@@SA-mo3hq Can't you just use the State as a method of transitioning from a communist nation into a capitalist international market? For instance, within the nation everything is collective and money doesn't really exist, but wealth is maintained via mercantilist international trade.
@@Fusseliko the distinction between communism and socialism is only introduced after Lenin’s work, meaning people can still discuss the idea of a communist or socialist society and be talking about the same thing as you if they don’t care about that distinction, either on ideological or ease of language grounds. Oh look I can be annoying and pedantic too
@@johnlonne7062 I'll have you know I'm an English racist thank you very much. I'm joking ofc, I don't think disagreeing with someone of a different ethnic background makes you racist. Like, I remember having to contend with this shit during the derek Chauvin trial, when my self identified "national socialist" co-worker tried to say I was a racist for supporting BLM, because he managed to find one black dude who works at our factory that didn't like the protests, and I bit the bullet and said "yeah, and? I think that guy is wrong." I had to deal with that shit for weeks, it's stupid when they do it, and it's stupid when you do it. I do hope he is serious however, I'm always interested in new perspectives on these topics. I flirted with Auth-left politics a little when I was younger- but I'm a Marxist first and foremost, and those ideals lead me to identify with anarchist thought more than statist lefties. My main issue with capitalism is that it has an inherently authoritarian, exploitative, and coercive nature. It strips freedom from the working class, it reduces us to commodities despite the fact that we aren't just the glue holding society together, the force building the palaces we will never step foot inside, growing, packing, preparing and, serving the food we ultimately can't afford to eat, *the working class basically IS society* with a bougie parasite attached to it. I really *want* all of these "socialist" or "communist" governments to succeed. I desperately want an example I can point towards that a better world is possible. I'm as charitable as possible with Tankies and MLs. But time and time again I just see people mangling theory to prop up a different ruling class that's almost as bad, or often just as bad as the bougie fucks that oppress the working class in western societies. When they aren't outright threatening me for not falling in line, they are obviously trying to sell me something. I think you need to consider the nuance of leftist disagreement a bit closer, rather than writing anyone who disagrees with you as some kind of reactionary and just moving on.
I think his point about how indoctrination in the US works is really good. Its isn't about telling us a series of very specific things to believe. What the US does is much more effective. If Americans don't even have a basic grasp on what politics is and only know "America win" it's really hard to get them to meaningfully oppose the state. On the other hand, having clearly defined ideologies and boundaries makes it easier for people to want to push beyond the boundaries and stuff. Which is why the US's system of confusion is so effective and hard to counter.
It's also a great point of understanding incentive structures. It's not about having a direct line to push someone, it's about creating something that kind of 'nudges' you by making you follow along. Changing the incentive structure is fundamentally more important than trying to make a singular, direct push.
It's honestly more luck than anything else. They had the right ideas but still had bigotry and racism and slavery plus giant swaths of land and resources an ocean away from the rest of the world and never having to deal with a war on their own terf outside of separation from Britain
It's the same thing in the West generally, I grew up in Canada (Ontario) and we were taught vague, mutually inconsistent takes on everything from politics to history. It's about confusing you enough that you don't pay attention to details, you just go off of vibes and what's familiar. Mostly it makes apathetic citizens, at its worst in makes conservatives, it makes any kind of meaningful change next to impossible.
"A ton of people think it's socialism when the Post Office delivers you letters" sent me into a fit of laughter and I'm terrified about what my sense of humor has degraded into
I understand there is a difference but neoliberalism is taught in schools in my experience. Capitalism is venerated and socialism is described as when "the government does stuff"; and in high school I actually had to do an assignment on what I thought was better with only that biased information provided. State ideology is 100% taught in schools. I was never once taught how the CIA overthrows governments worldwide I was taught how the USSR failed and how China and Japan won by opening their markets, with maybe only a slight footnote about how mcarthyism and vietnam war was fucked. not even mentioning how the states rights myth is still taught in some southern schools lol I live in Cali
Remember, school systems are more decentralized in the US than most countries. There are some schools in the south or midwest teaching evolution along with creationism. Some schools did teach some of the things you said but it all depends on where you live.
As a Californian, while we were told that the USSR failed, it wasn't slandered anymore than just saying "They poorly implemented socialism, which led to the Empire collapsing". I agree with the comment above that American schools tend to be more decentralized than Vietnamese ones
That is weird. I am a Vietnamese myself and I didn't study Marxism-Leninism or Ho Chi Minh Thought from primary schools. To this day, I still have no idea what Ho Chi Minh Thought is about.
I love spirit science. Major religions have had thousands of years to homogenize and rationalize their crazy ass origins. Early jews were a polytheist offshoot of the Canaanite religion. Enlil and Enki got up to some wild shit. The character that would become the hebrew god had a wife. Possibly several wives. But look at the bible now. It's a snooze fest. Spirit science on the other hand is this goofy mix of all of the craziest parts of a half dozen religions mixed up with your boilerplate conspiracism and antisemitism. While borrowing heavily from jewish mysticism! Talk about biting the hand that feeds. Sure, many of the people who buy into it are an absolute threat to society. But still, it's fascinating watching a religion like this develop in the modern age. Wish I could live a thousand years just to see if the whole thing formalizes and gets smoothed over to be more appealing.
It reminds me of the thing religions do where they state some obvious fact and then claim they invented it. Like without the 10 Commandments no would know that murder is wrong.
@@rainbowkrampus I'm way too afraid of what types of people will be born of Spirit Science and Q anon to find them quirky and interesting. Maybe after the movement dies out and they are left to the history books it will be easier to laugh, similar to how we can laugh at Nazi germany today for being controlled by idiots, but when they had their hands on the guns we had to take them seriously.
wait hold the fuck on. Luna spends a ton of time talking about how vietnam is a step above when it comes to political education. She talks about how vietnamese people are taught about marxism-leninism from grade school. Yet at 46:52 the best argument she can think of is "Well the vietnamese people just dont know what a free market is"
tbf nobody knows what a free market actually is lol Especially ancaps and right libertarians. They think it's some magical thing that solves all societies problems.
It's frustrating cause she could just had said that people in Vietnam understanding of what a free market is or should be is not the same as what people on the USA for example would think, but the way that she talked it was like she didn't even understand what was asked.
@@charliekahn4205 It's nebulous and has different intepretations because people have different goals. For example we are considered to be in free market capitalism but we have put into place regulations to make sure things are fair. A right wing ancap would say there should be no regulation at all but that's not really "free" either because it would allow people to manipulate the market on a whim. The term I would prefer to use when it comes to free market is just a market that anyone can enter into without discrimination but that's never how it's described by most. I feel most people describe it as a market where you can sell/buy whatever you want
Actually, maybe I'm letting some important detail about she said that makes clear this isn't the case but it is possible that she was just asking what was the way that they made that question in vietnamize and then commenting about how it could be bad in case it was asked in english
This video is gonna be such a valuable tool for educating people in the future about how the internet allows us to have discourse about ideas no one actually is educated about. It's wild.
That’s yes beauty and danger of the internet. It’s just random people shooting the shit most of the time… it’s not “professionals” unless you’re listening to lectures. And even those are by humans with opinions and different understandings of reality such that nothing any human says should be taken as gospel.
Not for nothing but it's always been this way. People talk about shit they don't understand face to face too. There's nothing particularly novel about the internet when it comes to communication other than distance and the speed at which the information can travel. Everything else is just humans doing human shit.
@@rainbowkrampus I think you *almost* get the difference here. Unfortunately, the language around media is been altered when it comes to the post internet world. It used to be when you write something or make a piece of media and share it through an outlet, that's called 'publishing' and you had to go through a rigorous process to become published. It took work, was often collaborative and checked for accuracy (or at least spelling and grammar) by editors, etc. What I'm getting at is this and all comments are publishing, but we no longer use this term, even though that's what it is. The internet changed the definition of publishing to be *just* something that's of creative/collaboration/polished nature, but every time we hit the 'post' or 'reply' or 'comment' button, we're publishing as well. So the difference is people used to have shit opinions about things they know nothing about and only their closest friends and what not, people within earshot would hear it because it wasn't published. Now everyone publishes every stupid little nugget of idiocy when they get triggered by something they disagree with. Technology changes language and language forms the perceptions of world. The social media landscape has altered forever what it means to 'publish' despite the fact we're all publishers now. There's also the aspect of everyone has a local access television level studio in their pockets or on their desks now for 'publishing'. Some may argue this is good, but again, previously publishing was a collaborative process with some checks and balances that ensured some levels of accuracy, quality or *insert your qualitative necessity here*. This is no longer the case. It's not a surprise that the already distorted understanding of the world American's had prior to this has become increasingly distorted. Other countries, as well, have experienced this. It's not like Sargon Carl is American or anything. Anyway...I hate people. Individual folks are cool, but people suck.
@Rainbow Krampus Isn't that like saying "the only difference that the radio made is that now we can hear people further away faster" like... Isn't that A MASSIVE change to how communication technology works? Fundamentally I agree with you, nothing happening here is completely new. But it's always accessible in our pockets and there's hundreds or even thousands of people talking over each other. The internet COULD be the most efficient information delivery system in existence, but it's carved up by tech giants that would rather keep us "engaged" than provide access to understandable information. Vaush mostly goes hard against Luna, in my opinion, rather than challenging her ideas. Which sucks. It's just gonna cause drama and end up dividing people who should agree.
You know, the only time they mentioned dialectical materialism in my school was during Catholic religion class -- this is Germany, where there is no separation of church and state -- and they basically claimed it was Stalin believing there is no God and only matter exists. No joke!
I mean, at least I can see how that mistake might happen, but yeah that is really dumb. Like, first of all, that is just "materialism", not dialectical, and even then it's grossly oversimplified. Which is particularly strange because it's the most simple ideology to explain the beliefs of, because the only belief is "the only things that exist are those in the material world, and everything that happens is the results of those material things, which are entirely made up of matter and energy, interacting." Yet "only matter exists" would be implicitly denying the existence of energy (which is a fundamental part of how the universe works), and theoretically, godlike beings could exist under materialism, they'd just have to be possible to explain without supernatural elements. (Although I think it's unlikely that many materialists believe this)
@@MrGreenTabasco They are mostly separated but the state manages the collecting of church taxes and also there is state mandated religion classes in school since it's considered part of our culture. Tho nowadays there is a tendency to replace religion class with ethics class since it serves the same purpose and is more inclusive of non-christian beliefs.
@@MrGreenTabasco They literally teach religion in public school. Not Sunday school. Public school. Catholic or Lutheran, depending on your denomination. They give you a choice of "ethics," but my very fairy-tale believing parents told me that was not a proper choice to make, and for a long time I was too young and dumb not to go along with them. By the time I was old enough to put my foot down I was in a school with too few atheist students to have an ethics class. So I was stuffed into Catholic religion class again, this time with a bunch of other atheists. Let's just say our teacher was not very happy with us that year.
To add a bit of clarity to the concept of dialectical materialism. First, Marx never actually used the term himself, it was developed later to describe the character of his philosophy. Specifically, Marx's materialism is understood to be 'dialectic' due to its focus on the relationship between humans and their environment (thus the primacy of 'material conditions'). The dialectic interactions between people and their environments then produce class conflict due to inherent contradictions between the two and produce historical movement. In Hegelian terms: People with rational interest (thesis) + material conditions of capitalism (antithesis) = Revolution (synthesis). "Dialectic" in this context describes the character of a philosophical system and has nothing to do with investigatory methods or arguments. Edit: To be clear, this is an over-simplification for illustrative purposes. User Bobsity Jonesity provides a great elaboration below that is much more grounded in the details of Marxist and Hegelian philosophy.
I haven’t watched the video so maybe your response makes more sense in context but dialectical materialism or Hegelian dialectics for that matter don’t use “thesis, antithesis, synthesis”. Hegel specifically saw any sort of strict formulation (such as the triad) as something which wouldn’t be able to capture the full scope of spirit. Marx had the same general feeling towards such formulations which is why his dialectical method is based more so on interrelations and a universal notion of becoming. He views objects in the world as things which are constantly in motion, reproducing and changing themselves according to their relations, interrelations, and contradictions, and thus not privy to static and abstract formalization. The splitting up of “humans with rational interests” and “material conditions” as thesis and antithesis is problematic too since Marx would state that you can’t make a separation between human rationality or interests and the material world in which they are born, which is what many of the “utopian” socialist that he heavily criticized did. I get the point that you were trying to make, that the material conditions would effect the consciousness of the proletarian class enough to the point where they would achieve revolution, but still these two factors of man and material should be seen in an interrelated unity in order to get the full scope of their relations. Lastly, the materialist dialectic is in some way an investigatory method, as it’s a basic outline on the ways in which we should view social systems in the material world and see how they evolve and grow. Some Marxist would say that’s it’s primarily, or solely a method (which I disagree with), but at the very least a large and important feature of Dialectical materialism is its methodological character. Btw not going up to bat for the person vaush is reviewing or whatever, I haven’t really watched the video yet and I have no clue if either of them say anything I agree or disagree with, just wanted to comment this because I can’t fall asleep lmao
I've needed Vaush take, with commentary below, on Dialectical Materialism for over a year. I've never been fully confident that I have a basic understanding of it because my mind has always seemed to work that way, but when I explain it to conservatives as "everything is connected with a lot of moving parts" I think I might have it.
@@Well.Pharaoh Don't... Dialectics isn't about "relationship between humans and the environment" at all... Dialectics is a way everything as a synergy of opposites. For instance being on vacation means not working, but to be on vacation you need to have a job, vacations is absence of in the presence of work. It's really useful to frame history and to think events that happen over time. If you're talking to conservatives about this, you're doing something wrong... You're basically explaining the concept of screwdriver to people whose car broke. It won't help.
@@vitek2 Yeah I completely understand, it’s hard to try to explain something as complex as dialectical philosophy in a short TH-cam comment, there’s always bound to be some sort of simplification that you have to make that wont allow you to give the full scope of what you’re trying to communicate.
