointed. You have become an apologist for the CCP, which you claim is 'hybrid communism': both socialist and communist. You define the former by means of the Stalinist model which took power after Lenin's death in 1924; i.e. when, as a result of the imperialist backed Civil war, the Soviet Union found itself isolated and under the rule of bureaucratic centralism (both within the party and the state), since there was no opportunity to allow workers control over the entire society to develop. That is the basis of Stalinism, which then used the state to defend its control over the state and production. By doing so, it brutally suppressed its opponents within the party and outside it by means of purges, the gulag and the firing squad, culminating in the grotesquerie of the Show Trials in the 1930s, wherein the leading members of the Communist party confessed to crimes against socialism, in order to protect their families who were held hostage, whence they were duly shot as traitors or 'Trotskyites', allegedly as the enemies of socialism. By the beginning of WW2, Stalin's NKVD had murdered 20 million Russians! Whereas Trotskyism originated in 1923-24 with the Left Opposition under Trotsky's leadership - albeit he had now been forced into exile - which wanted to go back to the ideals of the Russian revolution prior to the Civi war: Workers control over production, leading to a fully socialist economy, via the rule of democratic soviets/councils or workers, soldiers, peasants, women, etc. at every level of society, along with internationalism, because the revolution can't succeed in a single country, no matter how big it is. Once Stalin had murdered the entire leadership of the Communist party, who were accused of being traitors and 'Trotskyites', he then had the exiled Trotsky murdered by one of his agents. Whereas you portray Trotskyism as an aberration of the communist movement. This is a lie. To return to your support for the CCP and its 'hybrid communism' as the way forward: You are defending the suppression of workers democracy, which does not exist in China. Rather what you have is a bureaucratic centralist party, which bases itself on 'socialism within country' (cf. Stalin), which is a form of nationalism- not communist internationalism - which ensures it is able to protect the privileges it has accumulated under its control, whilst it uses repression against anyone who opposes it. So much for ending inequality! How can those of us who call ourselves communists, win the American people, along with the people throughout the world, to communism, as long as you defend a Stalinist system. Comrade Woolf, why are you a supporter of this travesty of communism?
I’m a simple man. I want the workers to own the means of production, and I want the abolition of class.
Have you tried moving to North Korea?
@@disdoncable Have you tried taking your ignorance, indoctrination and Parasitic Capitalism and taking "a long walk off a short pier" and making the world and humanity better of by doing so.
Nice try. Will never happen. Commie-nism was tried & proved to be a complete, unhappy failure. Remember the iron curtain? Ask people, who survived it. The happy medium, the golden middle, is between the monsters of commie world & crony capitalism. Maybe, it's how the US still was, like, say, in 1959.
@dada210
There is no reason to try to make someone understand something it doesn't feel on his own heart the value of humanity.
What do you mean by to own the means of production? You can buy a sewing machine for $100-$2000, a production mill and lathe for $4000, a guitar for $100, a high end laser printer for $700, a 3d scanner for $400, a top end laser cutter for $2000, a tig welder for $800 and a top end PC for $1000. You can spend $3000 for a large solar electrical system to run it for free,
Communism is not the abolishment of class, it is about creating 2 classes, the serfs and the party leaders
I always enjoy listening to you. Your explanations are so clear and concrete. Bravo! Workers of all countries, unite!
Unite to DO WHAT????
I apologize for J Galt. He's a very poor student even though I do think that English is his first language.
Another brainwashed commie who can't answer the question or provide
definitions for any of the economic systems that Wolff claims to understand.
Unite to DO WHAT????
this series has been really good. I've listened to a few others in this vein so far and this one is really helping me understand things more from a historical and chronological standpoint, thanks so much for making it, i can't wait for the 3rd episode!
This was a masterpiece, long have I read about communism, but never have I seen it packaged so succinctly!
Read the Communist Manifesto, honestly way better than this video in its conciseness and clarity. Also another one that's good is Socialism Utopian and Scientific.
One of the most wise and clear study of the socialism and communism in the last hundred years. People need to know the real meaning of these two words before they make any statement or argument. Thanks for the hard work!
Thank you Dr Wolff for adding some meat to the bones of my historical knowledge of communist/socialist evolution.....
makes it easier for the viewer to put a link to part one video in description whenever titling part two or more.
I came here looking for that lmao
The link to part one is in the description.
@@hinxlinx I like to think it's now there because of my comment.
Thank you professor. I feel the class tensions rising in the nervousness of the wealthy and those who believe they are middle class. We’re reaching a point of no return.
I grew up in Italy at the time when the Italian communist party (PCI--partito comunista italiano) was the strongest in the west. I was born in Livorno, the city where in 1921 Gramsci split with the socialists to form the PCI. I went to a state school, and still I was never taught all this. So, it's not just the US. 🙌🏽❤
I lived in Tirrenia for 5 years when I was working with camp Darby, mi mancha italia
@@jamessmith1785 oh wow camp derby. My cousin worked there lol
I grew up in the USSR in a small Ukrainian city with a big railway depot, a middle-size prison, and a military base the size of which is still unknown, these were so-called city-forming enterprises (градообразубщие предприятия). In the center of the city, there was a big shiny white building -- the city communist party community headquarters (Горком партии)ю I went to a state school, before WW2 the school's main building belonged to the local department of the NKVD( НКВД) the People Internal affairs Committee aka the Soviet secret police, large basements thick walls closed perimeter. During WW2 this building was used by the Gestapo aka the Nazi secret police. Our grandparents knew what happened in these basements. But after the war, they built a new compound for the KGB and the Police, and the old building became a school. Every Monday we had a political information lesson, a teacher told us about the working class struggle in the decaying West, how we are lucky to live in the USSR, and how we should be grateful to comrade Brezhnev for our happy childhood, later we were promised communism in the year 2000. The USSR collapsed in 1991, not in 1989, they say President. Reagan did. I'm not so sure about it. I studied Socialism and Communism at the University in free Ukraine my professors were the same old Soviet professors who were free of the Soviet dogma. It wasn't my major. Studying economic models of Socialism/Communism and their realization in practice was fascinating but useless. Communism in theory is beautiful in practice it is ugly and evil. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
PS I am not even fond of the Scandinavian or German models of Socialism.
