The problem is that "personal property" isn't the same as "private property". Your clothes, your toothbrush, your copy of the manifesto -> your Personal belongings that you yourself use. No one wants to get rid of that. "Your" factory? "Your" houses? That belongs to the people who work/live there - according to socialist/communist ideologies. All of them. they differ on the how - AnComs wouldn't consider "state owned" as "owned by the people" while ML/Ms would.
There is a mistake at 3:31. Lenin never advocated for socialism in one country, in fact he opposed it very strongly. Lenin said multiple times that he would sacrifice the russian Revolution for a Revolution in a advanced industrialised country. He counted on the success of the revolutionary wave sweeping over western europe after WW1. While Lenin and Trotsky had some differences, both were staunch internationalists
Yeah, they were both internationalists, but what sets them apart is that Lenin advocated for spontaneous global revolutions headed by communist parties, while Trotsky was pretty much a “red imperialist”, believing the revolution should actively be exported by the original socialist country, in a permanent revolution
Trotsky believed that the revolution would fail without international support. Both Lenin and Stalin knew that Socialism could work in a single country, but the more countries that were socialist, the better, which is why Stalin would go on to give support to other socialist projects like the DPRK and China. Lenin saying that he would sacrifice the Russian Revolution for a revolution in an advanced industrialized country means nothing in terms of his views on Socialism in one country as it just means that he would sacrifice socialism in country A for socialism in country B.
@@theparadigm8149 shortly after the Russian revolution, leading bolsheviks including Trotsky and Lenin had hoped that the more developed German working class would seize state power and come to the aid of the bolsheviks given that Russia was clearly still a backwards state shortly after the October revolution. They had no illusions that they were capable of exporting revolution elsewhere until the moment had passed and they were completely isolated
What a wildly idealist view. The idea that support for socialism in one country is contrary to internationalist policy is, a take for sure. These Vanguard parties are to pop up in miscellaneous (already nationally organized) countries, overthrow their state, and surrender their national identity and sovereignty to some far off foreign political entity? Good luck selling that to any post-colonial nation. The USSR didn't have the industry nor the capital to compete with the west in terms of foreign political influence until after the second world war. Had Stalin not strengthened that national industrial base, the entire proletariat of the USSR would have fallen to fascism. What should the Soviets have done to help themselves? If that wave of revolutions over Europe didn't take hold, what then? Should the Soviets have dissolved? A successful revolution can organize a state that's cooperative with other proletarian dictatorships. I do heavily criticize Stalin for his role in the dissolution of the Comintern, but that's what history gave us. Socialism in one country, however, is not only necessary, but materially the only way it would ever go down. Peoples will maintain their national identity and sovereignty until it becomes nothing more than cultural identity with the withering away of the state. Again, I've got a lot of critiques about Stalin, but he's right on this one. The revolutions across what became the USSR already shared something of a national identity, but there's simply no way in 1949, the CPC would have merged with the USSR. In my view, that's wildly idealist to presume.
@@theparadigm8149 thats a just a misconception/ slander Trotsky never advocated for spreading the Revolution through wars of aggression or "red Imperialism". He emphasizing that socialism in Russia needed to inspire and support revolutions in other countries. While he anticipated the possibility of defensive revolutionary wars, he did not argue for initiating wars to forcibly spread communism. Instead, he focused on political and ideological support for global revolution
@@ExplainersEnigma ooooohhhhhh it's a can of worms my friend, Juche, Deng Xiaoping Thought, Xi Jinping Thought, Hoxhaism, Luxemburgism, Council Communism, Proudhonism, The New Left movement, Zapatismo etc. etc. It depends on who you ask for the most part but as far as the video you made goes, pretty solid job. Stalinism ain't a thing tho lol however, you might not want to go through your comments liking those made by nazis so they get highlighted under the video calling the subject of the video terrible and evil
ExplainersEnigma can Split it into Different parts like Part 1, Part 2, so on and so Forth! Wouldn't that be a Good Idea? [3 Hour EDIT]: My God! I didn't Expect ExplainersEnigma to Like my Idea! Thanks Mate!
True, but he also did criticize it for it's utility as an effective weapon by the bourgeoisie & ruling classes from previous economic modes of production to justify, preserve & protect current power structures, elitisms & exploitation.
One thing to note: Stalinism isn't really a COMMUNIST ideology in the sense like Marxism (theoretical) or Leninism (practical application). Rather, it is the name of the governance and system of policies Stalin had pushed throughout his tenure as leader, which included rapid industrialization, mass collectivism, collective forced agrarianization, and the like.
Also worthy of note is the fact that Stalinism was created in the context of the post revolutionary state, declaration of Socialism in One Country changes the focus of the doctrine away from revolution and towards consolodating the power of the Soviet State. This explains many of the contradictions of Stalinism. This is covered briefly in the section on Trotskyism but I think it warrants mentioning.