What really made this feel like and fever dream is the guy awkwardly explaining how his dad kind of fucking sucks while upbeat music keeps playing in the background. Yknow, perhaps Luna oi is just pulling a social experiment right now to test how go best dialectically melt peoples brains
tbf, that's EJ's "comedy style", he looks up to tim heideker. I realized this when he randomly appeared on an episode of office hours with tim, vic berger, and fred armisen. It was kinda awkward.
When they used the analogy of his dad drinking beer when driving and the kid's tale of the three blind men and the elephant is the point I really started banging my head on my desk even harder
Did she say Fidel Castro and Che Guevara where people of color? Castro is 2nd / 3rd generation of spanish migrants on the mother side and 1st generation on his father side 😂😂😂
Even if that survey is biased and flawed as Luna states during her meltdown there, Vietnam is still an extreme outlier, so the only conclusion has to be that Pew Research is specifically and solely biased *against Vietnam*, and not China or Venezuela for some reason
@@phunkracy Sure, but why is Vietnam such an extreme outlier? There are other """socialist""" countries included in the survey. If we're attributing bias on the part of the researchers, why were their results for China et al. not similarly extreme?
@Awawawa CM I don't personally have an opinion on this survey's bias or lack thereof, I was just granting that to steelman phunkracy's position. Thank you for the detailed explanation though! That was a good read. So I guess the final explanation Luna stumbles onto, after calling the survey propaganda and saying that the Vietnamese don't know what free markets are, is the right one, that Vietnam's free markets are "doing something right" (at least in contrast to before).
I honestly just think that people who believe a small group (government elitists) should hold vast majority of power and run a country, will never fully reach nor grasp the concept of socialism(worker ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange). Anarchism is the way to go...specifically, Mutualist anarchism imo✌🏼
"why are so many people in vietnam so optimistic about the future?" because when your system is so bad that there is no way to go but up, its easy to know that the future will be better. because it cant get any worse.
As someone educated in philosophy, she definitely is constantly conflating terms in a really weird way, beyond that she's omitting any kind of epistemology, in fact she's implicitly affirming naive realism which is literally the epistemology of Ayn Rand, an approach generally considered to be invalid.
The Vietnamese D-M textbooks are snoozefests and lack philosophical substantial references, things are simplified to "yeah unlike idealist folks or utopian fellas we take things seriously". Even the Philosophical course used in postgrad education uses the obsolete dualism between supposedly homogenous Western philosophy and Oriental philosophy. It's ridiculous, they can't even name a philosopher outside of socialist realm. And contributions by someone like Tran Duc Thao are nowhere to be found in mainstream textbooks. Some crucial literature and debate sources like Talawas, with major debates on Marxism, were stopped 2004 partly because of censorship.
I don't know what kind of school Vaush want to but neoliberalism was absolutely taught in my school and I had to take a 6 months course in it that was basically capitalism rah rah rah. And yes this was a public school not a private one
Okay, so, I study philosophy, and I do indeed wish to die listening to Luna. Vaush is somewhat simplifying, but is correct, Luna is incoherent and juggles several incompatible positions however she sees convinient. Around an hour in, Luna goes so insane she manages to kick my depression in despite the drugs I take. Wow. Being a postmodernist, Vaush's statement on killing ourselves is fucking close to reality. What drugs does the Vietnam party use during classes to induce a permanent state of positional incoherence?
The girl is right about the materialist/idealist divide. Marx thought mater was primordial to reason, so he believed in using material evidence to analyse how ideas arise. Hegel was an idealist, so he believed that reason provides the conditions for mater.
I despise that in the left we will spend hours upon hours discussing the definition of an idea. Without even considering what the real life workings of these ideas are. Sure communication is important, and clear definitions much more so. But what is the point of defining something, if all we do is attack the usage of the word and not the definitions/ideas behind it. It's seriously the most useless leftie thing to do. I mean there are full on studies done that prove that the majority of the western population agrees with socialist ideas. It's just when we use the categorical names for said ideas people usually fall away from it. Because they have a fucked up view on what they think the word "sOcIALisT" means. How about we just focus on the ideas. That's one of the things that Bernie does so incredibly well. Convince people of his leftist ideologie BECAUSE he doesn't bother to label it. He just has his beliefs.
Right. This is why I can't get behind the infighting of these creators which I find individually valuable. I think they all have moments of dishonesty and I wouldn't expect them not to.
" discussing the definition of an idea" The problem is that all this bullshit Luna is saying is no different from a New Ager Using Quantum physics. People like Luna is why its so hard too spread the message. She changes the definition of these things too support her claims. im not a marxist but she aint either lol.
But it is the spirit of the idea that she is conflating. One example is she's talking about consciousness based on a person's mind, and the other is class consciousness which talks about the person's being part of a class. Both mean different things, and Marx only spoke about one, not the other. Terms are essential to define if you want to get a proper understanding of a subject and not just guess around based on intuition what the author of the ideas referenced meant.
I was skipping through to see if he actually had any intelligent criticism. I made it to the part where he’s debating a Wikipedia article and I’m questioning my sanity wondering how this guy has a following
2 ปีที่แล้ว +26
She really said that Che Guevara and Fidel Castro were non white😂😂😂😂, I guess “El Che” coming from a well off Spanish and Irish family and Fidel being of Spanish descent is not white anymore
I once used my partners sociology textbook as a coaster and I think I absorbed a better understanding of dialectical materialism through the coffee than she got from her degree in Marxist Leninism.
@@Ass_of_Amalek Yeah. 4chan has finally devolved to a state of irony poisoning and online induced schizophrenia that they’ve been rendered incapable of communicating with regular people. They’re lost within the bowels of the great machine. So the rightist memeing falls on the boomers now.
@@Gum_Cuzzler I am pretty sure 4chan was a cesspool of terminally online people so irony poisoned as to prevent them from communicating with regular people 15 years ago, though they replaced letters with numbers, which was fun, at lease.
The version of socialism Marx and Engels developed was at the time called Scientific Socialism as opposed to existing utopian socialism (see "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Engels). So yes, while today calling Marxism scientific can sound weird and "peak ideology", those are the terms used by the literature at the time.
I don't mean to be unkind, but she did such a poor job of explaining dialectic materialism. I legitimately don't think she understands the concept herself (and that's OK, we all struggle with certain concepts sometimes), but you really gotta be careful about speaking with authority about things you struggle with, her misplaced confidence left her wide open on this one.
@@casperchristiansen2458 Which illustrates perfectly the short comings of "just read theory". Texts aren't recipe books, they're meant to make you think and question certain beliefs, not tell you what to think.
I find myself so frustrated when vaush is talking about class struggle when she talks about dialectical materialism. She is simply saying that dialectical materialism makes arguments that have a grounding in the real world instead of just ideas in someone's head. In doing this marx was able to come up with concepts like class struggle. Here's a quote from the wiki that i think pretty clearly sums it up "Marx's criticism of Hegel asserts that Hegel's dialectics go astray by dealing with ideas, with the human mind. Hegel's dialectic, Marx says, inappropriately concerns "the process of the human brain"; it focuses on ideas. Hegel's thought is in fact sometimes called dialectical idealism. Marx, on the contrary, believed that dialectics should deal not with the mental world of ideas but with "the material world", the world of production and other economic activity. This was a very important transformation because it allowed him to move dialectics out of the contextual subject of philosophy and into the study of social relations based on the material world." So in short Vaush isn't making an actual argument against what shes saying, he's just talking about the product. Marx created class struggle through dialectical materialism
I agree with Vaush when he says that the United States don't have a nationalistic indoctrination going on. That's why the US harps on about patriotism instead. Patriotism is, sort of, the voluntary side of nationalism. It's the low-carb version. It's the individualistic choice to SIMP for your own country as opposed to the state-mandated love you MUST express for your country.
"Scientific" matter is the definition used in physics. Something with mass and volume. Marxist "matter" refers to things that effect the concepts our perception perceives. Under this definition, a governmental institution is matter, despite being formed from ideas.
@@thatsinteresting3415 no, she explicitly cited lenin in her video with a quote literally saying "matter is a philosophical category denoting objective reality which is given to man in his sensations, and which is copied, photographed, and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them". To say she was using the the definition of matter used in physics or in everyday language is a dishonest misrepresentation of her arguments. Stop posting cringe
I'd have more respect for tankies if they could articulate an ideology that didn't sound like a bunch of barely-coherent babble propped up to simp for authoritarians while still calling themselves allegedly left. Also the term for comrade you're looking for is "Tovarysh."
I’m not a tankie but if you want to learn about this kind of ideology, all of the major Marxist works are available for free online. I think Lenin’s What is to be Done is a very insightful pamphlet which people on the left could definitely learn from. You’ll be surprised once you start reading this stuff how prevalent the discussions are to modern day. People like Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, even moderates like Karl Kautsky were basically dealing with a lot of the same shit as we are today, and they brilliantly articulated solutions which are still relevant. Theory is still relevant. To ignore theory is a lazy, self-satisfied, wasteful, and narcissistic position. This isn’t a hate comment against Vaush I still like him. I appreciate when he makes an effort to understand the finer theoretical points of Marxism, though I think he should do this more.
@@BallMuncher555 go into a tankie stream and try to say that Stalin didn’t really believe in the ideals he mouthed or something like that. I guarantee you it won’t go unpunished lmao
@@kx7500 You've never read Marx. "We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror." - Marx, Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1849)
To be fair, in my opinion Vietnamese people support the free market because : 1. Their country was suffering global isolation after the soviet collapse and neo lib free market reforms pulled them out of poverty so it's sort of a intuitive understanding among people that free market = good. 2. They have been brainwashed into believing that free market is the best and end all be all system. 3. When they were asked what a free market is, they said that they didn't knew. Then the poll tried to contextualize that free markets pulled Vietnam out of poverty ( which is true but it's like saying that Hitler's sucide stopped the Holocaust. The german losses and defeat by the allies cause Hitler to sudoku ).
Please don’t compare life under the free market with the Holocaust that’s a shit analogy. Fact is an economic system must withstand outside pressure and you can still participate in the global market with a less liberal economic system. Vietnams version of socialism just didn’t work and the free market was a better system, it’s not perfect but infinitely better. I’m pretty sure most people in Vietnam would agree.
so what you're saying is.... they do support free market reforms? you just took the long road & decided to randomly mention the HOLOCAUST to poison the well?
I respect a lot of what Ho Chi Minh did as a leader, but unfortunately, him and Vietnam are/were state capitalist. As a Mutualist Anarchist, I believe in worker ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. I also believe in the *freed* market just as the father of Anarchism did. In America, what capitalists call "free markets" are neither free nor markets since it's all within a matrix of corporate monopolies enforced and/or subsidized by the government. They simply legitimized capitalist property rights and power relations that were based solely on the use of force(feudalism, colonialism, imperialism) ✌🏼
This is a tremendous demonstration of the intellectual abusiveness of MLs/'tankies'. They don't have a solid enough understanding (or will to understand) to truly ground their ideas in beliefs they say they truly believe. This is why they always form-fit the societies they defend to ideologies/ideas they *say* they like. It's a truly frustrating level of intellectual dishonesty.
To be fair, I get the same feeling when I listen to vaush talk about his version of “socialism”… I would like to see him define/describe his ideal economy and how that’s different from Nordic style mixed economy capitalism or eliminating traditional capital companies without a command economy
@@awkwardturtle2842 I thought he went into a fair bit of detail about that. If I'm not mistaken, he's in favor of decommodifying essential services like healthcare that have relatively inelastic demand, having them fully subsidized by the government, while retaining market mechanics for luxuries and the like. The difference is that he advocates for worker ownership of as many industries as possible to the point of potentially mandating the implementation of worker cooperatives over the traditional autocratic firm model. That's the biggest key difference from the Nordic social democracy - private capital ownership would be redistributed to the workers of a firm, which is not something that would require a command economy (which don't work, in part because a centralized authority tends to be prone to massive inefficiency and corruption if tasked to evaluate demand for an entire population). As for methods, he seems to advocate specifically for a mix of grassroots action (mass labor movements building into unionization) and electoralism (particularly, excising the far right completely and shifting to a dichotomy of leftists versus centrists rather than centrists versus fascists, if not outright abolishing the de facto first past the post two-party system in favor of ranked choice pluralistic voting). I could be wrong about the details, but he has stated he doesn't want to focus on an ideal economic model in favor of prioritizing more immediate transitional changes, because he considers talk about far future economic endpoints to be too unattainable. Which I don't necessarily agree with, but I do think many of his actual propositions are sound.
@@bugsbunny4647 TRUE. Except when he gets moralitypilled, then he drops all the good pragmatic data brain stuff for weird intuitive biases. But at least his interpretation of socialism isn't overwhelmingly larp.
This is definitely Vaush at his best. I have learned so much from him talking about politics via his 101 videos to other philosophical & ideological analysis he does. I'm not that far into this but just his explanation of explaining how the material conditions lead to the civil war & why the south was so adamant for keeping slavery & the motives of the US to enact the Civil Rights Act. I don't know, just the way he explains things resonates a lot with me & I will never understand why people misrepresent his positions. Edit: I should clarify. When I say at his best, I mean generally speaking not that this is his best take.
Ive been pretty neutral on Vaush, I see him becasue I find him entretaining, but honestly his takes in this video are cringe inducing. Putting asside the issues he has with tankies, calling the USSR both capitalist and fascist is something not someone with knowledge on the topic would say. They werent even liberal either before or after the revolution. I think the 'Vaush knows all theory' has made him not willing to further explore literature and be confident in his current knowledge.
Yikes. I think this is one of his worst videos. Too much latent American exceptionalism. I can’t blame him too much because he is so young and American/western culture is all he knows. His ignorant confidence is pretty cringe.
@@imyourmaster77 I'm pretty sure there's nothing fundamentally inaccurate about that take. The term "state capitalism" is an incredibly common one used by leftists to describe the functional outcome of Soviet style communism, in which the state is mechanically indistinguishable from a single monopoly corporation. And Vaush is known to draw his definition of fascism from Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism, many points of which the Soviet Union manifested in its time.