@@yuribliman8999 then I am curious, what do you want? how do you want it?
@@zxksj There is a quote attributed to Friedrich Engels. "There is one way to destroy a nation: to punish the innocent and not to punish the guilty" or "...: to punish the innocent and reward those who don't deserve it" And that's exactly how it works in the USSR. I'd like the guilty to be held accountable. National Socialism was put on trial Bolshevik Socialism was not.
I am not fully satisfied with the result of the Nuremberg trials, but at least it was something. I'd also like that those who earn it to be rewarded.
Excellent explanation. Thank you.
Wolff is making it seem like Bernstein vs. Luxembourg was just a subjective disagreement amongst socialists. When in fact it was Luxembourg who was correct in her analysis and understanding of capitalism, and how to overcome it. Bernstein basically watered down the ideas of Marx to fit into his and his ilk's careerist interests in Germany.
Yes, the professor is not all knowing and is incorrect on the specifics, but overall it's a fine introduction that serves as a beginning of one's study on the subject.
It's more complex than he lays out and he has his own bias of what aspects are more important. Still a decent summary nonetheless.
@@anopinionatedlaymanappears9052 I disagree, I think it's important to point out what is correct and incorrect, who had the right analysis and who didn't. That is not too complex for people to understand.
@@Zayden.Marxist I didn't say it wasn't important to point out what is correct and what isn't correct or that it would be too complex for people to understand. I said it serves as a useful introduction. Did you even read what I said or are you just looking for an argument?
@@anopinionatedlaymanappears9052 Then maybe you can explain why all of the
economic variants involve the ownership of "the means of production" but none
of Wolff's "understanding" does?
@@jgalt308 What the fuck are you babbling about? You have a very selective reading skill 🤦. I'm ignoring you both.
The professor is always informative.👍🏽👍🏽
How are LIES informative?
@@jgalt308@ajmeekins3885 Fix the money, fix the world. Money is the foundation of society. It allows us to trade (labor, services, goods) efficiently. A manipulated monetary system where money is printed from thin air and debt/credit can be endlessly piled up allows those in control of the money system to pick winners and losers. Those that have access to endless loans buy up resources and competition, centralizing control...creating cartels and near monopolies...leading to poor quality of service and goods...essentially leading to haves and have nots.
Many people fall into marxist ideas looking for solutions but fixing the money is the solution then more cooperative solutions can be found for higher level problems. Hard money and individual liberty is the best way. People must understand that freedom requires responsibility. And luck is inherent in the universe as well, so all people will never have the same opportunities as each other. You need to work with what you can and we need to have a basic set of societal rules such as no killing, stealing (that goes for gov too, the worst offenders have always been those in government supposedly doing good for people), and trade based on a hard monetary system (barter will not suffice for an advanced civilization, and without a hard monetary system a system of control with leaders will be ever more needed to dictate how a token fiat monetary system will be used...which means your wants and needs are subordinate to those of the dictators).
History of Money and Banking: th-cam.com/video/vbiZSUAFcrQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=yKXioj3NzOlAygfQ
So very similar to todays financial and political woes. Politicians and Financiers are the true ultimate parasites of the world. Endless examples in past and present.... stop future parasitic behavior!
Any politician or academic that doesnt point this out is ignorant or leading you astray.
Thanks
Thanks!
What is Communism?: th-cam.com/video/Y0Ud71Unluo/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
Understanding Communism PART 1: th-cam.com/video/-L9rxsESNGU/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
Thanks for posting a link to the first half!
I made a donation. Thanks
Thank you for these. Always appreciate your very useful and insightful perspective
What are you going to use it for?
"Second Hand Rose" (second time listening):
History/Present Day.
Tks. much
One of the best educators in political economy, I enjoy listening to him, never give up of freeing the mind of oppressed class thru educational program like this, big up👍🏾👍🏼
Yeah, the "commies" have been using propaganda in the educational
institutions for over a century now...and you have bought into most of it
if not all of it.
thank you prof. for the different type economic ways and where it is going
That is very accurate. I am impressed. Have my like :)
The continuously changing economic conditions in our society have made it necessary for thousands of people to find additional sources of income. Personally, I am looking at the stock market to fuel my retirement goal of $2m, my concern is the recent market crash.
buying the dip has proven to be profitable although for majority, the solution to their problem can be found only in specialized knowledge hence they seek guidance from well experienced advisors
Agreed, despite my rookie knowledge of investing, I have a financial advisor who did the trick in a bit more than 6 months after a lump sum capital of $500k, and I've so far made a fortune. I'm now buying real estates, gold and silver as advised by my FA.
truly appreciate the implementation of ideas and strategies that result to unmeasurable progress, thus the search for a reputable advisor, mind sharing info of this person guiding you please?
Katherine Nance Dietz is the licensed FA I use. Just google the name. You’d find necessary details to work with and set up an appointment. To be honest, I almost didn't buy the idea of letting someone handle growing my finance, but so glad I did.
curiously inputted Katherine Nance Dietz on the web, spotted her consulting page and was able to schedule a call session, no sweat. Ive seen commentaries about advisors but not one looks this phenomenal
Dr. Wolff,
Tks. much
Another good one Richard!
Thank you, Prof. Wolff!
Another great video by the professor.
As always I look forward learning something from you again
I have the same saying😅
7:30 not to mention that even white men without property were not allowed to vote in some states
Thank you dr. Wolff✊🏼
Excellent presentstion and explanation.
of WHAT?????
Socialists everywhere did not look to the USSR as their main model and example. Many opposed it. Kautsky. The Mensheviks, the Social Revolutionaries, Emma Goldman, Plekhanov just to name a few examples.
Yeah, the traitors of the socialist cause, the _Western_ “socialists”/“marxists”/“communists”/“leftists”, the social-chauvinists, the imperialist Western “left”, the traitors of the global south, the social idealists without any real intention, interest or will to pursue actual transformation of the global capitalist imperialist system. Yes, they were absolutely critical of the Soviet Union (the same kind that are critical of China today). Sometimes, not only “third-campists” (neither Washington nor Moscow/Beijing), but outright (tacit or open) supporters of the Western wars of imperialism. Many of the names you mentioned were even aligning with their own bourgeoisie in the First World War.