@@mrhelzbygrad7485 Stalinism was partly also a national response to the failure of Trotskyism due to the clear failure of communist revolutions in more industrialized nations. Which is why it placed a lot of emphasis in patriotic and self-sufficiency in order to strengthen the Soviet state and maximize overall power.
@@jorgenoberwell1181 I suppose what I was trying to say was, to discuss these ideologies heavily based on historical materialism, it would be helpful to put them more in their historical and material context. I get they tried to fit a lot into a small video, but I hope you see my point.
@@mrhelzbygrad7485 Agreed. Big-C communism is already a big topic in and of itself. When you include the practical and historical applications such as Leninism... you have to consider not only historical materialism, but the cultural behavior, sociopsychological analyses, circumstances of that era, and a whole lot of can of worms I am too tired to list out.
This video makes a lot of confusion. Marx did also advocate for the dictatorhip of the proletariat not just Lenin. Lenin also advocated for International revolution just like Trotsky. Also Trotksyism is not really different from leninism. For anyone questioning the "4" on the hammer and sickle for trotskyism, it stands for "Fourth International" Also Eurocoms arent the only ones who support femminism anf lgbt
>Trotskyism is not different from leninism Trotsky often enough ignored the direct Lenin's orders. The main one - he didn't sign the Brest peace in time, resulting in a severe territory loss. Then, Trotsky wrote about "class of nomenclature" and "deformed worker state" (which shows that he lacks the idea of what a class is, and thus, isn't even Marxist). About the guy you probably think is Trotsky who was the "right hand of Lenin" - he's Kalinin. About the guy who was a true follower of Lenin and his ideas - he's Stalin.
Yes, Marx did advocate for the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, Lenin’s interpretation of what that meant, upon further reading of Marx’s work (especially his later work) was vastly different from Marx himself. While not an anarchist, Marx did hold healthy skepticism of the state, and in his (and Engel’s) later works he even veered away from calling communist forms of governments “states”
Marx with "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant a state (or society) in which economic and political power is in the hands of the workers, not a literal party dictatorship. Lenin instead favored a vanguard party, democratic internally but which would exclude the rest even if they were socialists or social democrats.
@@calebdunlap7566 Wrong, Lenin's interpretation was exactly what Marx meant. Marx had no "healthy skepticism of the state" because he didn't turn the state into an abstraction with eternal properties like anarchists do, that's called idealism. Marx and Lenin both understood the state to be an apparatus of the ruling class. Mao and Stalin continued Lenin and Marx's developments, but Deng and Khruschev derailed it all.
5:47 No type of communism says you have to share watch or underwear or other personal stuff... Every ideology advocated the 'means of productions'(land factory etc.) to be owned by society. Noy personal properties...Do you think in USSR or in China or in Cuba people share their personal stuff like pen, clothes, watches etc. 😂😂😂
Wrong, "personal vs private" is just nonsense used to "sell" communism to privileged Westerners. In higher-stage communism the personal is social and the social is personal, no you don't necessarily keep your toothbrush.
@@ExplainersEnigma It is a bit shocking how often personal and private property are confused :p so ya, can't hurt to try and make that clear somewhere along the video
I would say it’s misguided to call China a Marxist Leninist Nation, their policies of market liberalization under Deng Xiaoping really changed them into something entirely new.
Yeah like I would say it’s fair to say that a lot of Marxist would say China is still “Dengist” and way more influenced by Deng than Mao and from what I’ve heard a lot Chinese people say the same thing.
@@nopasaran191I’d go as far as to say china isn’t even communist anymore. It’s Just a capitalist country with the old “ communist “ party still in charge.
China right now is clearly a capitalist, perhaps even fascist country. The state no longer controls the majority of the economy, criticism of enterprises was prohibited, and they also sent the cops to beat workers on strikes
This video doesn't do a great job of distinguishing between Leninisn, Stalinism, and Marxism-Leninism (which isn't even named), nor does it clarify which flavor of Maoism it is attempting to address: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Mao Zedong Thought, or even Gonzalo thought.
Thanks for the feedback, I tried my best. Marxism-Leninism was filed under Stalinism since they overlap quite a bit. The thing is: these ideologies aren't that easy to distinguish since they are alike.
@@ExplainersEnigma they all have clear distinction. Like for example, marxism is like the base game, leninism is update 1.1, stalinism is the update 1.2 that breaks the game, trotskyism is like a beta version of 1.2 that was made into a separate parody game, maoism is the indie remake of 1.2, an-com is like an overambitious and unrealistic attempt at making a full game from scratch...
@@commieblock1917 Stalinist... don't understand Marx and they never will. Purges on opponents and no division of the three State powers under the Soviets (no respect for proletarian democracy and anti-leninism) - Corruption and favouritism to maintain the privileges of a dictatorial State (by each according to his abilities etc. meritocracy betrayed) - Anti-internazionalism (socialism in only one country) - Militarism and nazionalism (In favour of the Urss the first and by Russian cuture the second) - Imperialism (unequal exploitation of resources and those who sought independence they sent tanks, first in Hungary then to Cecoslovacchia; even though Khrushchev was an anti-stalinist military power was magnified by Stalin and the war) - forced collectivisation (wich lead the Holomodor) as well as the overdevelopment of heavy industry in favor of war plant. Need to go on? Stalin betrayed the revolution and create an "animal farm"!