These are the vaush videos I miss. Going over studies, reading over history and Wikipedia pages about countries to debunk videos. I actually learn stuff here. Vaush has kinda fell off recently in my eyes talking about boring drama stuff and doing very surface level reaction videos. If you ever read this comment vaush, please do takedowns that require more thought and research on stream.
The issue with Vaush's content lately is due to two things. Covid and no Trump. Covid is omnipresent in world politics and there's not a lot you can say about it that hasn't already been said. Practically every week something stops happening or gets cancelled due to covid. The whole world is stuck in a holding pattern in many ways. Trump was an unmitigated source of chaos who ginned up some new threat to democracy at least once a month. The Trump years and ensuing right wing radicalization and violence forced a lot of conversations very quickly. Vaush was never a big research guy. He has always focused on rhetoric. To go from mile a minute Trump to boring ass Biden and covid's chilling factor on everything is basically like getting off of heroin cold turkey. We got used to the constant chaos and now we can't live without it. Things will pick up a little around mid terms but I wouldn't expect the same degree of constant "I need to be an expert on thing X in the next 5 minutes because that's all the right will be talking about" for a while. And honestly, hopefully we never need to be in that position again. It would be a good thing if politics got so boring that Vaush had to quit doing this. That's not going to happen obviously. But really that should be the goal.
@@maxcormier7821 Wikipedia is literally not academically reliable, it is not a scientific journal, it is not ranked, it is not peer reviewed and it is not used as a source in any scientific paper. Im a economic scientist, and i saw a wikipedia article claiming that "The netherlands has the highest amount of wealth inequality", it was based on a faulty understanding of a swiss Paper. Somebody than went on to make a Video about that topic and got 3.7 Million views lol (its on a channel called "economics explained"). Learn about Sience , its valuable.
Though I’ve never heard it used for Philosophy before, I feel the quote “__ loads the gun, __ pulls the trigger” fits really well. Material conditions load the gun, but ideology pulls the trigger.
@@ezachleewright2309 Yes actually. Vietnam cut down jungles like crazy to build hydropower plants, only recently they slow it down because hydropower fucks with agriculture too much.
Many people in Vietnam have this same shallow understanding of philosophy and logic (wrt to ideologies), unfortunately. Their level of argumentation is non-sensical and is a result of indoctrination. Bear in mind that these things are never learned through original works by the authors, but rather through translated excerpts compiled into books (as you see in the beginning). I doubt that students actually reach out to read the original works (which also takes a certain level of English reading skill and context parsing which many students don't necessarily have if they live their entire lives in Vietnam). Of course, translated works don't do works of philosophy justice (e.g., due to cultural differences and context sensitivity), which I suspect partially contributes to her mixing up concepts together.
The worst thing, I think, is that juxtaposing empiricism and leftist economics isn't even technically wrong. It's actually correct to suggest that empirical study broadly supports leftist conclusions about correct socioeconomic policy. But the conflation of "empirical data about socioeconomic progress favors leftism" and this weird essentialist take that "communism IS a science that reveals objective truths about the world" is where it gives way to dogmatism.
To be fair most of the original works of Marxism were written in German, some in French, and some in Italian. But at least our translation aren't filtered by state apparatuses and the closeness of the European languages and culture help to get closer to the original intent.
@@grandsome1 yes I was gonna say English/German/etc. but the translation in quality and context is arguably close to the original work, whereas that is not the case for the Vietnamese case
I think that’s the problem with a lot of education that’s done through taking original works and filtering them through another persons perspective and teaching that instead of the original work. Also I agree about the translation thing, but doesn’t that also mean English speakers have a disadvantage in reading Marx? Unless you read it in the original (German? I think?)
I actually made a joke about how you could probably sell capitalism to tankies if you preceded it by them term 'the people's'. Turns out i'm a fucking prophet XD
Just tell them liberals hate it, will do the same trick But to be fair, most people of all ideologies are much more about the presentation than the content,
Slavery is a good example of how material interests can drive ideology, but ideology can also drives material actions, in ways that sometimes contradict the material interests of the actors (including powerful actors, not just masses who can be dismissed as having "false consciousness"). (Note: I'm essentially stealing the following analysis from someone else, but I can't recall who; if it comes to me, I'll edit this comment.) If you look at the Ancient Mediterranean, you have lots of agricultural and mining slaves whose lives tend to be pretty horrific (and very short, in the case of salt miners), but you also have not only slaves who are skilled physical artisans, but even slaves with intellectual professions, such as tutors and debate teachers. And the usual practice with the top performers among both of the latter groups is essentially the following: They're allowed to sell their services, for money, on their own initiative and to customers of their own choosing, and they get to keep a portion of their earnings and do what they want with it (including, but not limited to, saving up to buy their own freedom), while the master gets the rest. Because, if you have someone with marketable skills that aren't as easily quantified as "number of bales of cotton picked per hour," this turns out to be the _most efficient_ way to extract value from them (with an added bonus of their being less likely to revolt and slit your throat than slaves who are driven by whips). And there are analogous practices in a number of other historical societies. But this never really takes off in majority of the American South, despite occasional proposals and abortive attempts, because there's a strong _ideological_ opposition (expressed through a mixture of laws and social pressure) to allowing slaves that level of freedom and autonomy, even when doing so would allow their owners (who are generally the most powerful people around) to make more money than they could otherwise.
I genuinely don’t know how mad I should be at Luna for saying this goofiness. It’s like being mad at a Turkish person who denies the Armenian genocide based on what they were taught growing up: they might be perfectly lovely people who’ve just been very narrowly/wrongly educated about certain topics.
There's definitely a blurry line between taught ignorance and active bigotry/misinfo. Personally, I take into account two major things- the size of their platform/access to educational resources and the material impact their actions have
CCP simping is my line. I doubt that is taught in Vietnam with Winnie the Pooh looming at them trying to colonize. Wait, they aren't Westerners... I mean, peacefully adhere them to the People's Republic of China.
Hegelian idealism does not posit the view that people are motivated more by ideas than by material circumstances. If you study the subject in some more depth, you'll actually find that Hegel's idealism has little in common with much of the other philosophical idealisms which existed prior to him, as Hegel never actually says that there is no material reality, or denies materiality its substance. Hegel's project was in fact to overcome the alien character of materiality by bringing it into unity with consciousness (the unity of thought and being), and this project is supposed to be extremely difficult ("the slaughterbench of human happiness") precisely because materiality IS so imminent. Indeed it would be senseless to speak of such a unity, if materiality was not already a given existent. Anyway, it's a very common misunderstanding of Hegel that gets spread around. If anyone wants to get a real look at what Hegel was about instead of the common Marxist caricature, I recommend "Hegel's Grand Synthesis," written by a Hegel scholar.
Absolutely agree with this. Hegel's writing can be extremely hard to chew on so I understand all the confusion and misinterpretation of his work, but I wish people who weren't familiar with these topics wouldn't speak with such authority on them, especially to such a large audience.
The Pew Research study is pretty interesting. I think it kind of shows how people don't really know what a free market economy is, what socialism means etc. If you look through the answers for certain countries they are pretty contradictory or they just go against their own interests.
Anyone who thinks the current global economy operates meaningfully as a free market doesn't really fully understand what a free market is, which unfortunately applies to the majority of capitalists...
That's because survey's like that don't actually care about truth, just big numbers that benefit the lie it's telling. If somebody went up to you and 5 other people in a store then asked "Do you support the 'Free Market System' in your country." would you assume all 6 of you were talking about the same system? What about the person asking? Even better, survey's like this rarely have more than 2,000 people and 1,000 is extremely misleading; Luna seemed to take the survey at face value since Vietnam has rules about purposely misleading information like this and Vaush clearly didn't give a shit as long as his hot takes got more views and money for his channel. For example: Caliente, Nevada (Bet you didn't know it existed until now)... ...is a town of slightly over 1,000 people. It has a handful of buildings and is otherwise a rarely visited tourist trap. If you were to think 1,000 out of 98,678,083(Read: ninty eight million, six hundred and seventy eight thousand, and eighty three - as of Thursday, January 13, 2022) is somehow "pretty damn telling" as another commenter put it then me and my friends have a bridge to sell you.
I honestly just think that people who believe a small group (government elitists) should hold vast majority of power and run a country, will never fully reach nor grasp the concept of socialism(worker ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange). Anarchism is the way to go...specifically, Mutualist anarchism imo✌🏼
Interesting to see Germany has higher agreement with free markets than the USA. I would assume that to be an outcome of a market economy that actually has worked out okay for many people. The European countries with flagging economies show a lot less support for free markets despite existing under the same EU framework.
I assume that has a lot to do with our recent history concerning the GDR. Economic weakness was after all one of the main factors for that state to fail (right after being an authoritarian surveillance state). Germany also benefits the most from the EU as a strongly export-focused economy. In the game of exploitative economics we* are the winners, for now. *the small German capitalist class, not actually us
Germanies Market is not a "completely free" marlet, but a socialeconomical, which in short means it is tried to be shackled in all aspects that would damage the social fabric. For example, the "breadbasket" is a set of policies that try to make sure prices for goods who are necessary for everyday life (bread, beer, toiletpaper) are cheap, while products like wine are more expensive. It is probably one of the closest existing models towards the idea of social market, however imperfect.
@@MrGreenTabasco Yeah, that was my point. The implementation of market economies in a nation greatly influences their attitudes towards markets. Germany is fairly liveable on low or moderate incomes, provides a lot of safety nets and has effectively shielded the population from market failures so far. It's not paradise, but the political class has done a lot of things that go directly against Capitalist interests and support workers. Like the minimum wage that is dutifully ticking up. The markets sorta work for most of the population, even if it's of course a slim elite that pockets most. We can argue if this is the electoral system working better, less excessive elites or SocDem frameworks holding together more, but the result has lately drawn in a lot of American immigrants so there has to be something to it.
Germans are economic Imperialists, who bankrupted the Southern countries, and tried to blame the victim; then consequently did "shock therapies" to them, that were a failure. They are an abomination, reuinification should have never taken place, Americans are less "Nazi" than them, and that's saying something. Now that the SPD did its wonder again and re-militarised Germany, the future of the continent is pretty bleak, assuming the Putin business doesn't end up in World War first.
The Wiki didn't seem to mention that a lot of Vietnam's economic crisis was due to the incredible damage sustained by US bombing and chemical warfare campaigns. Agent Orange and other defoliants were devastating to crops, not to mention the extremely high rate of birth defects incurred by its use leading to astronomical healthcare costs for poor villagers. Additionally the US deployed "Rome plows" (much like the military bulldozers Israel uses to demolish Palestinian homes and olive groves) to disrupt ancient agricultural systems. And to rub salt in the wound; after the war Vietnam was under embargo forbidding them from importing livestock (the primary means of production in a communal agrarian system). I'm starting to think that a lot of Luna's analysis is based on the first principle of "America bad" which I totally understand but definitely clouds people's judgment.
I haven't finished the whole video yet but at times Vaush's understanding of things outside America and his generalization of things really doesn't do him any favors
@@lallig8860 No, is because your understanding of socioeconomics work best when related to that you are familiar with, meanwhile they are not ideal at all for other regions.
Can you point to me where in the video he generalizes something? I'm just a bit confused on what this critique has to do with anything he said in the video?
Lol, America doesn't have a state ideology? How absurd! The ideology is Manifest Destiny. It's chants of "USA! USA! USA!". It's mandatory saluting of the flag.
The rhetoric of Manifest Destiny began and ended in the 19th century. Why are you making it seem like Americans are taught a Manifest Destiny doctrine in schools right now? Lmao
We learned about Manifest Destiny in my public school as a deluded, violent, racist belief that Americans held in the 19th and early 20th century. It wasn't venerated. We also never learned about the CIA's various coups around the world though.
Notice how at around 42:00 Luna thunders this poll from the mountaintops about how 25 percent of people support the free market in the U.S, and then IMMEDIATELY when she's realized she's read it wrong (which is okay, it happens, I get things wrong too sometimes), she then mentally flips to "Look who did the poll. Pew Research. They didn't define what the free market is, hmph.", like she's Deidara. So wait, when you think the poll agrees with you and what you say, it's "Haha the 25 and 3% of people in the U.S. and Vietnam agree with the free market system, so socialism is........... oh wait.... what's that? 25 and 3% DISAGREE with free markets?........" *Luna.exe has stopped working*
Don't forget that she also says that people have thrown this graph as an "own" at her dozens of times apparently. So, I guess she confidently speaks out of her ass about a topic she should be intimately familiar with as she has encountered the topic many times before? What a surprise.
@@Lightningkuriboh states whose ppl have more voting power due to the senate and presidential elections, have more distorted textbooks. That is done specifically to sway elections and give the minority party elections. Teaching kids in nyc the truth doesn’t matter
@@Jeevanm71 While each state has different curriculum standards, the issue is that in most states each individual school district can choose their own textbooks and sources...but in Texas, in particular, the *state* Board of Education mandates textbooks for all districts. This makes Texas an exceptionally large purchaser of textbooks, especially given its status as the second most populated state, and it leads to many textbook publishers tailoring their work specifically to the tastes of the Texas BoE.
I actually agree with Vaush more than Luna in terms of economic but I actually disagree with him here(and agree with you👍🏼). Capitalism and imperialism has very much been in American textbooks throughout history. Even though Vietnam is just state capitalist and I don't agree with that... they still have a better economic system that we do here. I think Vaush was pushing back a bit a bit too hard in this regard and it made him seem as if he was saying that people in Vietnam are more indoctrinated than Americans have historically been(which simply isn't true).
GDP per capita growth doesn't necessarily imply rising standards of living without looking at the equity of distribution. Let's not forget that GDP per capita income is twice median income in the United States, and that these figures do not necessarily increase proportionately. Understanding the effects of IMF reforms in Vietnam, especially insofar as they may be "capitalist," is a lot more complicated.