If you’re a true supporter of reaching socialism in the future, you shouldn’t be opposed to actually existing socialism in the global south - you should support it!
_Western Marxism_ and _Stalin: The History of a Black Legend_ by Domenico Losurdo is a good start!
_Critical Theory Workshop_ is also a good TH-cam channel to start with.
One day we will all be socialists (states included), and we will thereby be one step closer to reaching communism. But that won’t happen in our lifetime, I bet.
What is your opinion on what is happening to Argentina under Millei?
Thank you professor 😊
Kim Iversen needs to follow this multi-part series on communism! Sometimes she precisely states the exact problem AND proposes communism (i.e., workers should have control over the means of production) and then says, "but that would be communism" and rejects the solution!
Capitalist realism at its finest. Charlie, please reach out to Kim!! Go Charlie, go!!
Kim already challenged Wolff. He ain't goin' back...she might actually remember
what that "challenge" consisted of.
@@jgalt308 I don't know what this means. Kim is emotionally wedded to the 'communism is when government does stuff, including dictator' notion.
As a regular listener, she exudes 'I get off on Rand's chapters with the sex scenes' vibes.
@@falsificationism I didn't accuse her of being "consistent," but she HAS interviewed
Wolff and forced him on the "defensive" almost immediately. I doubt she followed up
up on her "challenge"...( to verify his claim ) or that she even remembers what it was...
but HE AIN"T going back.
Actually, watching it would make this clearer...although clarity has never been
Wolff's forte or intent.
@@jgalt308 ok
excellent Dr.,could you speak on how art and communism are related ?
with ice cream too ... art, ice cream, and communism 🍨
sound good?
terimakasih atas penerangannya salam dari Indonesia♥️
Thank you.
Very good.
Oh my hod I did not think you were able to count to two amazing old communist
Thank you
Peaceful attempts until no other option than revolutionary attempts are available. Would this be a just way of approaching this issue or is revolution never ok? Interested in the everyone's opinion.
How can anyone look at the last century and where we are heading right now and still believe there is a peaceful reformist way to get to a post capitalist world?
Revolution (one that has to be extensively and meticulously prepared) is the only option left. Every peaceful option has been exhausted.
And I am not talking about that romanticized version of revolution people with a Che Guevara poster on their wall dream of. This revolutionary movement has to be comprised of hardened revolutionaries (the part with the meticulous preparation) who do understand that they are not fighting for themselves and their benefits, that this revolution is not about them, but that they are truly fighting for future generations.
Their revolution has to be one of yet unheard of selflessness.
the history of the world knows many uprisings. revolution is the norm, not an excess.
1917 Russia was a 'top-down' terror & revolution organized in the west. That is, the instigator, Lenin, was trained in Switzerland, where he lived for some years. The point for the West was to get rid of the tsar, who they deemed to be an obstacle to obtaining better exposure for western finance in Russia. Lenin was their man. Of course, they had to 'sell' this somehow to some of the public. They used the poorest masses, the so called proletariat, including sailors of the Black Sea & promised them "communist heaven" & sent them against the tsar. The Tsar died, Lenin gained full power, till in a few years he, too, just like the Tsar, died due to dissatisfaction of the masses, who did not get to the promised land. The west still has not obtained what it wants either, which is full power over Russia. That's why the battles around the Black sea today. By the way, Lenin installed the communist system in Russia.
Peaceful attempts is irrealistic. Lust is deeply rooted in human nature. Take Chinese communist founding stage experiences as an example, a lot of early party members fell into capitalist privilege temptations. Only through blood shed revolution during war time, a large group of people reached at the same level of awakening and moved towards one goal at similar pace. Obsession of making everything work for all my benefits not thinking of others is spontaneously in human nature. To get out of this mindset needs a painful treatment
@@PartisanGamerDE We've been in a post capitalist world for over 100 years
Good program, but I wish you mentioned the anarchist strategy to communism and distinguished it from Trotskyism.
How about if people ask their state government representatives and senators to experiment with worker coops more. Maybe I district or city could operate worker coops and other cities do usual capitalism and compare results after maybe
a year.
very informative
Continued thanks for this education.
please read the sources and consider them on your own terms.
@@abody499 ?
Education isn't just uncritically accepting what someone says. Read the sources. Consider the works and how the concepts apply yourself. And then you can decide whether or not this is in fact education.
@@abody499 If you have a complaint to about the presentation feel free to post it.
this is why progress cannot be made. most people arent willing to put in the effort to learn. instead they want others to tell them the answer. this is why things are in the state they are in.
Who wrote the theme song? It’s catchy
Because the societies that participated in ww1 were mostly capitalist countries with a capitalist class structure it was therefore a capitalist war....well if thats the depth of his analysis i guess thats the depths of his thoughts also.
He is only relating what the arguments of the day were. You need to improve your listening comprehension.
@@keffinsg come on be serious... the conclusions he comes too on a subject are predictable....capitalism bad communism good,
@@keffinsg..you got fooled by him. he said it was a capitalist war, then described what people did because they also believed it was a capitalist war.
Nothing to do with national identity, scientific progress undermining religious beliefs.
nietzsche predicted it 30 years prior.
It's fine if the professor comes to the same conclusion for historical events then that's fine.
It's something of two difficulty which majority might always reject if capitalist don't end up becoming war dragon, proletariatization and atheism
The Great Depression is an example of how rewarding banks for bad business practices instead of protecting the public can cause the masses to suffer for decades. Banks were broken and all the mortgages they had a procession of should have been returned to the homeowners and businesses est... This act would have created equity among the masses and prevented the years of banks having worthless mortgages that people couldn't afford to buy.
Thank you. However, you failed to address the dictatorship aspect of the USSR and China. That issue is used by western capitalists to condemn socialism and communism via propaganda claiming that dictators are socialist/communist. Please address this huge misconception especially in the ideal goal of communism. Also, why were these countries so terribly totalitarian under Stalin and Mao?
These countries were birth out of civil war, it was polarised, rightwing nationalists vs communists. The communists just barely won. So it was more out of a sense of protecting the revolution from these rightwing elements within society that were out to sabotage the revolution
Communism is totalitarian: zero freedom of speech, zero digression from the one party line. University professors get disbanded from their positions & sent to shovel at roadwork. They are replaced by unqualified individuals who used to be farmhands, or machinists. All this, in the name of "equality & fairness". Well, sooner or later it is realized that society has become dysfunctional, and do, or die, some changes have to be made. Then, the system slowly becomes somewhat more reasonable & less restrictive. - Stalin & Mao ruled at the earlier, initial stages of communism. Hungary & Czechoslovakia had the so called "counter-revolutions" in 1956 & 1968. These two happened exactly to abolish the restrictive, anti-people systems and they were semi successful.
Because any nation wide change in the economic system [ here from Feudalism to Communism] will have in-built violence. Think of the Industrial Revolution in the West which is considered as the great shift from Feudalism to Capitalism. Do you think the cotton factories that started the Industrial Revolution would be able to run without the Colonies and Slave Plantations? Just because Capitalism has been able to out-source some of the totalitarianism and horror, it doesn't automatically washes clean the blood.
NO FREE QUESTIONS ARE ALLOWED HERE!!!!!!!!!
@@jgalt308 Are you robot dictator? Or just a capitalist jerk?
Here in Poland we had communism for 44 years and hmm... it seems to me no one is missing it. Nevertheless, good luck America!
I am beginning to think the US ruling class isn't actually sentient.
A wise man once said - "Just because YOU don't know what they're doing, doesn't mean that THEY don't know what they're doing."
They're not only sentient, they're also extremely treacherous, calculating, and rational, given the standpoint of their class interests.
@@MatewanMassacre that's just a brainfart.
I really don't get why Wolff is calling China "socialist" when it's state capitalism, and calling Nordic countries "socialist" when they're social democracies/capitalism.
Socialism is worker ownership and control, if workers own a business then it's a socialist business, if most businesses are owned by workers then it's a socialist country. But if most businesses are owned by employers like private individuals or the state who exploit employees then it's capitalism.
Communism is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society. If someone supports state capitalism then they aren't "communists".
china isn't state capitalism in its entirety
there are plenty of privately owned and operated businesses in china
if you were correct about china being solely state capitalism. then no private capital or privately owned businesses would be allowed.
that's why he said something about being the "hybrid", and also the chinese identify their economy as "socialism with chinese characteristics"
so why not let the chinese identify their own economy, in their own terms, it's self determination at its best
@@hujiannong Maybe "state capitalism" wasn't the best term to explain what I meant. What I meant is that a socialist business is a worker-owned business that is run democratically, so a socialist economy is one where most if not all the businesses are worker-owned, the thing is, most if not all the businesses in China are employer-owned, whether it's the state or a private individual being the employer. That's what I meant when I said that China is capitalist.
You shouldn't listen to what some dictator or party says about the economy, you should instead look at the economy itself and ask yourself this: *Is most of the economy or businesses owned by workers or employers?* If most of the businesses are owned by an employer(state-owned or privately owned) then it's a capitalist economy, and if most of the businesses are owned by workers(worker-owned or community-owned) then it's a socialist economy.
communism = public share
capitalism = lion share
Do I have this right? The Revolutionary Socialists called themselves Communists while the Evolutionary Socialists called themselves Socialists. But Communism is an ideal that no one has attained yet?
Why is it so hard to turn an economy socialist?
The socialist & communist way does not align with normal, human psychology. That people don't get exploited in communism, that is a fallacy. They get exploited big time by their communist government. Older people, who worked, applied themselves diligently, then all of a sudden the communist state confiscates their flat, and their little corner vegetable shop they ran diligently all their life, are devastated. Young ones, instead of the promised high life, work for meager wages that are no better than before, get disillusioned. While losing the giant, corporate company owner, they gain an all powerful, distant boss who governs them via party officials in the workplace, eliciting discrimination & discontent.
Because the US will blow it off the face of the earth or sanction it into an apocalyptic dystopia.
Capitalists own all the capital and the media. Getting the capital from them requires strong taxation, regulation and enforcement, which requires broad public support as well as police/military cooperation. These are difficult to attain, as capitalists can use their wealth to lobby and fund the capitalist political parties and use their media to turn public support against socialist policies.
When in power, capitalists strip countries of their wealth, exploiting natural resources, labor, and govt. subsidies. Capitalists will leave the country at the first sign of socialism and go to a lower tax country, taking all the assets with them that they can. This puts any socialist govt. at an immediate disadvantage, as they need capital to build infrastructure, fund education, and reduce poverty. The govt. therefore needs to take on huge loans from other countries or international capitalists.
Other countries/capitalists won't want to lend money to you because they can't guarantee you will pay them back, and because you would use their money to implement policies which are not in their own interests or are even detrimental to them. Any loans you can get will have high interest rates. You get into huge amounts of national debt, and the high interest payments reduce what you can spend to improve your economy. If you miss interest payments, you default which makes it even harder to get financing. Wealthier capitalist countries (e.g. the US) and capitalist organizations (e.g. World Bank, IMF) can exert pressure on you by sanctioning you and cutting you off from finance and international markets unless you implement the policies they tell you to.
The entire Cold War was capitalist countries screwing over nascent socialist economies. Look at how the US has consistently undermined socialist governments of South American countries under the Washington Consensus and the innumerable coups carried out by the US. Read about how the European sovereign debt crises impacted countries like Greece and Ireland after the 2008 financial crash and how international capital subverts democracy.
@ace9840where did it fail before?
I wasn't requesting a history lesson,@ace9840. I was implying that it hadn't failed anywhere before. Maybe Mussolini's Italy. Even then, it wasn't allowed to flourish at all.
To the anarchists, socialism and communism were the same thing. So I certainly wouldn’t suggest that they are ignorant. Simply that they disagree with state socialists.
But to capitalists who conflate the two, then yes you are correct.
thanks for info
Merci !