Ho Chi Minh came to a US representative asking for help to free his country and form a democracy but was rebuffed before he, in desperation asked the Chinese for help. We set the ground game in motion for the Vietnam war through our own arrogance and lack of caring about indigenous peoples right. Of course we were sort of established on that basis in this country, so what’s new? Right now we could be helping the South American countries, many of which we wrecked, reestablish a government that could protect and provide security for their people and save money doing it. Make their home country safe again and provide good jobs doing it and our immigration crisis is almost completely solved. Bring their standards of living up and ours is improved. Wouldn’t it be nice to have an American free trade zone from Canada to the southern tip of South America? Just sayin.
We can't even handle reconstructing the default state of our own government. How can we handle rebuilding a continent if we aren't done doing the same with a nation?
all you have to do is look at history and you’ll realize whenever america “helps” another country, they typically end up worse off then they were before
30:00ish in, I instinctual realized this was the case with human society via being a history nut... nice to see there's actual theory behind it. Guess I finally need to read Marx lol
Also bizzare game of philosophy Telephone from french to Russian to English to Mandarin to Vietnamese back to English kinda explains how we got here, where words have no meaning
So there actually is a philosophical school called materialism which is different from dialectical materialism, about matter being the bedrock of all real things and I think she legit just confused that with Marx's dialectical materialism. She could have cleared this up just by clicking the "disambiguation" button on wikipedia, but she did not. This is embarrassing.
@@aaronmarks9366 To be fair, moralizing about individuals is a waste of time. When we can talk about how irredeemably bad the outcomes of these people's policy positions were for their respective countries, why bother talking about whether they were "good people" or "bad people"? Who gives a shit whether Stalin was bad, his approach to government was unsustainably dogshit.
@@FelisImpurrator True. People fall back on this good/bad dichotomy because they are incapable of expressing legitimate criticisms if they even have any. Its a strong sign that they probably shouldn't be commenting if their understanding is so impoverished that is all they can offer.
Zoe is the one who got me into anarchism. Love her for that🖤. They had a great conversation once but I agree he should have her on again and also speak with more anarchists. Anarchism is the way to go, imo✌🏼
@@Religions.of.fandom Anarchists are only useful for helping overthrowing the ruling class; after they will be thrown into the sea holding anchors, arachista are nothing more but obstacles to the revolution but at least their better then capitalists however that's a low bar.
Would u mind elaborating a little? it's cool if u dont have time, im just a little curious, I dont really know if vaush is right or wrong, like I get what he's saying but mbby its wrong, or there is a more accurate way of looking at it? idk.
@@willowtree7326 Hey! Thank you for the question. So in this video, they were mostly talking past each other because they were working with different definitions of consciousness. That's why it was painful for me Vaush was talking about consciousness as subjective experience. He referred to the term "Qualia," which is an oft-discussed concept in philosophy of mind relating to the private, inaccessible characteristics of our perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. The idea is oft-debated, and there is significant disagreement on whether it's a useful idea, but Vaush using it suggests familiarity with the matter. The key here is that Vaush is talking about consciousness as subjective experience. Luna is using consciousness in a few different senses. One is sapience or intelligence. This is how you can make sense of her talking about the social emergence of "consciousness." It's very reasonable to think that our higher cognitive functions evolved because of how social our species is, and language was likely a huge tool in fostering that. It is likely that there was reciprocal influence in the evolution, though. She also uses it in the sense of consciousness as awareness. Awareness is the property of nervous systems that allows organisms to react to their external and internal environment. Though I think it's a stretch to say that labor helped awareness emerge, it did likely evolve as a way for organisms to react to their environment, which would fit the definition she uses here. While this may explain the etiology, or original emergence of awareness, something that I think Vaush alluded to is that awareness is generated and realized in the brain. This would happen whether someone grows up around others or not, so in that sense it isn't socially caused, but caused by neurology. Neither of them are experts in psychology, so I can forgive both of them mixing up the senses of the word in this video. Consciousness is a really vague term, and it needs to be specified to have productive conversations imo. They were both using different, but intelligible definitions, but that wasn't clear. I don't think either of them were super right or wrong, just talking past each other about different but related things. That's a pretty long answer already, and I left out some parts, but if you want more clarification let me know! Hope that helps 🙂
I haven’t made it to that part but I’ve only ever heard of people talking about consciousness in a way that is incredibly stupid to me. In a philosophical sense anyway.
Ok. I’ve arrived. So far she seems to be conflating perception with consciousness. And then she mixed up class consciousness with consciousness in terms of our minds. I want to chalk it up to misunderstanding but she’s reading this from Vietnamese. Though it is possible that the person who brought the ideas was the one who didn’t realize the uses of the word. Although I wonder if German has separate words for the two types of consciousness. Edit: It seems Vaush has said the same thing haha.
Vaush doesn't understand Luna was talking about social consciousness and class consciousness is something else. Here's Marx on social consciousness: "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society - the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." Yes so Marx believes man gets consciousness from sociality
Remember that the "Tankies" defeted the Nazis and liberated the concentration camps in Central Europe, saved the world form fascism. Stalin industrialized the USSR form a semi-feudal backwater to sending the first person into space. While the US imperialists and its satellite states created Ratlines to recruit former Nazis for NASA and the West German puppet government and NATO to campate the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty.
If society is classless, it is correct to say that no class is better than the other. What's more, if you can say that no class is better than the other, then the classes are irrelevant in many senses, so "virtually classless" would be fine with me, even if classless would be technically wrong.
The neoliberal reforms have worked in places like China and Vietnam because of the previously existing state led programs for literacy, healthcare etc. these countries are able to produce extremely educated cheap work force that can bring wealth into those countries. Without the revolution of those countries, the material conditions would not be setup for a population to actually attract foreign investment and pay back loans. This is why neoliberal reforms have not worked in India, Africa etc since the material basis for an extremely large population to be productive wasn’t set up. China and Vietnam are currently state capitalists and are not socialist but their rise is not simply due “neoliberal reforms”
Sometimes vaush's takes are so incredibly bad... Only a few minutes in and Vaush is looking at the GDP of Vietnam directly after the Vietnam war and during the Chinese-Vietnam war and comparing it to its GDP now. Then attributing all of that growth to capitalism. That's wack Edit: Not to mention the economic sanctions and insane embargos on Vietnam. Again, Vaush's smuggness is getting the better of him. It reminds me of Destiny at times
Out of curiosity, were you able to watch the rest of the video? At about the 25 minute mark he starts laying out examples of applying dialectic materialism to history and the examples he gives are pretty sound.
@@BewarethePurpleOne no, they are not. he doesn't read and doesn't know what he is talking about. just read the books and stop watching vooch for your theory. he doesn't.
the consciousness bit onwards felt like watching a poorly made video a high school science teacher would roll out for the class to make them at least partially absorb random terms for a test, but with socialist/communist theory spray painted on to try and be hip with the kids. I don't trust anyone who takes her seriously after this lmao (not that I did before, but now i have a solid video to point to and go, "Really?")
Hello, I'm Johnson McDouglas, I'm Luna's comrade, and I'm here to talk to you about the sponsor of this video, the People's NFT Lootboxes.
My sides
The people's Bored Ape Marxism-Leninist Club
This is the most beautiful comment I've seen all day.
The People’s Raid Shadow Legends
"But, why would someone protest the state?"
Why indeed. No further questions, Your Honor.
Based and true
"Gulag me harder State Capitalist Daddy UwU!!"
@@SA-mo3hq Can't you just use the State as a method of transitioning from a communist nation into a capitalist international market? For instance, within the nation everything is collective and money doesn't really exist, but wealth is maintained via mercantilist international trade.
@@charliekahn4205 Communist nations aren't a thing, Communism is stateless. Do you mean Socialist?
@@Fusseliko the distinction between communism and socialism is only introduced after Lenin’s work, meaning people can still discuss the idea of a communist or socialist society and be talking about the same thing as you if they don’t care about that distinction, either on ideological or ease of language grounds. Oh look I can be annoying and pedantic too
Vaush at one hour: "we'll only watch a few more minutes"
Vaush: *continues on for another hour*
@@johnlonne7062 He doesn’t do that but okay
@@johnlonne7062 They weren't even tortured
If Vaush is serious about wanting to see the textbooks Luna based the video off of, she is actually translating some of them currently.
Based and translation-pilled
@@johnlonne7062 sigh.
@@johnlonne7062 😂😂😂😂
@@johnlonne7062 I'll have you know I'm an English racist thank you very much.
I'm joking ofc, I don't think disagreeing with someone of a different ethnic background makes you racist.
Like, I remember having to contend with this shit during the derek Chauvin trial, when my self identified "national socialist" co-worker tried to say I was a racist for supporting BLM, because he managed to find one black dude who works at our factory that didn't like the protests, and I bit the bullet and said "yeah, and? I think that guy is wrong."
I had to deal with that shit for weeks, it's stupid when they do it, and it's stupid when you do it.
I do hope he is serious however, I'm always interested in new perspectives on these topics.
I flirted with Auth-left politics a little when I was younger- but I'm a Marxist first and foremost, and those ideals lead me to identify with anarchist thought more than statist lefties.
My main issue with capitalism is that it has an inherently authoritarian, exploitative, and coercive nature. It strips freedom from the working class, it reduces us to commodities despite the fact that we aren't just the glue holding society together, the force building the palaces we will never step foot inside, growing, packing, preparing and, serving the food we ultimately can't afford to eat, *the working class basically IS society* with a bougie parasite attached to it.
I really *want* all of these "socialist" or "communist" governments to succeed. I desperately want an example I can point towards that a better world is possible. I'm as charitable as possible with Tankies and MLs.
But time and time again I just see people mangling theory to prop up a different ruling class that's almost as bad, or often just as bad as the bougie fucks that oppress the working class in western societies. When they aren't outright threatening me for not falling in line, they are obviously trying to sell me something.
I think you need to consider the nuance of leftist disagreement a bit closer, rather than writing anyone who disagrees with you as some kind of reactionary and just moving on.
@@PumkRock look how many words you used to reply to that user who used how many words to bait you? 10 or so?
I think his point about how indoctrination in the US works is really good. Its isn't about telling us a series of very specific things to believe. What the US does is much more effective. If Americans don't even have a basic grasp on what politics is and only know "America win" it's really hard to get them to meaningfully oppose the state. On the other hand, having clearly defined ideologies and boundaries makes it easier for people to want to push beyond the boundaries and stuff. Which is why the US's system of confusion is so effective and hard to counter.
It's also a great point of understanding incentive structures. It's not about having a direct line to push someone, it's about creating something that kind of 'nudges' you by making you follow along. Changing the incentive structure is fundamentally more important than trying to make a singular, direct push.
It's honestly more luck than anything else. They had the right ideas but still had bigotry and racism and slavery plus giant swaths of land and resources an ocean away from the rest of the world and never having to deal with a war on their own terf outside of separation from Britain
It's the same thing in the West generally, I grew up in Canada (Ontario) and we were taught vague, mutually inconsistent takes on everything from politics to history. It's about confusing you enough that you don't pay attention to details, you just go off of vibes and what's familiar. Mostly it makes apathetic citizens, at its worst in makes conservatives, it makes any kind of meaningful change next to impossible.
You had 69 likes and I ruined it. Thought you should know. Oh and I agree.
Smiley P ain’t no one have ‘The Right’ ideas, My guy.
"A ton of people think it's socialism when the Post Office delivers you letters" sent me into a fit of laughter and I'm terrified about what my sense of humor has degraded into
Big mood
I understand there is a difference but neoliberalism is taught in schools in my experience. Capitalism is venerated and socialism is described as when "the government does stuff"; and in high school I actually had to do an assignment on what I thought was better with only that biased information provided. State ideology is 100% taught in schools. I was never once taught how the CIA overthrows governments worldwide I was taught how the USSR failed and how China and Japan won by opening their markets, with maybe only a slight footnote about how mcarthyism and vietnam war was fucked.
not even mentioning how the states rights myth is still taught in some southern schools lol I live in Cali
Remember, school systems are more decentralized in the US than most countries. There are some schools in the south or midwest teaching evolution along with creationism. Some schools did teach some of the things you said but it all depends on where you live.
As a Californian, while we were told that the USSR failed, it wasn't slandered anymore than just saying "They poorly implemented socialism, which led to the Empire collapsing". I agree with the comment above that American schools tend to be more decentralized than Vietnamese ones
To be fair though, my AP European History class was cut short by the pandemic, so maybe they would have said more 🤷♂️
That is weird. I am a Vietnamese myself and I didn't study Marxism-Leninism or Ho Chi Minh Thought from primary schools. To this day, I still have no idea what Ho Chi Minh Thought is about.
Is there any way to get translated versions of vietnamese marxism leninism textbooks? I wonder whats in there
i think they taught it in uni?
So I went in thinking that Vaush was being uncharitable, but this literally feels like some "spirit science" shit.
I love spirit science.
Major religions have had thousands of years to homogenize and rationalize their crazy ass origins. Early jews were a polytheist offshoot of the Canaanite religion. Enlil and Enki got up to some wild shit. The character that would become the hebrew god had a wife. Possibly several wives.
But look at the bible now. It's a snooze fest.
Spirit science on the other hand is this goofy mix of all of the craziest parts of a half dozen religions mixed up with your boilerplate conspiracism and antisemitism. While borrowing heavily from jewish mysticism! Talk about biting the hand that feeds.
Sure, many of the people who buy into it are an absolute threat to society. But still, it's fascinating watching a religion like this develop in the modern age. Wish I could live a thousand years just to see if the whole thing formalizes and gets smoothed over to be more appealing.
@@rainbowkrampus I think wacky stuff looses it's appeal when you realize people actually take it serious
It reminds me of the thing religions do where they state some obvious fact and then claim they invented it. Like without the 10 Commandments no would know that murder is wrong.