Translation: One REAL dumbass!!!!
While China is accused of subsidizing their companies (which succeeded), Solyndra took $1B from the US Government and then declared bankruptcy (a "rationality" we do not question).
While in the West we stress greed and justify human nature (read Aesop's fables), China values respect and contribution to community (read Confucius's analects).
This has not been a triumph of dictatorship over democracy, or one of centrally planned economy over free market ... it has been one CULTURE more effective than the other.
Criminal there was no mention of anarchism
Anarchism is so bourgeois … it’s communism, only without any root in reality. It’s idealist and without any real power. It’s individualistic, without any ability to create larger organizations, groups or parties. It’s self-satisfied, without any veritable will to change the system fundamentally.
Communists also want the state to disappear. But they realize that you have get through socialism before you can reach that state.
Was the Russian form of socialism the only revolutionary socialism? Were there not other forms of revolutionary socialism besides Bolshevism?
Thanks as always 🙏
Your continued "ignorance" is appreciated...but $$$$ would be MORE appreciated.
And Wolff "wouldn't have it any other way."...
Saladin has been spotted crossing the carpethian mts with 50,000 calvary 😅😅😅
I think there is more promise in the Nordic than in the Chinese model becoming more socialistic , and in the process the former have democracy, freedom, clean air...
You are comparing small European nations to one large country with 1.4 billion people.
If you manage to avoid the horrid & destructive Barnevernet .
I saw the videos about & it sounded like its directors were pedop*les.
Are they all controlled by Nato and EU nowadays? 😂😂😂No freedom to decide which path to go on in the future other than following Neocon orders. China is free to decide what and how to develop, with whom to make friends..
Not only are you comparing small European nations to a large Asian one with 1.4 billion people. You're comparing the beneficiaries of Colonization to a country that was the victim of one. Nordic countries, like the U.S. and other colonial powers, still benefit from the overexploitation of the Global South. The rewards of the welfare systems that are the selling point of Nordic Socialism are largely possible due to the profits of ongoing colonization. While the Nordic welfare state is definitely a laudable undertaking, it can not possibly be replicated in Southeast Asia or Africa or South America, or West Asia in the same way; simply because there is nobody else left to turn into our colonial vassal state like the West did with us. This was the same problem that Soviet Russia and China ran into after their respective rise of the Communist Movement when they tried to modernize their largely agrarian nations without having the benefits of Colonization. To achieve these goals, they had to become more of a command economy and somewhat authoritarian. The USSR ultimately lost the Cold War or as it probably should be called the Propaganda Wars and the US punished the Russians with their shock treatment that liquified the country's economies for decades. China persevered somewhat by merging the command economy on essential goods which was reserved for public consumption with market competition on the rest of the economy. I think Cuba is a better example of how to achieve Communism with democracy, freedom, and clean air. Their economy is obviously hemorrhaged by the US sanctions. But they have a largely popular democratic nation and constitution. They have arguably one of the most vigorous public healthcare systems in the whole world, far better than anything in the US or UK. They even passed personal liberty laws like gay marriage acts long before anybody in the US would even dare to make it into a political issue.
@@troubadour0663 it can be. It will just take 200 years like it took for Sweden to go from a poor to a a wealthy nation. The problem with communism and forceful regime change is that it hopes for instant results and they never materialize. There are no quick fixesbnot for communism, nor for capitalism, socialism or any other ism. Get to terms with it and grow up. As for colonialism go and talk about the wonderful time the soviet iron curtain and other associated cold war states had and then come back.
Always great videos
but pleasee change your intro music, it is very dated
It ain't going to get any better, no matter how much we talk about it, until it collapses horrifically.
What's "it"?
@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict The economic situation of supply side (trickle down), and the corporate capture of our representative democracy.
@@TennesseeJed Oh I see, at first I thought you were talking about socialism/communism. Yeah, absolutely, the dynamics of neoliberal capitalism are only showing tendencies of getting worse.
Perhaps you should edit your post to be more specific 😂
Or until the working class gets educated about socialism, primordially in the more developed countries
Oh yeah
What you mean by state capitalist in the USSR, is absolutely correct for the period from 1961 to 1991. In 1961, Khrushchev abolished the MAIN law of socialism - the dictatorship of the proletariat. And what did the USSR turn into? Now the proletariat had no power, do you understand? Therefore, the party was not a people’s party!
BUT, during Stalin's time, from 1936 to 1953 (formally until 1961) - the USSR had full-fledged socialism. Because the party consisted of proletarians elected by other proletarians in two-stage elections. The party was proletarian. Well, of course, at that time there was no poverty, there was no unemployment - all the needs of the proletariat were satisfied. Until Khrushchev destroyed everything.
I think that’s too simple. The USSR was always inheritly democratic. Like in liberal democracies people voted for representatives that represent their interests. The difference is that in the Soviet Union there was no capitalism. There was no bourgeoisie that controlled the government. It was a planned economy that was ultimately controlled by the proletariat and not the interests capital. Was it perfect? No. Of course, the further you progress towards communism the more direct power the people should have, but the vanguard party was absolutely needed. State „capitalism“ was needed. Although calling it capitalism is wrong in my opinion considering it was not a market oriented profit making mode of production, but a planend one.
@@Joseph_thefather Sorry for my English, I'm from Russia and use an online translator.
In Russia, and unfortunately, democracy is expressed differently than in Europe or the USA. The people do not decide anything, it was the same in the Russian Empire and now, in the Russian Federation. Elections are for show, in reality everything has long been decided. In the USSR it was different only in the period from 1917 to 1953, when there was a Bolshevik party, and until the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1961. After that, power was concentrated in the CPSU.
Regarding state "capitalism", true-true. I exaggerated when I said "absolutely correct". I meant something else. Comrade Wolff said state capitalism in a different context. If I understood correctly, of course. He meant state capitalism equivalent to the power of the bourgeoisie. That is... the power of the minority over the majority.