@@rainbowkrampus I'm way too afraid of what types of people will be born of Spirit Science and Q anon to find them quirky and interesting. Maybe after the movement dies out and they are left to the history books it will be easier to laugh, similar to how we can laugh at Nazi germany today for being controlled by idiots, but when they had their hands on the guns we had to take them seriously.
vaush definitely was a little uncharitable in parts of this video though
wait hold the fuck on. Luna spends a ton of time talking about how vietnam is a step above when it comes to political education. She talks about how vietnamese people are taught about marxism-leninism from grade school. Yet at 46:52 the best argument she can think of is "Well the vietnamese people just dont know what a free market is"
tbf nobody knows what a free market actually is lol Especially ancaps and right libertarians. They think it's some magical thing that solves all societies problems.
@@blargh3428 It's exactly what it sounds like. How could someone not understand the basic idea from its name?
It's frustrating cause she could just had said that people in Vietnam understanding of what a free market is or should be is not the same as what people on the USA for example would think, but the way that she talked it was like she didn't even understand what was asked.
@@charliekahn4205 It's nebulous and has different intepretations because people have different goals. For example we are considered to be in free market capitalism but we have put into place regulations to make sure things are fair. A right wing ancap would say there should be no regulation at all but that's not really "free" either because it would allow people to manipulate the market on a whim. The term I would prefer to use when it comes to free market is just a market that anyone can enter into without discrimination but that's never how it's described by most. I feel most people describe it as a market where you can sell/buy whatever you want
Actually, maybe I'm letting some important detail about she said that makes clear this isn't the case but it is possible that she was just asking what was the way that they made that question in vietnamize and then commenting about how it could be bad in case it was asked in english
the best line in this is when Luna says "they decided to follow communism without even knowing what it meant"
Average ML
Because Communism fed them
She's continuing the tradition
Communism got their people food
@@raz1572 Hahaha 😂😂😂
This video is gonna be such a valuable tool for educating people in the future about how the internet allows us to have discourse about ideas no one actually is educated about. It's wild.
That’s yes beauty and danger of the internet. It’s just random people shooting the shit most of the time… it’s not “professionals” unless you’re listening to lectures. And even those are by humans with opinions and different understandings of reality such that nothing any human says should be taken as gospel.
@@EroticInferno troo
Not for nothing but it's always been this way.
People talk about shit they don't understand face to face too.
There's nothing particularly novel about the internet when it comes to communication other than distance and the speed at which the information can travel.
Everything else is just humans doing human shit.
@@rainbowkrampus I think you *almost* get the difference here. Unfortunately, the language around media is been altered when it comes to the post internet world. It used to be when you write something or make a piece of media and share it through an outlet, that's called 'publishing' and you had to go through a rigorous process to become published. It took work, was often collaborative and checked for accuracy (or at least spelling and grammar) by editors, etc.
What I'm getting at is this and all comments are publishing, but we no longer use this term, even though that's what it is. The internet changed the definition of publishing to be *just* something that's of creative/collaboration/polished nature, but every time we hit the 'post' or 'reply' or 'comment' button, we're publishing as well. So the difference is people used to have shit opinions about things they know nothing about and only their closest friends and what not, people within earshot would hear it because it wasn't published. Now everyone publishes every stupid little nugget of idiocy when they get triggered by something they disagree with. Technology changes language and language forms the perceptions of world. The social media landscape has altered forever what it means to 'publish' despite the fact we're all publishers now.
There's also the aspect of everyone has a local access television level studio in their pockets or on their desks now for 'publishing'. Some may argue this is good, but again, previously publishing was a collaborative process with some checks and balances that ensured some levels of accuracy, quality or *insert your qualitative necessity here*. This is no longer the case. It's not a surprise that the already distorted understanding of the world American's had prior to this has become increasingly distorted. Other countries, as well, have experienced this. It's not like Sargon Carl is American or anything.
Anyway...I hate people. Individual folks are cool, but people suck.
@Rainbow Krampus Isn't that like saying "the only difference that the radio made is that now we can hear people further away faster" like... Isn't that A MASSIVE change to how communication technology works?
Fundamentally I agree with you, nothing happening here is completely new.
But it's always accessible in our pockets and there's hundreds or even thousands of people talking over each other.
The internet COULD be the most efficient information delivery system in existence, but it's carved up by tech giants that would rather keep us "engaged" than provide access to understandable information.
Vaush mostly goes hard against Luna, in my opinion, rather than challenging her ideas. Which sucks. It's just gonna cause drama and end up dividing people who should agree.
You know, the only time they mentioned dialectical materialism in my school was during Catholic religion class -- this is Germany, where there is no separation of church and state -- and they basically claimed it was Stalin believing there is no God and only matter exists.
No joke!
I mean, at least I can see how that mistake might happen, but yeah that is really dumb. Like, first of all, that is just "materialism", not dialectical, and even then it's grossly oversimplified. Which is particularly strange because it's the most simple ideology to explain the beliefs of, because the only belief is "the only things that exist are those in the material world, and everything that happens is the results of those material things, which are entirely made up of matter and energy, interacting." Yet "only matter exists" would be implicitly denying the existence of energy (which is a fundamental part of how the universe works), and theoretically, godlike beings could exist under materialism, they'd just have to be possible to explain without supernatural elements. (Although I think it's unlikely that many materialists believe this)
Well, it is true that a materialist says there is no God and that only matter and energy exist
There is no seperation between church an state in Germany? You do know about the Act of neutrality, right?
@@MrGreenTabasco They are mostly separated but the state manages the collecting of church taxes and also there is state mandated religion classes in school since it's considered part of our culture. Tho nowadays there is a tendency to replace religion class with ethics class since it serves the same purpose and is more inclusive of non-christian beliefs.
@@MrGreenTabasco They literally teach religion in public school. Not Sunday school. Public school. Catholic or Lutheran, depending on your denomination.
They give you a choice of "ethics," but my very fairy-tale believing parents told me that was not a proper choice to make, and for a long time I was too young and dumb not to go along with them. By the time I was old enough to put my foot down I was in a school with too few atheist students to have an ethics class. So I was stuffed into Catholic religion class again, this time with a bunch of other atheists.
Let's just say our teacher was not very happy with us that year.
I can't believe she said "I was born and raised as a Marxist-Leninist." Born? BORN? This is a really unhealthy way of looking at politics.
Was really awkward for me, I was born a Commucapitallibertariauthoritarifascifreemarketcentralplanningist. Childhood was rough.
don't you get it? she was born good and her enemies were born bad!
Or she just means that her family was M Ls, Jeze don’t take things so literally it might hurt your brain.
"I've been indoctrinated since birth! You shouldn't take anything I say seriously!"
@@sliish4202 it props up ML as something inherent in her and unchanging which is never a good position
To add a bit of clarity to the concept of dialectical materialism. First, Marx never actually used the term himself, it was developed later to describe the character of his philosophy. Specifically, Marx's materialism is understood to be 'dialectic' due to its focus on the relationship between humans and their environment (thus the primacy of 'material conditions'). The dialectic interactions between people and their environments then produce class conflict due to inherent contradictions between the two and produce historical movement. In Hegelian terms: People with rational interest (thesis) + material conditions of capitalism (antithesis) = Revolution (synthesis). "Dialectic" in this context describes the character of a philosophical system and has nothing to do with investigatory methods or arguments.
Edit: To be clear, this is an over-simplification for illustrative purposes. User Bobsity Jonesity provides a great elaboration below that is much more grounded in the details of Marxist and Hegelian philosophy.
I haven’t watched the video so maybe your response makes more sense in context but dialectical materialism or Hegelian dialectics for that matter don’t use “thesis, antithesis, synthesis”. Hegel specifically saw any sort of strict formulation (such as the triad) as something which wouldn’t be able to capture the full scope of spirit. Marx had the same general feeling towards such formulations which is why his dialectical method is based more so on interrelations and a universal notion of becoming. He views objects in the world as things which are constantly in motion, reproducing and changing themselves according to their relations, interrelations, and contradictions, and thus not privy to static and abstract formalization. The splitting up of “humans with rational interests” and “material conditions” as thesis and antithesis is problematic too since Marx would state that you can’t make a separation between human rationality or interests and the material world in which they are born, which is what many of the “utopian” socialist that he heavily criticized did. I get the point that you were trying to make, that the material conditions would effect the consciousness of the proletarian class enough to the point where they would achieve revolution, but still these two factors of man and material should be seen in an interrelated unity in order to get the full scope of their relations. Lastly, the materialist dialectic is in some way an investigatory method, as it’s a basic outline on the ways in which we should view social systems in the material world and see how they evolve and grow. Some Marxist would say that’s it’s primarily, or solely a method (which I disagree with), but at the very least a large and important feature of Dialectical materialism is its methodological character. Btw not going up to bat for the person vaush is reviewing or whatever, I haven’t really watched the video yet and I have no clue if either of them say anything I agree or disagree with, just wanted to comment this because I can’t fall asleep lmao
I've needed Vaush take, with commentary below, on Dialectical Materialism for over a year. I've never been fully confident that I have a basic understanding of it because my mind has always seemed to work that way, but when I explain it to conservatives as "everything is connected with a lot of moving parts" I think I might have it.
@@bobuJonesu Great elaboration, thank you! I admit to over-simplifying things significantly which in hind sight resulted in some poor word choices.
@@Well.Pharaoh Don't... Dialectics isn't about "relationship between humans and the environment" at all... Dialectics is a way everything as a synergy of opposites. For instance being on vacation means not working, but to be on vacation you need to have a job, vacations is absence of in the presence of work.
It's really useful to frame history and to think events that happen over time.
If you're talking to conservatives about this, you're doing something wrong... You're basically explaining the concept of screwdriver to people whose car broke. It won't help.
@@vitek2 Yeah I completely understand, it’s hard to try to explain something as complex as dialectical philosophy in a short TH-cam comment, there’s always bound to be some sort of simplification that you have to make that wont allow you to give the full scope of what you’re trying to communicate.
What really made this feel like and fever dream is the guy awkwardly explaining how his dad kind of fucking sucks while upbeat music keeps playing in the background. Yknow, perhaps Luna oi is just pulling a social experiment right now to test how go best dialectically melt peoples brains
tbf, that's EJ's "comedy style", he looks up to tim heideker. I realized this when he randomly appeared on an episode of office hours with tim, vic berger, and fred armisen. It was kinda awkward.
When they used the analogy of his dad drinking beer when driving and the kid's tale of the three blind men and the elephant is the point I really started banging my head on my desk even harder
Reading this the first time I assumed you were joking as I was only five minutes in, but holy shit
Did she say Fidel Castro and Che Guevara where people of color? Castro is 2nd / 3rd generation of spanish migrants on the mother side and 1st generation on his father side 😂😂😂
!Viva Che y Fidel! 🚩☭
Yeah but he spoke "mexican" so he's basically black. /S
Thus this stream gives birth to another potential meme.
"As oppose to communist who think in DM, capitalism is when drinking motor oil ."
Even if that survey is biased and flawed as Luna states during her meltdown there, Vietnam is still an extreme outlier, so the only conclusion has to be that Pew Research is specifically and solely biased *against Vietnam*, and not China or Venezuela for some reason
When ideology conflicts with reality there is bound to be some cognative dissonance.
You can easily manipulate results by asking weighted questions. It's not rocket science.
@@phunkracy Sure, but why is Vietnam such an extreme outlier? There are other """socialist""" countries included in the survey. If we're attributing bias on the part of the researchers, why were their results for China et al. not similarly extreme?
@Awawawa CM I don't personally have an opinion on this survey's bias or lack thereof, I was just granting that to steelman phunkracy's position.
Thank you for the detailed explanation though! That was a good read. So I guess the final explanation Luna stumbles onto, after calling the survey propaganda and saying that the Vietnamese don't know what free markets are, is the right one, that Vietnam's free markets are "doing something right" (at least in contrast to before).
I honestly just think that people who believe a small group (government elitists) should hold vast majority of power and run a country, will never fully reach nor grasp the concept of socialism(worker ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange).
Anarchism is the way to go...specifically, Mutualist anarchism imo✌🏼
TLDW: material conditions = real world
TLDR: real=no iPhone bad
@@TribuneAquila ¿que?
@@dildonius no iphone is when communism 10 Trillion dead vuvuzela bottom text
@@oscarwells3070 What do you mean by this? What are you trying to convey...and why are you trying to bury it under 69.420-shitzillion layers of irony?
@@dildonius It's a meme, Batman
"why are so many people in vietnam so optimistic about the future?"
because when your system is so bad that there is no way to go but up, its easy to know that the future will be better. because it cant get any worse.
Is it just me or is vaush extremely hilarious both intentionally and unintentionally.
Not just you 🤣
More so unintentionally, but yes, he is bowl of laughs.
No vaush bad
No
The only joke he made that I really laughed at was that “black confederate” joke when responding to Prageru
1:18:35 "I work therefore I am"- Karl Marx
As someone educated in philosophy, she definitely is constantly conflating terms in a really weird way, beyond that she's omitting any kind of epistemology, in fact she's implicitly affirming naive realism which is literally the epistemology of Ayn Rand, an approach generally considered to be invalid.
She can maybe use the ESL argument
The Vietnamese D-M textbooks are snoozefests and lack philosophical substantial references, things are simplified to "yeah unlike idealist folks or utopian fellas we take things seriously". Even the Philosophical course used in postgrad education uses the obsolete dualism between supposedly homogenous Western philosophy and Oriental philosophy. It's ridiculous, they can't even name a philosopher outside of socialist realm. And contributions by someone like Tran Duc Thao are nowhere to be found in mainstream textbooks. Some crucial literature and debate sources like Talawas, with major debates on Marxism, were stopped 2004 partly because of censorship.
I just started reading about Ho Chi Minh a few hours ago and now this banger drops. CIA Vaush?
I like the idea that he's subverting one specific person, rather than anybody else.
Vawsch is a Fed. This is known. 😄
I live here in vietnam, if you want those books in English, I could maybe find some.
Linking them would be very cool!
Pft. You expect Vaush to read? Maybe make them into a side scroller or metroidvania style vidja game and he’ll check them out.