This affected the economy too! I give an example. Take the same Khrushchev. He abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1961, and in 1962 he raised food prices, artificially. The people went on a legal strike to have them lowered. But Khrushchev simply... shot the people. Read about the "Novocherkassk massacre". If during Stalin's time prices only went down and never went up (for the first time in history), then after that prices started to go up again.
@@FieldOfRational ok, i am probably too ignorant. So how exactly did the dictatorship of the proletariat ended? I mean power was always kinda centralized in the party, but the people could still decide the course the party would take. It was a representative democracy more or less with the difference that there was only one party, which isn’t really relevant for it being democratic (I mean it doesn’t really matter if two political camps are part of the same party or are different parties all together, considering that in the US and France after the revolution there weren’t multiple parties but camps that would become their own parties) and it was democratic centralism. Once a decision has been taken it has been taken, but people had still a say in the decision making progress. So what exactly changed after Khrushchev?
@@Joseph_thefather To be honest, I also know very little, I'm still learning.
Khrushchev killed Stalin's comrades for no reason, since they represented great political competition and could challenge Khrushchev's decisions, could prevent the destruction of the foundation of statehood. It was Beria and someone else no less famous. Well, he created the term "Stalin's personality cult" (someone calls it Stalinism) denigrating the achievements of the USSR under Stalin. There was the 20th Party Congress, closed. There he said a lot. And he tried to destroy the most important thing that was under Stalin. One of the most serious decisions in the transition from a socialist economy to a capitalist one was the transition from a cost-oriented economy to a profit-oriented economy. Natural real indicators of production were replaced by cost indicators. And the goals began to rise again.
Rollback in economic strategies (the centralized ministries, which were the basis of the national economy, were destroyed. This was replaced by an outdated economic strategy - Soviet national economies. I will try to explain briefly. Soviet national economies are separate councils within settlements, which are not united by a central governing body, which results in low efficiency of joint work of these same separate national economies and slow decision-making due to the logistics of transporting information. Centralized ministries are a more developed form of governance, when there is a central governing body, which means that there are no problems in strategic or tactical planning. This was the progress achieved under Stalin. Khrushchev decided to roll back. A practical example: Stalin created a completely autonomous system of tractor stations for servicing and transporting tractors; so that, if necessary, tractors could be transported to where they were most needed, by order from the center; Khrushchev decided to get rid of service stations; this led to the fact that tractors took a long time to travel; this slowed down the agricultural economy).
Degradation in the education system (the abolition of the subject "logic" in schools, changes in the presentation of information in self-education books (encyclopedias, for example. First, I bought the Khrushchev Small Encyclopedia (new, 11 volumes), then the Stalin Small Encyclopedia (old, 10 volumes), and compared. The method of presenting information changed, the structure worsened, the definitions became less integral. In Stalin, everything is good in this regard), Khrushchev also began an open war with the church (he demolished temples, churches, etc. Under Stalin, there was tolerance for religion and they simply adhered to Marx's words "religion is the opium of the people", and under Khrushchev, cruelty to the religious sphere was cultivated).
How did he "corrupt" the party, you ask? How did he make it so that his disgusting decisions were supported by the party? He dispersed all the Stalinist party cadres who were extremely vigilant and stood on strictly socialist positions. He came up with the idea of dividing regional organizations into rural and industrial. Those who occupied key positions were sent to rural ones. And those who did not hold socialist positions were placed in industrial organizations. Thus, those who did not adhere to socialist positions became key figures in the party.
And finally, there was a transition from the dictatorship of the proletariat to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, unofficially, secretly. Because there is no third option. And the state form of public property ceased to be a form of public property and became a form of private property. This is what Comrade Wolff was talking about, about the period from 1961 to 1991.
This entire set of decisions is the first and most significant counterrevolution in the USSR.
This is the main thing, I know little for now. Most likely, he did a lot more bad things.
@@FieldOfRational wow, thanks for the detailed answer. For knowing little you actually kinda know a lot. I often heard that people didn’t like Khrushchev, especially Marxist-Leninist, I guess i now know why. What do you think of Deng Xiaoping if I can ask? Many people say that he betrayed the revolution similarly to Khrushchev and Gorbatschow but I mean at least his policies made China more powerful and worked so you can say his policies of market socialism helped socialism in the long run even if it means making some short term compromises with capital.
Communism is an ideal system for people with no greed who love each other more than they love themselves. It is unrealistic since there are no such people in the real world. It's simple impossible to work.
On the other hand Capitalism fits perfectly for us human beings. That's why it's more successful.
Since it's impossible to eliminate greed the least we can do is to try to moderate it by some reasonable regulations trying to protect the small fish from the bigger ones. Which I believe what they call as socialism.
En Serio ?
Can Socialism exist and work without weapinizing Capitalism?
Can Communism exist and work by weaponizing Capitalism?
Is Socialism weaponized as a means to justify Cspitalist intent? Would this make Socialism Anti-Communism?
What
I think we can all demonstrably see how well the electoral route has worked in the U.S. Obviously, the Bolsheviks' methods can be questioned, but to say that change can be made without revolution is just childishly silly. Capitalism has captured the government, the media, the elections... exactly how can that be changed by asking nicely? Civil, peaceful, non-violent revolution is preferable. But Capitalism is not non-violent, is it? Sometimes no other option is available. Homelessness, poverty, malnutrition, drug abuse, crime, lack of healthcare, lack of education... all these things are deliberate products of Capitalism and all of them are violent. They lead to harm & death. It has to change one way or another.
The working class must operate the arms of the state, and production for-profit must end.
It's really that simple, in a nutshell, so to say. 🤷♂
P.S. I understand that Dr. Wolff is limited by time, but left out of this entire historical lesson was description of what the forces of reaction did, in-response to the revolution in Russia.
The Freikorps, the Black Reichswehr, and the Feme - working for the Prussian Junkers - eliminated, assassinated, freightened, disappeared, and tortured hundreds upon hundreds of potential revolutionaries, all across Germany in the years after the Great War. Not only that, but almost every prominent intellectual, labor organizer, community organizer, artist, musician, journalist, political democrat, etc., who could have or would have been a barrier to the rise of the Nazis, in 1933, was murdered (in 2 periods of murder) between 1919 and 1923, or later between 1928 and 1932. And virtually all of these murders went 'unsolved' by the authorities. Such was the shadow of fear cast over the doomed Weimar Republic.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE WIND SIDE OF COMMUNIST THAT IS ANARCHISM 🙋🏻♂️ DON'T FORGET COMMUNIST ANARCHISM
Thank you Prof that was amazingly illuminating on the differences between and various shades of socialisms and communism.
💪✊
Dear professor, it is not hard to see how and why the Russian revolution succeeded.
It is shown that the electoral type was a failure in pursuit of the original goal. Simply, elections are rigged.
there will always be those who make decisions on how to produce and distribute the 'fruits' of production
in a capitalist society the private capitalist individuals
are the deciders and distributors - while the government is the regulator
in a socialist society, like the USSR,
the government is decider, distributor and regulator - "all in one"
in a China "hybrid" society,
the government allows private capitalist individuals
to be deciders and distributors in some sectors - but not all
leaving the rest to the government to be decider, distributor - and "over all" regulator of the economy
there is no such thing as true communism where government just "withers away"
without any clear delineation of responsibilities - for deciding, distributing, and regulating the economy
communism as an ideal - will never be achieved. Period.
"The most important event, birthing Communism", the Soviet Revolution"? Hold on. Last time you said the USSR wasn't ever Communist, they even only called themselves Socialist, no? no-make-sense..
You're NOT supposed to "remember" things that have been said.
Each and every episode is a standalone proposition...and consistency is NOT a requirement.
The history that is convenient is the rule...contradictory facts are verboten.
This way you learn things every time.
This way you can move FORWARD, "unburdened by what has been.!"
No one has ever been able to achieve true communism, every economy has been mixed with some measure of capitalism in there. The Russian Revolution produced the first Communist Party but they know that they were never able to achieve true communism, they were stuck in what Lennin called state capitalism.
Weather is like chille
✌🏾✌🏾
👋👋👋
Gonzalez Jose Perez David Taylor Kevin
Wow...what a great theme about rape and capitalism.
None of what happened in any socialist country. not in Russia, China, Cuba or anywhere else, was communism. It was supposed to become communism but that never actually happened. Only some tribal groups practiced or practice real communism.
I don't like to use incorrect language because we Americans are so propagandized that socialism or communism are thought of as dirty words. But socialism would be more acceptable in this country where the real idea of a communist society using that word is a scary to Americans. The two ideas are not interchangeable and one thing we must do is to defuse the reaction to those two ideas. You, Professor Wolff, are good at explaining, and the words you use are important in our time. Your explanation of the split between the socialists and communists still does not make clear that there is no communism and it has not been tried in a big way.
I find that a true communal society is a seductive idea. But it's necessary to include the concept of democracy as the glue that holds a communal society together. A synthesis of much of the good parts of all of left thinking is more interesting than dogmatic labeling. But to think that the mostly capitalist economy of China. with all its ills and deviations, is any kind of either socialist or communist society is false. China has capitalism with benefits, similar to what the Northern European "socialist" countries have, except the Chinese system is much more authoritarian. It does not need to be but it is. As long as there are bosses and employees I will never call what exists in China either socialist or communist. That is authoritarian capitalism with a strong dose pf propaganda and nationalism and even economic imperialism. Anything else is misuse of the words Communist and Socialist. Chinese social benefits are more like the benefits I used to get from my capitalist bosses in the 1960s. I got health insurance for myself and my family paid for by the company. As an office worker at Blue Cross, I got life insurance in those days. If I remember correctly, that was paid for by the company too. I got death and dismemberment insurance. My bosses got all the profit from my labor and I got wages. In those days my wages paid for shelter and food. Things have deteriorated since then.
Please stop confusing people. If workers do not own the means of production and the profit therefrom, make decisions about their work and are free from excessive rules, regulations and threats from the state or privately-owned bosses you don't have socialism or communism. You have capitalism with benefits only. It is not communist in China it's not really socialist either. The Chinese people work long, hard, don't have autonomy and the state has tremendous power over their lives, is coercive and is threatening especially if anyone protests effectively. Private bosses are becoming a privileged class and have begun speculating without consideration of what's good for the whole people of the country. There isvcorruption. Profit making has taken hold. The state is oppressive and there is now a military industrial complex that are only subordinate to a single authoritarian in the person of Xi Jin Ping. He is what holds the country together with his tame politicians and the police. and if necessary the military. He rules, not represents.
I don't like what has happened in China. I'm a working class person. I want more than what China offers under their capitalist system. There are still employers and employees. That's not what I'm hoping for.
Well about your comments on China are fair but not entirely correct because it provides a incomplete picture of China. This argument about about who is the real communist existed between the Soviets and the Chinese Communist CPC. For most of CPC, communism is a means to an end not the end itself generally. The end is a chinese ideal society which includes communism generally. So that is the difference with the Soviets. And CPC at this stage will not waste to much energy to argue with you about theories but will study them though. Their main aim is poverty alleviation, industrialization, education and balancing the different elements in the economy n society. You can call them any name you like, it does not matter if it is white cat or the black cat, the cat that catches the mice is a good cat, Maoism. This is just my point of view.
You are just projecting the prejudice against China, shaped by Western propaganda and mistakenly believe that China is under an authoritarian dictatorship.
It is impossible to have any meaningful discussion of China's political system based on such deep-rooted prejudices.
China is a large Eastern country with a population of 1.4 billion and a territory of 9.6 million square kilometers, including 23 provinces, five autonomous regions, four municipalities, two special administrative regions, and bordering 14 neighboring countries…
(1/2)
Notes: TH-cam auto-deleting my comments, so I have to split it for repost attempt.
It is impossible for one person to be a "dictator" to effectively govern. If it were a "dictatorship", China would not be able to achieve today's comprehensive development achievements.
Simply put yourself in Xi’s shoes… How do you dictate?
(2/2)
Notes: TH-cam auto-deleting my comments, so I have to split it for repost attempt.
Maybe take a look at Vietnam and their dialectic materialism. Best example of a fully functional communist nation. They are still implementing their policies to further the will of the citizens.