@@Gum_Cuzzler make sure it’s a super racist metroidvania so he doesn’t drift off and lose attention 😡😡
Useless books
I'd be interested also
I don't know what kind of school Vaush want to but neoliberalism was absolutely taught in my school and I had to take a 6 months course in it that was basically capitalism rah rah rah. And yes this was a public school not a private one
Okay, so, I study philosophy, and I do indeed wish to die listening to Luna. Vaush is somewhat simplifying, but is correct, Luna is incoherent and juggles several incompatible positions however she sees convinient. Around an hour in, Luna goes so insane she manages to kick my depression in despite the drugs I take. Wow. Being a postmodernist, Vaush's statement on killing ourselves is fucking close to reality. What drugs does the Vietnam party use during classes to induce a permanent state of positional incoherence?
based and suicidepilled (please put a fucjung shotgun shell into my cranium)
Hello fellow studier of philosophy and depression-haver 😅
I can already envision the conservative news headlines if you could get a degree in Marxism
Would they not be the same headlines they use now? They don't really care about what is actually being done after all
What do you mean?
They would just repurpose all the dogs at gender studies degrees
Can't you already do that basically anywhere?
They think all college degrees are marxism.
"JuST lEaRn a TRaDe. College is communism. The J- i mean elites own it"
The girl is right about the materialist/idealist divide. Marx thought mater was primordial to reason, so he believed in using material evidence to analyse how ideas arise. Hegel was an idealist, so he believed that reason provides the conditions for mater.
I despise that in the left we will spend hours upon hours discussing the definition of an idea. Without even considering what the real life workings of these ideas are.
Sure communication is important, and clear definitions much more so. But what is the point of defining something, if all we do is attack the usage of the word and not the definitions/ideas behind it. It's seriously the most useless leftie thing to do.
I mean there are full on studies done that prove that the majority of the western population agrees with socialist ideas. It's just when we use the categorical names for said ideas people usually fall away from it. Because they have a fucked up view on what they think the word "sOcIALisT" means. How about we just focus on the ideas.
That's one of the things that Bernie does so incredibly well. Convince people of his leftist ideologie BECAUSE he doesn't bother to label it. He just has his beliefs.
Word!
Right. This is why I can't get behind the infighting of these creators which I find individually valuable. I think they all have moments of dishonesty and I wouldn't expect them not to.
" discussing the definition of an idea"
The problem is that all this bullshit Luna is saying is no different from a New Ager Using Quantum physics. People like Luna is why its so hard too spread the message. She changes the definition of these things too support her claims. im not a marxist but she aint either lol.
But it is the spirit of the idea that she is conflating. One example is she's talking about consciousness based on a person's mind, and the other is class consciousness which talks about the person's being part of a class. Both mean different things, and Marx only spoke about one, not the other. Terms are essential to define if you want to get a proper understanding of a subject and not just guess around based on intuition what the author of the ideas referenced meant.
@@qualivia good thing that I already clarified that then...
I would sue someone for loss of brain cells after watching this, but I'm not sure I can even figure out doorknobs anymore.
I was skipping through to see if he actually had any intelligent criticism. I made it to the part where he’s debating a Wikipedia article and I’m questioning my sanity wondering how this guy has a following
She really said that Che Guevara and Fidel Castro were non white😂😂😂😂, I guess “El Che” coming from a well off Spanish and Irish family and Fidel being of Spanish descent is not white anymore
It's actually weird, how Spanish people are considered white whereas latino people are not, even though most latino people are of Spanish origin.
Since Marx was an immigrant he was obviously non white.
@@alvaeriksson3623 ¡Viva la Revolución y el Che! ¡Viva el socialismo! ¡Yo soy Fidel! 🇨🇺☭
It is weird indeed but i kinda see how people who think that might come from .
I'm sorry to admit it...I'm no longer a Vaushite....I'm a Vaushite Pitter. Main channel? No just live streams and being in the pit for me, thanks-
I was born in the pit; I was made in the pit; I might as well be the pit.
I once used my partners sociology textbook as a coaster and I think I absorbed a better understanding of dialectical materialism through the coffee than she got from her degree in Marxist Leninism.
I only got into socialism for the memes
Seize the memes of production
So, like most libs on this channel
@@Ass_of_Amalek Yeah. 4chan has finally devolved to a state of irony poisoning and online induced schizophrenia that they’ve been rendered incapable of communicating with regular people. They’re lost within the bowels of the great machine. So the rightist memeing falls on the boomers now.
OK that's all good and all but ummm
How asked???
@@Gum_Cuzzler I am pretty sure 4chan was a cesspool of terminally online people so irony poisoned as to prevent them from communicating with regular people 15 years ago, though they replaced letters with numbers, which was fun, at lease.
The version of socialism Marx and Engels developed was at the time called Scientific Socialism as opposed to existing utopian socialism (see "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Engels). So yes, while today calling Marxism scientific can sound weird and "peak ideology", those are the terms used by the literature at the time.
I don't mean to be unkind, but she did such a poor job of explaining dialectic materialism. I legitimately don't think she understands the concept herself (and that's OK, we all struggle with certain concepts sometimes), but you really gotta be careful about speaking with authority about things you struggle with, her misplaced confidence left her wide open on this one.
Honestly, the blame likely lies with the textbooks she's taking from.
@@casperchristiansen2458 Which illustrates perfectly the short comings of "just read theory". Texts aren't recipe books, they're meant to make you think and question certain beliefs, not tell you what to think.
@@adnanxm especially when you read texts which have been re-elaborated by your state's government lol
Its embarassing
@@adnanxm The whole dogmatic approach to theory taken by a lot of tankies makes me think they miss the point entirely.
No, she said "Europans", that is "people from Jupiter's moon, Europa."
50:16 I'm still waiting for the introduction of the people's NFT's 😂
I find myself so frustrated when vaush is talking about class struggle when she talks about dialectical materialism. She is simply saying that dialectical materialism makes arguments that have a grounding in the real world instead of just ideas in someone's head. In doing this marx was able to come up with concepts like class struggle. Here's a quote from the wiki that i think pretty clearly sums it up "Marx's criticism of Hegel asserts that Hegel's dialectics go astray by dealing with ideas, with the human mind. Hegel's dialectic, Marx says, inappropriately concerns "the process of the human brain"; it focuses on ideas. Hegel's thought is in fact sometimes called dialectical idealism. Marx, on the contrary, believed that dialectics should deal not with the mental world of ideas but with "the material world", the world of production and other economic activity. This was a very important transformation because it allowed him to move dialectics out of the contextual subject of philosophy and into the study of social relations based on the material world." So in short Vaush isn't making an actual argument against what shes saying, he's just talking about the product. Marx created class struggle through dialectical materialism
Preach
@@phunkracy what ya gonna just... say that and fuck off?
figure
@@zeynaviegas yeah
You really are blind or deaf if you think Vaush didn't explain that, he never set out to "argue against" dialectical materialism lmfao
@@xavierrodriguez2463 I didn’t say he was?
I agree with Vaush when he says that the United States don't have a nationalistic indoctrination going on. That's why the US harps on about patriotism instead. Patriotism is, sort of, the voluntary side of nationalism. It's the low-carb version. It's the individualistic choice to SIMP for your own country as opposed to the state-mandated love you MUST express for your country.
Luna: "The matter in materialism isn't scientific matter."
Also Luna: *Proceeds to describe scientific matter in great detail*
"Scientific" matter is the definition used in physics. Something with mass and volume. Marxist "matter" refers to things that effect the concepts our perception perceives. Under this definition, a governmental institution is matter, despite being formed from ideas.
@@entomori_ Luna described scientific matter.
@@thatsinteresting3415 no, she explicitly cited lenin in her video with a quote literally saying "matter is a philosophical category denoting objective reality which is given to man in his sensations, and which is copied, photographed, and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them".
To say she was using the the definition of matter used in physics or in everyday language is a dishonest misrepresentation of her arguments. Stop posting cringe
@@entomori_ You must be illiterate if you cannot regonize that that is the definition of scientific matter.
@@johnlonne7062 Wow you are slow. Read the other replies. I don't know why you are thinking racist things, you should stop.
I'd have more respect for tankies if they could articulate an ideology that didn't sound like a bunch of barely-coherent babble propped up to simp for authoritarians while still calling themselves allegedly left.
Also the term for comrade you're looking for is "Tovarysh."
I’m not a tankie but if you want to learn about this kind of ideology, all of the major Marxist works are available for free online. I think Lenin’s What is to be Done is a very insightful pamphlet which people on the left could definitely learn from. You’ll be surprised once you start reading this stuff how prevalent the discussions are to modern day. People like Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, even moderates like Karl Kautsky were basically dealing with a lot of the same shit as we are today, and they brilliantly articulated solutions which are still relevant. Theory is still relevant. To ignore theory is a lazy, self-satisfied, wasteful, and narcissistic position. This isn’t a hate comment against Vaush I still like him. I appreciate when he makes an effort to understand the finer theoretical points of Marxism, though I think he should do this more.
Marxist Leninism isn’t really barely coherent babble, and a lot of them don’t actually simp for people like Stalin.
@@BallMuncher555 go into a tankie stream and try to say that Stalin didn’t really believe in the ideals he mouthed or something like that. I guarantee you it won’t go unpunished lmao
@@seanconnolly6002 Marx would hate what Lenin turned out to be
@@kx7500 You've never read Marx. "We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror." - Marx, Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1849)
This will lead to a great BadEmpanada react.
To be fair, in my opinion Vietnamese people support the free market because :
1. Their country was suffering global isolation after the soviet collapse and neo lib free market reforms pulled them out of poverty so it's sort of a intuitive understanding among people that free market = good.
2. They have been brainwashed into believing that free market is the best and end all be all system.
3. When they were asked what a free market is, they said that they didn't knew. Then the poll tried to contextualize that free markets pulled Vietnam out of poverty ( which is true but it's like saying that Hitler's sucide stopped the Holocaust. The german losses and defeat by the allies cause Hitler to sudoku ).
Please don’t compare life under the free market with the Holocaust that’s a shit analogy. Fact is an economic system must withstand outside pressure and you can still participate in the global market with a less liberal economic system. Vietnams version of socialism just didn’t work and the free market was a better system, it’s not perfect but infinitely better. I’m pretty sure most people in Vietnam would agree.
so what you're saying is.... they do support free market reforms? you just took the long road & decided to randomly mention the HOLOCAUST to poison the well?
I respect a lot of what Ho Chi Minh did as a leader, but unfortunately, him and Vietnam are/were state capitalist.
As a Mutualist Anarchist, I believe in worker ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. I also believe in the *freed* market just as the father of Anarchism did.
In America, what capitalists call "free markets" are neither free nor markets since it's all within a matrix of corporate monopolies enforced and/or subsidized by the government.
They simply legitimized capitalist property rights and power relations that were based solely on the use of force(feudalism, colonialism, imperialism)
✌🏼
As a Vietnamese, this is entirely on point
... Where are you getting this information from?
This is a tremendous demonstration of the intellectual abusiveness of MLs/'tankies'. They don't have a solid enough understanding (or will to understand) to truly ground their ideas in beliefs they say they truly believe. This is why they always form-fit the societies they defend to ideologies/ideas they *say* they like. It's a truly frustrating level of intellectual dishonesty.
To be fair, I get the same feeling when I listen to vaush talk about his version of “socialism”… I would like to see him define/describe his ideal economy and how that’s different from Nordic style mixed economy capitalism or eliminating traditional capital companies without a command economy
@@awkwardturtle2842 I thought he went into a fair bit of detail about that. If I'm not mistaken, he's in favor of decommodifying essential services like healthcare that have relatively inelastic demand, having them fully subsidized by the government, while retaining market mechanics for luxuries and the like. The difference is that he advocates for worker ownership of as many industries as possible to the point of potentially mandating the implementation of worker cooperatives over the traditional autocratic firm model. That's the biggest key difference from the Nordic social democracy - private capital ownership would be redistributed to the workers of a firm, which is not something that would require a command economy (which don't work, in part because a centralized authority tends to be prone to massive inefficiency and corruption if tasked to evaluate demand for an entire population).
As for methods, he seems to advocate specifically for a mix of grassroots action (mass labor movements building into unionization) and electoralism (particularly, excising the far right completely and shifting to a dichotomy of leftists versus centrists rather than centrists versus fascists, if not outright abolishing the de facto first past the post two-party system in favor of ranked choice pluralistic voting).
I could be wrong about the details, but he has stated he doesn't want to focus on an ideal economic model in favor of prioritizing more immediate transitional changes, because he considers talk about far future economic endpoints to be too unattainable. Which I don't necessarily agree with, but I do think many of his actual propositions are sound.
@@FelisImpurrator Vaush Based.
@@bugsbunny4647 TRUE.
Except when he gets moralitypilled, then he drops all the good pragmatic data brain stuff for weird intuitive biases. But at least his interpretation of socialism isn't overwhelmingly larp.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
This is definitely Vaush at his best. I have learned so much from him talking about politics via his 101 videos to other philosophical & ideological analysis he does. I'm not that far into this but just his explanation of explaining how the material conditions lead to the civil war & why the south was so adamant for keeping slavery & the motives of the US to enact the Civil Rights Act. I don't know, just the way he explains things resonates a lot with me & I will never understand why people misrepresent his positions.
Edit: I should clarify. When I say at his best, I mean generally speaking not that this is his best take.
@Mythic I think you are mischaracterising him
Ive been pretty neutral on Vaush, I see him becasue I find him entretaining, but honestly his takes in this video are cringe inducing. Putting asside the issues he has with tankies, calling the USSR both capitalist and fascist is something not someone with knowledge on the topic would say. They werent even liberal either before or after the revolution. I think the 'Vaush knows all theory' has made him not willing to further explore literature and be confident in his current knowledge.
Yikes. I think this is one of his worst videos. Too much latent American exceptionalism. I can’t blame him too much because he is so young and American/western culture is all he knows. His ignorant confidence is pretty cringe.