Vote Jill Stein Green Party Stop War support Homeland🎉🎉
Ой, какие умники пошлиии..., интересно кто таких платит. Может Сталин из ада?
I'm sorry, but I can't get over how everytime I click on a video from this channel for a split second I think I'm getting blasted with a discount ginuwine song (because I keep forgetting that's the intro). Like the first time I genuinely thought for a bit that they had gotten some sort of a simplified karaoke version of pony as their intro (of course very off, I can hear that the melody in the chorus isn't actually the same). Anyway, just needed to get that off my chest lol, I appreciate the videos.
So imperialism is the lowest form of Capitalism....where Socialism is the highest form of Capitalism...still with private ownership....you agree or not it changes nothing...
So, Russia is not communist anymore. A national empire who respect orthodoxy religion and traditions. The economy is to the national people. China is Confúcio ideias. Traditional morality with technology. The economy is to national people. The human need resources and the society need some traditions to develop.
russia was never communist, not china, not north korea, not cuba
@@hujiannongRussia was. China was. Cuba and North Korea still communist
How about beeing a moderate people and between capitalism and socialism? That is İslâm. Private property is allowed. Private land is allowed as long as you work on them and produce. If you do not work, government takes from you and gives somebody else. There is the institution of the zekath which necessitates every rich man (above a fixed income) has to give ,%2.5 of his income to the poors. In our modern era, governments have multiple means such as tax revenues and subsidies to make leverage and prosper the paupers. If people can work let them free to work and become rich as long as he/she does not brake the right of the poors (pay tax and moreover they can give charity and be a good person in the eye of the God). This is more suitable for the character of the humanbeeing. Communism and socialism are not suitable from this perspective. On the other hand capitalism is based on the greedeness and limitlesness of the human desire. So it s not suitable either. But it is more suitable than socialism and communism, because people have unlimited desires and dreams. But the collective mind should limit and be on the side of goodness and rightness that means on the side of God. Therefore the unbridled and crony capitalism should be impeded and there must be some regulations made by governments to eliminate the disadvantages and bad sides of capitalism. This seems to me more realist and rational. Socialism and communism seems an utpoia. Communists killed millions of of innocent people in the name of their ideology and egality. Egality is impossible in this world but justice is possible. Some people were even not born in such an egality. İllnesses, parallyses etc impairs it. What is important for a just community is to take care of them and hold above a fixed certain social statute and income. There must be a certain minimum income wage levied by governments and coherent and efficient regulations to ensure it. Everbody should be happy at the certain level in terms of the humanitarian services such as healthcare enough food, housing etc. More of them would be given in the paradise if we be patient. This world is temporary and for our testing by God. So if we believe this it gives us tranquility, patient, ungreedeness, generouisty and understandings towards the other people. To be happy as a community belief of the hereafter, justice day, the Paradise, the Hellfire and the God. This makes people more humble, more generous, more hardworking and abstein from going too far and beeing greedy. Communism leads atheism which does not have these deeds. Capitalism fosters personal selfishness, leisure and greedeness. So none of them is suitable for the nature of the humanbeeing. What is suitable for us is known by the creator of us; that is the God who prescribed the cannons and princeps of a happy and just life in this world. So if we follow these principals we will be prosperous, wealthy and happy and awarded by Paradise as well. What a big reward is this if you think of this. Best regards to all of you.
So sad, 24K views for real knowledge and understanding about an important topic. I guess the masses rather bathe themselves in falsehoods about communism, and stoke the "red scare".
National galaxy work guarantee 😀
Been checking out Caleb Maupin. He’s doing really good work.
Wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about "communism". This system had never been implemented. It was insparation for Soviet Union, but never came to life. Biggest achivements for socialism in Russia, that people should rule, not monarchs or richests. Revolution must be done in Russia, because Monarchy failed the population.
He did say that communism was never achieved but only Socialism. The only thing he said is that these socialist states are aiming to establish Communism.
I'm disappointed. You have become an apologist for the CCP, which you claim is 'hybrid communism': both socialist and communist. You define the former by means of the Stalinist model which took power after Lenin's death in 1924; i.e. when, as a result of the imperialist backed Civil war, the Soviet Union found itself isolated and under the rule of bureaucratic centralism (both within the party and the state), since there was no opportunity to allow workers control over the entire society to develop. That is the basis of Stalinism, which then used the state to defend its control over the state and production. By doing so, it brutally suppressed its opponents within the party and outside it by means of purges, the gulag and the firing squad, culminating in the grotesquerie of the Show Trials in the 1930s, wherein the leading members of the Communist party confessed to crimes against socialism, in order to protect their families who were held hostage, whence they were duly shot as traitors or 'Trotskyites', allegedly as the enemies of socialism. By the beginning of WW2, Stalin's NKVD had murdered 20 million Russians! Whereas Trotskyism originated in 1923-24 with the Left Opposition under Trotsky's leadership - albeit he had now been forced into exile - which wanted to go back to the ideals of the Russian revolution prior to the Civi war: Workers control over production, leading to a fully socialist economy, via the rule of democratic soviets/councils or workers, soldiers, peasants, women, etc. at every level of society, along with internationalism, because the revolution can't succeed in a single country, no matter how big it is. Once Stalin had murdered the entire leadership of the Communist party, who were accused of being traitors and 'Trotskyites', he then had the exiled Trotsky murdered by one of his agents. Whereas you portray Trotskyism as an aberration of the communist movement. This is a lie. To return to your support for the CCP and its 'hybrid communism' as the way forward: You are defending the suppression of workers democracy, which does not exist in China. Rather what you have is a bureaucratic centralist party, which bases itself on 'socialism within country' (cf. Stalin), which is a form of nationalism- not communist internationalism - which ensures it is able to protect the privileges it has accumulated under its control, whilst it uses repression against anyone who opposes it. So much for ending inequality! How can those of us who call ourselves communists, win the American people, along with the people throughout the world, to communism, as long as you defend a Stalinist system. Comrade Woolf, why are you a supporter of this travesty of communism?
Taylor Carol Moore Barbara Miller Jason
Revolution!!!
This man is so pathetic.