@@imyourmaster77 I'm pretty sure there's nothing fundamentally inaccurate about that take. The term "state capitalism" is an incredibly common one used by leftists to describe the functional outcome of Soviet style communism, in which the state is mechanically indistinguishable from a single monopoly corporation. And Vaush is known to draw his definition of fascism from Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism, many points of which the Soviet Union manifested in its time.
@Mythic found the tankie who had nothing to say
Oh boy, this will be extremely interesting as a vietnamese myself who was born in Europe. - Migue
If u were born in Europe u are a European
Why do you sign your comment with your name?
@@unholylemonpledge9730 Hmm, actually, legally I am half Vietnamese and half Finnish (Finland, the country where I was born).
@@ricky4993 Just a style. Does it bother you or something? - Migue
@@unholylemonpledge9730 Well no, he can still be Vietnamese even though he was born in Europe if his parents are from Vietnam!!??
These are the vaush videos I miss. Going over studies, reading over history and Wikipedia pages about countries to debunk videos. I actually learn stuff here. Vaush has kinda fell off recently in my eyes talking about boring drama stuff and doing very surface level reaction videos. If you ever read this comment vaush, please do takedowns that require more thought and research on stream.
return of the research doc, do the new VauShites know about the doc?
Reading Wikipedia pages to debunk videos 🤣
The issue with Vaush's content lately is due to two things.
Covid and no Trump.
Covid is omnipresent in world politics and there's not a lot you can say about it that hasn't already been said. Practically every week something stops happening or gets cancelled due to covid. The whole world is stuck in a holding pattern in many ways.
Trump was an unmitigated source of chaos who ginned up some new threat to democracy at least once a month. The Trump years and ensuing right wing radicalization and violence forced a lot of conversations very quickly.
Vaush was never a big research guy. He has always focused on rhetoric. To go from mile a minute Trump to boring ass Biden and covid's chilling factor on everything is basically like getting off of heroin cold turkey. We got used to the constant chaos and now we can't live without it.
Things will pick up a little around mid terms but I wouldn't expect the same degree of constant "I need to be an expert on thing X in the next 5 minutes because that's all the right will be talking about" for a while. And honestly, hopefully we never need to be in that position again.
It would be a good thing if politics got so boring that Vaush had to quit doing this. That's not going to happen obviously. But really that should be the goal.
@@MrDoomedtofail are you one of the smooth brain individuals who think Wikipedia is not academically reliable? go back to 2000 you dinosaur
@@maxcormier7821 Wikipedia is literally not academically reliable, it is not a scientific journal, it is not ranked, it is not peer reviewed and it is not used as a source in any scientific paper. Im a economic scientist, and i saw a wikipedia article claiming that "The netherlands has the highest amount of wealth inequality", it was based on a faulty understanding of a swiss Paper. Somebody than went on to make a Video about that topic and got 3.7 Million views lol (its on a channel called "economics explained"). Learn about Sience , its valuable.
Though I’ve never heard it used for Philosophy before, I feel the quote “__ loads the gun, __ pulls the trigger” fits really well.
Material conditions load the gun, but ideology pulls the trigger.
very good analisis.
I remember when this was called "Luna Oi Teaches Me How to Be a Vietnamese Communist" or something like that
Okay I thought I was remembering it wrong lol. They probably changed the title because it was getting less engagement
Replace "Me" with "Vaush" and you got it.
Luna Oui trying to convice herself and the world that Capitalist Vietnam is somehow Socialist lmao.
If it's capitalist, have they started cutting down their jungles?
@@ezachleewright2309 Yes actually. Vietnam cut down jungles like crazy to build hydropower plants, only recently they slow it down because hydropower fucks with agriculture too much.
***socialist oriented market economy***
Like gender, it's on a spectrum. I don't think Vietnamese people claim their country is socialist, but it is much more than the U.S. for sure.
how is vietnam capitalist lmao?
I think she's right about everything Vaush. Her accent has the same effect on me as a south British accent has on a nazi
Many people in Vietnam have this same shallow understanding of philosophy and logic (wrt to ideologies), unfortunately. Their level of argumentation is non-sensical and is a result of indoctrination. Bear in mind that these things are never learned through original works by the authors, but rather through translated excerpts compiled into books (as you see in the beginning). I doubt that students actually reach out to read the original works (which also takes a certain level of English reading skill and context parsing which many students don't necessarily have if they live their entire lives in Vietnam). Of course, translated works don't do works of philosophy justice (e.g., due to cultural differences and context sensitivity), which I suspect partially contributes to her mixing up concepts together.
The worst thing, I think, is that juxtaposing empiricism and leftist economics isn't even technically wrong. It's actually correct to suggest that empirical study broadly supports leftist conclusions about correct socioeconomic policy. But the conflation of "empirical data about socioeconomic progress favors leftism" and this weird essentialist take that "communism IS a science that reveals objective truths about the world" is where it gives way to dogmatism.
To be fair most of the original works of Marxism were written in German, some in French, and some in Italian. But at least our translation aren't filtered by state apparatuses and the closeness of the European languages and culture help to get closer to the original intent.
@@grandsome1 yes I was gonna say English/German/etc. but the translation in quality and context is arguably close to the original work, whereas that is not the case for the Vietnamese case
You mean like the Bible? Or even other religious texts?
I think that’s the problem with a lot of education that’s done through taking original works and filtering them through another persons perspective and teaching that instead of the original work. Also I agree about the translation thing, but doesn’t that also mean English speakers have a disadvantage in reading Marx? Unless you read it in the original (German? I think?)
I actually made a joke about how you could probably sell capitalism to tankies if you preceded it by them term 'the people's'. Turns out i'm a fucking prophet XD
Just tell them liberals hate it, will do the same trick
But to be fair, most people of all ideologies are much more about the presentation than the content,
it's even easier to sell to voosh... just make it gay!
Hey coops did it in the 60s and 70s
The first time I watched her video I missed the whole "Hegelian dialectic is basically Daoism" thing.
The dialectic that can be taught is not the true dialectic.
"I can't do accents" is the truest thing he's ever said
1:35:00 "Hi, I'm going to explain the concept of empiricism by bringing up my horrible alcoholic of a father!"
“but i’m going to call it dialectical materialism!”
Slavery is a good example of how material interests can drive ideology, but ideology can also drives material actions, in ways that sometimes contradict the material interests of the actors (including powerful actors, not just masses who can be dismissed as having "false consciousness"). (Note: I'm essentially stealing the following analysis from someone else, but I can't recall who; if it comes to me, I'll edit this comment.)
If you look at the Ancient Mediterranean, you have lots of agricultural and mining slaves whose lives tend to be pretty horrific (and very short, in the case of salt miners), but you also have not only slaves who are skilled physical artisans, but even slaves with intellectual professions, such as tutors and debate teachers. And the usual practice with the top performers among both of the latter groups is essentially the following: They're allowed to sell their services, for money, on their own initiative and to customers of their own choosing, and they get to keep a portion of their earnings and do what they want with it (including, but not limited to, saving up to buy their own freedom), while the master gets the rest. Because, if you have someone with marketable skills that aren't as easily quantified as "number of bales of cotton picked per hour," this turns out to be the _most efficient_ way to extract value from them (with an added bonus of their being less likely to revolt and slit your throat than slaves who are driven by whips). And there are analogous practices in a number of other historical societies.
But this never really takes off in majority of the American South, despite occasional proposals and abortive attempts, because there's a strong _ideological_ opposition (expressed through a mixture of laws and social pressure) to allowing slaves that level of freedom and autonomy, even when doing so would allow their owners (who are generally the most powerful people around) to make more money than they could otherwise.
now to watch my most favourite drama cycle again for the fourth time
Saaaaaamnee
@@krimson4257 Touch grass!
I genuinely don’t know how mad I should be at Luna for saying this goofiness. It’s like being mad at a Turkish person who denies the Armenian genocide based on what they were taught growing up: they might be perfectly lovely people who’ve just been very narrowly/wrongly educated about certain topics.
There's definitely a blurry line between taught ignorance and active bigotry/misinfo. Personally, I take into account two major things- the size of their platform/access to educational resources and the material impact their actions have
CCP simping is my line. I doubt that is taught in Vietnam with Winnie the Pooh looming at them trying to colonize.
Wait, they aren't Westerners...
I mean, peacefully adhere them to the People's Republic of China.
IM SORRY AS APPOSED TO US?!?!?!
There definitely ahead of the curb on that one muh guy
@Aditya Chavarkar Vietnam isn't opposed to China lol. They're not bffs with them either but they clearly prefer China to the US.
Hegelian idealism does not posit the view that people are motivated more by ideas than by material circumstances. If you study the subject in some more depth, you'll actually find that Hegel's idealism has little in common with much of the other philosophical idealisms which existed prior to him, as Hegel never actually says that there is no material reality, or denies materiality its substance. Hegel's project was in fact to overcome the alien character of materiality by bringing it into unity with consciousness (the unity of thought and being), and this project is supposed to be extremely difficult ("the slaughterbench of human happiness") precisely because materiality IS so imminent. Indeed it would be senseless to speak of such a unity, if materiality was not already a given existent. Anyway, it's a very common misunderstanding of Hegel that gets spread around. If anyone wants to get a real look at what Hegel was about instead of the common Marxist caricature, I recommend "Hegel's Grand Synthesis," written by a Hegel scholar.
Absolutely agree with this. Hegel's writing can be extremely hard to chew on so I understand all the confusion and misinterpretation of his work, but I wish people who weren't familiar with these topics wouldn't speak with such authority on them, especially to such a large audience.
No one cares hegel is boring
Nice pfp
The Pew Research study is pretty interesting. I think it kind of shows how people don't really know what a free market economy is, what socialism means etc. If you look through the answers for certain countries they are pretty contradictory or they just go against their own interests.
Anyone who thinks the current global economy operates meaningfully as a free market doesn't really fully understand what a free market is, which unfortunately applies to the majority of capitalists...
@@FelisImpurrator It depends on how you define "free market". Compared to Vietnam and China before their market reforms, they have a very free market.
WHO FUCKING CARES
That's because survey's like that don't actually care about truth, just big numbers that benefit the lie it's telling.
If somebody went up to you and 5 other people in a store then asked "Do you support the 'Free Market System' in your country." would you assume all 6 of you were talking about the same system? What about the person asking?
Even better, survey's like this rarely have more than 2,000 people and 1,000 is extremely misleading; Luna seemed to take the survey at face value since Vietnam has rules about purposely misleading information like this and Vaush clearly didn't give a shit as long as his hot takes got more views and money for his channel.
For example: Caliente, Nevada (Bet you didn't know it existed until now)...
...is a town of slightly over 1,000 people. It has a handful of buildings and is otherwise a rarely visited tourist trap.
If you were to think 1,000 out of 98,678,083(Read: ninty eight million, six hundred and seventy eight thousand, and eighty three - as of Thursday, January 13, 2022) is somehow "pretty damn telling" as another commenter put it then me and my friends have a bridge to sell you.
I honestly just think that people who believe a small group (government elitists) should hold vast majority of power and run a country, will never fully reach nor grasp the concept of socialism(worker ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange).
Anarchism is the way to go...specifically, Mutualist anarchism imo✌🏼
Interesting to see Germany has higher agreement with free markets than the USA.
I would assume that to be an outcome of a market economy that actually has worked out okay for many people.
The European countries with flagging economies show a lot less support for free markets despite existing under the same EU framework.
I assume that has a lot to do with our recent history concerning the GDR. Economic weakness was after all one of the main factors for that state to fail (right after being an authoritarian surveillance state). Germany also benefits the most from the EU as a strongly export-focused economy. In the game of exploitative economics we* are the winners, for now.
*the small German capitalist class, not actually us
Germanies Market is not a "completely free" marlet, but a socialeconomical, which in short means it is tried to be shackled in all aspects that would damage the social fabric. For example, the "breadbasket" is a set of policies that try to make sure prices for goods who are necessary for everyday life (bread, beer, toiletpaper) are cheap, while products like wine are more expensive.
It is probably one of the closest existing models towards the idea of social market, however imperfect.
@@MrGreenTabasco
Yeah, that was my point.
The implementation of market economies in a nation greatly influences their attitudes towards markets.
Germany is fairly liveable on low or moderate incomes, provides a lot of safety nets and has effectively shielded the population from market failures so far.
It's not paradise, but the political class has done a lot of things that go directly against Capitalist interests and support workers.
Like the minimum wage that is dutifully ticking up.
The markets sorta work for most of the population, even if it's of course a slim elite that pockets most.
We can argue if this is the electoral system working better, less excessive elites or SocDem frameworks holding together more, but the result has lately drawn in a lot of American immigrants so there has to be something to it.
Germans are economic Imperialists, who bankrupted the Southern countries, and tried to blame the victim; then consequently did "shock therapies" to them, that were a failure. They are an abomination, reuinification should have never taken place, Americans are less "Nazi" than them, and that's saying something. Now that the SPD did its wonder again and re-militarised Germany, the future of the continent is pretty bleak, assuming the Putin business doesn't end up in World War first.
It’s funny how much of a tankie landmine that vaush stepped on here.
The Wiki didn't seem to mention that a lot of Vietnam's economic crisis was due to the incredible damage sustained by US bombing and chemical warfare campaigns. Agent Orange and other defoliants were devastating to crops, not to mention the extremely high rate of birth defects incurred by its use leading to astronomical healthcare costs for poor villagers. Additionally the US deployed "Rome plows" (much like the military bulldozers Israel uses to demolish Palestinian homes and olive groves) to disrupt ancient agricultural systems. And to rub salt in the wound; after the war Vietnam was under embargo forbidding them from importing livestock (the primary means of production in a communal agrarian system).
I'm starting to think that a lot of Luna's analysis is based on the first principle of "America bad" which I totally understand but definitely clouds people's judgment.
13:11 “These are two separate but equal fights”
@@megarigged It was a joke.
@@megarigged Voosh bad
@@JokerDoom PEPE
I haven't finished the whole video yet but at times Vaush's understanding of things outside America and his generalization of things really doesn't do him any favors
How is that relevant in this context, where he does actually correctly point out how things are incorrect?
is it... is it because his data is WeStErN?
@@lallig8860
No, is because your understanding of socioeconomics work best when related to that you are familiar with, meanwhile they are not ideal at all for other regions.
@@ericktellez7632 so you're really gonna make the argument that socialism is when capitalism so long as it's a developing nation too?
Can you point to me where in the video he generalizes something? I'm just a bit confused on what this critique has to do with anything he said in the video?
You can't ignore the impact of Pol Pot had on Vietnam they looked at Cambodia and went oh shit we can't get too into this shit
Pol pot was inspired by the cultural revolution in China and even received aid from China and America .
Lol, America doesn't have a state ideology? How absurd! The ideology is Manifest Destiny. It's chants of "USA! USA! USA!". It's mandatory saluting of the flag.
fr
Lmao that’s the nationalism he mentioned at the beginning of the video, and no; Saluting the flag is not mandatory.
The rhetoric of Manifest Destiny began and ended in the 19th century. Why are you making it seem like Americans are taught a Manifest Destiny doctrine in schools right now? Lmao
We learned about Manifest Destiny in my public school as a deluded, violent, racist belief that Americans held in the 19th and early 20th century. It wasn't venerated. We also never learned about the CIA's various coups around the world though.
@@jackrutledgegoembel5896 Of course it was venerated,. you wouldn't know about it at all if it hadn't been.
Notice how at around 42:00 Luna thunders this poll from the mountaintops about how 25 percent of people support the free market in the U.S, and then IMMEDIATELY when she's realized she's read it wrong (which is okay, it happens, I get things wrong too sometimes), she then mentally flips to
"Look who did the poll. Pew Research. They didn't define what the free market is, hmph.", like she's Deidara.
So wait, when you think the poll agrees with you and what you say, it's "Haha the 25 and 3% of people in the U.S. and Vietnam agree with the free market system, so socialism is........... oh wait.... what's that? 25 and 3% DISAGREE with free markets?........"
*Luna.exe has stopped working*
Don't forget that she also says that people have thrown this graph as an "own" at her dozens of times apparently. So, I guess she confidently speaks out of her ass about a topic she should be intimately familiar with as she has encountered the topic many times before?
What a surprise.
@@OnlyRoke Vietnam is closer to socialism than the United States, America is likely going to have a racial war than a socialist revolution.
im so glad marx invented time travel
Bruh Vaush has to read a history textbook in the United States if he doesn’t think a state ideology is being taught. Read “lies my teacher told me”
It’s a lot more fragmented tho, people in north eastern blue states learn things that are much closer to the truth than say Texas
@@Lightningkuriboh states whose ppl have more voting power due to the senate and presidential elections, have more distorted textbooks. That is done specifically to sway elections and give the minority party elections. Teaching kids in nyc the truth doesn’t matter
@@Jeevanm71 agreed I was just saying it’s not unified propaganda like some one state dictatorship
@@Jeevanm71 While each state has different curriculum standards, the issue is that in most states each individual school district can choose their own textbooks and sources...but in Texas, in particular, the *state* Board of Education mandates textbooks for all districts. This makes Texas an exceptionally large purchaser of textbooks, especially given its status as the second most populated state, and it leads to many textbook publishers tailoring their work specifically to the tastes of the Texas BoE.
I actually agree with Vaush more than Luna in terms of economic but I actually disagree with him here(and agree with you👍🏼). Capitalism and imperialism has very much been in American textbooks throughout history. Even though Vietnam is just state capitalist and I don't agree with that... they still have a better economic system that we do here.
I think Vaush was pushing back a bit a bit too hard in this regard and it made him seem as if he was saying that people in Vietnam are more indoctrinated than Americans have historically been(which simply isn't true).
GDP per capita growth doesn't necessarily imply rising standards of living without looking at the equity of distribution. Let's not forget that GDP per capita income is twice median income in the United States, and that these figures do not necessarily increase proportionately. Understanding the effects of IMF reforms in Vietnam, especially insofar as they may be "capitalist," is a lot more complicated.
Ho Chi Minh came to a US representative asking for help to free his country and form a democracy but was rebuffed before he, in desperation asked the Chinese for help. We set the ground game in motion for the Vietnam war through our own arrogance and lack of caring about indigenous peoples right. Of course we were sort of established on that basis in this country, so what’s new? Right now we could be helping the South American countries, many of which we wrecked, reestablish a government that could protect and provide security for their people and save money doing it. Make their home country safe again and provide good jobs doing it and our immigration crisis is almost completely solved. Bring their standards of living up and ours is improved. Wouldn’t it be nice to have an American free trade zone from Canada to the southern tip of South America? Just sayin.
We can't even handle reconstructing the default state of our own government. How can we handle rebuilding a continent if we aren't done doing the same with a nation?
You see, altruism and long-term thinking has no place in international affairs and real politik™
all you have to do is look at history and you’ll realize whenever america “helps” another country, they typically end up worse off then they were before
Expecting the US to homogenize the entire Western hemisphere when are doing good to keep Florida man contained (@_@)
No, no let's hear him out
30:00ish in, I instinctual realized this was the case with human society via being a history nut... nice to see there's actual theory behind it. Guess I finally need to read Marx lol
Do it, it's short literature.
In his analysis, Voosh is actually being more of a materialist than the average ML.
@@noname-bu1ux lol
Also bizzare game of philosophy Telephone from french to Russian to English to Mandarin to Vietnamese back to English kinda explains how we got here, where words have no meaning
Why were the five blind guys "fortune tellers"? Such a weird detail that literally doesn't impact the story. 😂
Could Vietnam's rise in GDP possibly be due to the lifting of US sanctions?
No, Vietnam's GDP rise was thanks to liberalization of their economy.
@@danghoangluong2942 Liberalization of their economy which led to the lifting of US and other Western sanctions.
"My position is better, I can do an appeal to popularity fallacy in favor of it."
12:51
Voosh: "No, and I will not elaborate"
*immediately proceeds to elaborate*
I'd also like to say that Vietnam for centuries has also been brilliant at guerrilla warfare from Ming dynasty occupation 1406 through to today.
59:50 "Anarcho syndicalist throne" Ah yes the king of anarchism
So there actually is a philosophical school called materialism which is different from dialectical materialism, about matter being the bedrock of all real things and I think she legit just confused that with Marx's dialectical materialism. She could have cleared this up just by clicking the "disambiguation" button on wikipedia, but she did not. This is embarrassing.
I think her SO made a video about it actually
*FULL POWAH TO THE CRINGE SHIELDS WE'RE GOING THROUGH TANKIE TERRITORY!!*
ENGAGING THE THREE-HOLE CANNONS AND BORGOR KING MISSILES
THERE ARE ONLY TWO HOLES
GO HOME INFRARED YOU'RE DRUNK
ALSO WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?
"It doesn't matter if Stalin or Mao were bad..."
Good enough reason to despise Luna and anything they stand for.
But their ideology is perfect if you ignore every bad thing about it!
"It doesn't matter if Hitler was good or bad, what a waste of time!!1!"
@@aaronmarks9366 To be fair, moralizing about individuals is a waste of time. When we can talk about how irredeemably bad the outcomes of these people's policy positions were for their respective countries, why bother talking about whether they were "good people" or "bad people"?
Who gives a shit whether Stalin was bad, his approach to government was unsustainably dogshit.
@@FelisImpurrator True. People fall back on this good/bad dichotomy because they are incapable of expressing legitimate criticisms if they even have any. Its a strong sign that they probably shouldn't be commenting if their understanding is so impoverished that is all they can offer.
@@FelisImpurrator That's a fair distinction
Vaush should platform Zoe Baker more.
Also anark
Zoe is the one who got me into anarchism. Love her for that🖤. They had a great conversation once but I agree he should have her on again and also speak with more anarchists.
Anarchism is the way to go, imo✌🏼
@@Religions.of.fandom based
@@kx7500 ✊🏽
@@Religions.of.fandom Anarchists are only useful for helping overthrowing the ruling class; after they will be thrown into the sea holding anchors, arachista are nothing more but obstacles to the revolution but at least their better then capitalists however that's a low bar.
The whole bit on consciousness was just... Painful for a Cognitive Science major
Would u mind elaborating a little? it's cool if u dont have time, im just a little curious, I dont really know if vaush is right or wrong, like I get what he's saying but mbby its wrong, or there is a more accurate way of looking at it? idk.
@@willowtree7326 Hey! Thank you for the question. So in this video, they were mostly talking past each other because they were working with different definitions of consciousness. That's why it was painful for me
Vaush was talking about consciousness as subjective experience. He referred to the term "Qualia," which is an oft-discussed concept in philosophy of mind relating to the private, inaccessible characteristics of our perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. The idea is oft-debated, and there is significant disagreement on whether it's a useful idea, but Vaush using it suggests familiarity with the matter. The key here is that Vaush is talking about consciousness as subjective experience.
Luna is using consciousness in a few different senses. One is sapience or intelligence. This is how you can make sense of her talking about the social emergence of "consciousness." It's very reasonable to think that our higher cognitive functions evolved because of how social our species is, and language was likely a huge tool in fostering that. It is likely that there was reciprocal influence in the evolution, though.
She also uses it in the sense of consciousness as awareness. Awareness is the property of nervous systems that allows organisms to react to their external and internal environment. Though I think it's a stretch to say that labor helped awareness emerge, it did likely evolve as a way for organisms to react to their environment, which would fit the definition she uses here.
While this may explain the etiology, or original emergence of awareness, something that I think Vaush alluded to is that awareness is generated and realized in the brain. This would happen whether someone grows up around others or not, so in that sense it isn't socially caused, but caused by neurology.
Neither of them are experts in psychology, so I can forgive both of them mixing up the senses of the word in this video. Consciousness is a really vague term, and it needs to be specified to have productive conversations imo. They were both using different, but intelligible definitions, but that wasn't clear. I don't think either of them were super right or wrong, just talking past each other about different but related things.
That's a pretty long answer already, and I left out some parts, but if you want more clarification let me know! Hope that helps 🙂
@@drakessful dude, I literally can't thank you enough for this
I haven’t made it to that part but I’ve only ever heard of people talking about consciousness in a way that is incredibly stupid to me. In a philosophical sense anyway.
Ok. I’ve arrived. So far she seems to be conflating perception with consciousness. And then she mixed up class consciousness with consciousness in terms of our minds. I want to chalk it up to misunderstanding but she’s reading this from Vietnamese. Though it is possible that the person who brought the ideas was the one who didn’t realize the uses of the word. Although I wonder if German has separate words for the two types of consciousness.
Edit: It seems Vaush has said the same thing haha.
Is this dialectical materialism?
Dialect yourself some bitches lmao
@@rowbot5555 Damn.
@@rowbot5555 me and the boys dialectically materializing some bitches
It's Alden's theory of Revolution
That video sounds more like Christian sunday preaches the longer I watch it.
Definite youth pastor vibes here. Luna seems to speak as a true believer, and it’s unsettling. This ain’t a cult.
Ahhh so this is where it all started. I somehow always watch this drama shit in reverse lmaoooooo
Vaush doesn't understand Luna was talking about social consciousness and class consciousness is something else. Here's Marx on social consciousness:
"In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society - the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."
Yes so Marx believes man gets consciousness from sociality
How can you bring yourself to read a whole book of this gilberish? I tried to read that one paragraph and half of my brain is now fucking missing!
Socialism is when the government does stuff
\ /
\/
Tankies-🤝-Capitalists(same)
Remember that the "Tankies" defeted the Nazis and liberated the concentration camps in Central Europe, saved the world form fascism. Stalin industrialized the USSR form a semi-feudal backwater to sending the first person into space.
While the US imperialists and its satellite states created Ratlines to recruit former Nazis for NASA and the West German puppet government and NATO to campate the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty.
shut up corporatist
If society is classless, it is correct to say that no class is better than the other. What's more, if you can say that no class is better than the other, then the classes are irrelevant in many senses, so "virtually classless" would be fine with me, even if classless would be technically wrong.
The neoliberal reforms have worked in places like China and Vietnam because of the previously existing state led programs for literacy, healthcare etc. these countries are able to produce extremely educated cheap work force that can bring wealth into those countries. Without the revolution of those countries, the material conditions would not be setup for a population to actually attract foreign investment and pay back loans. This is why neoliberal reforms have not worked in India, Africa etc since the material basis for an extremely large population to be productive wasn’t set up. China and Vietnam are currently state capitalists and are not socialist but their rise is not simply due “neoliberal reforms”
nice meme
@@esbenm6544 not sure what you mean. Neoliberal reforms have not worked in India as an example, why is that?
Sometimes vaush's takes are so incredibly bad... Only a few minutes in and Vaush is looking at the GDP of Vietnam directly after the Vietnam war and during the Chinese-Vietnam war and comparing it to its GDP now. Then attributing all of that growth to capitalism. That's wack
Edit: Not to mention the economic sanctions and insane embargos on Vietnam. Again, Vaush's smuggness is getting the better of him. It reminds me of Destiny at times
@Nobody Good response. Really enlightening actually
Out of curiosity, were you able to watch the rest of the video? At about the 25 minute mark he starts laying out examples of applying dialectic materialism to history and the examples he gives are pretty sound.
he is truly a destiny clone.
@@BewarethePurpleOne no, they are not. he doesn't read and doesn't know what he is talking about. just read the books and stop watching vooch for your theory. he doesn't.
@@spellman007 I've read theory, and I'm not taking tips on understanding it from someone subscribed to Dore, Maupin, and Unruhe.
the consciousness bit onwards felt like watching a poorly made video a high school science teacher would roll out for the class to make them at least partially absorb random terms for a test, but with socialist/communist theory spray painted on to try and be hip with the kids.
I don't trust anyone who takes her seriously after this lmao (not that I did before, but now i have a solid video to point to and go, "Really?")