@@commieblock1917 Stalinism is the upgrade?! Read Marx and Lenin first - then see what Stalin did! Authoritarianism and repression - Forced collectivisation - Suppression of the Soviet - Anti-internazionalism and nationalism - Corruption and privileges that betrayed marxist meritocracy. Need i go on?
@@thebutcher7541 And? Liberals were once revelutionary, you don't have to be communist to be that, Syndicalism is an anti-marxist strain of Socialism that has utterly failed to get any traction post WW1
I am not an expert but if I am not mistaken every comunist ideology defends personal property not just the anarcho-comunists like you said, and I again, if I am not mistaken the spainish faction you mentioned was anarcho-syndicalist
You are indeed right all communist ideological thought believe in personal ownership just not private, aka excess land, private ownership of the means of production etc.
The way I see it, there are no separate "types" of communism or socialism, there were various theories that tried to integrate marxist concepts, as well as individual leaders that needed a distinct "brand" of ideology to differentiate themselves from the "mainstream", often along nationalist lines e.g Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, Titoism, Trotskyism. Ultimately, they were just experimenting with theory trying to find a politically feasible path towards some future ideal state of society. Marx himself (as well as Engels) tried to imagine what the future communist society may look like, but was only able to propose a few very broad features, i.e. technologically advanced global community with no nations, no government bureaucracy, no classes, where your hobby is your job and each individual is free to explore and realize their talents. Rather than identifying a myriad of labels, we could try to find key differentiating features of each, perhaps even put some of them on an axis. Global vs National/Local; Authoritarian vs Stateless; Market Pricing vs Central Planning (e.g. Yugoslavia under Tito vs. USSR under Khruschev); State vs Workers (cooperatives) vs Private - ownership of economic assets; Council Democracy (Soviet model) vs Republican Democracy (parliamentary model with separation of powers); and so on.
@@notcharging i dont think Trotsky really believed in democracy he advocated for the red terror which was a massacre. Trotsky is also kind of inconsistent in what he says, even permanent revolution which is his basic idea changes meaning. Some people say permanent revolution means the whole world revolts but it differentiates with other trotskyites. If you wanted democracy it would be pure Marxism, as Marxism advocated for the people themselves to govern themself. Marxism would have a direct democracy
Look up any Trotskyist party and that appeal should disappear immediatly, There have been rape and pedophilia scandals in the Canadian, Swedish and Brittish sections of the IMT and seeing as they all function like each other i can only guess that the same is happening in other countries where the IMT is present
You should do a vid like this on fascism, alot of people know the horrors of national socialism, but beyond that, not many know about the characteristics of Christian fascism or neo fascism for example.
I know you're obviously making this to be brief and stuff but a common misconception: Maoism developed AFTER Mao. During the Cold War to be a Maoist just meant taking Beijing's side over Moscow's. After the Cold War was when the principles of the believers were formally established, quite akin to how Marxism-Leninism wasn't developed under Lenin but rather Stalin.
bundists aren't really communists. The Bund is revolutionary but fairly moderate (unlike most Russian groups of the time, they refuse to engage in propaganda by deed). The Bundists only claimed to be social democrats (before this term lost its meaning). There were indeed Bundists who split off and claimed to be communists, but these organizations quickly fell into decline. Very good video, though, and very clearly explained (which is really not easy).
So i joined the RCA recently and they claim to be Trotskyist that study all versions of communism to puck out the best parts of each philosophy, but the leadership in Missouri is acting more like Stalinist, kicking people out who adress criticism, and claim its because they're in a poor financial situation. But they been in their position for 20 and 7 years, so they're drunk on their power and realize that the rest of the party nation wide and international disagrees with them, and they are killing 2 cells that i started up myself, the Missouri leadership is already sowing the seeds for the Party's destruction.
9:46 I’m a bundist. We believe in doykayet, hereness. This is our home, wherever we live, we have a right to live here. We have an obligation to make the world better, safer, more just for everyone, not just us. That’s Tikkun Olam (a central Jewish concept). Lenin and the Bund were constantly arguing, and Lenin disarmed the JLB’s Self Defense Leagues, preventing us from defending ourselves from the horrors of the Pogroms, which everyone but the mackhinovisha participated in. We were the Black Panther party but for Jewish in Eastern Europe. However, our strategy was meant to fend off the only semi-organized pogroms. Not the Nazi slaughter machine. Most of the bund fought as partisans.
No lol. Then why in The Great Debate (1923-1926) Stalin was on the side of the NEP (sort of a socialist market economy and gradual collectivisation) and Trotsky was the one calling for a collectivisation and forced industrialization at the expense of the peasntry? Later, he (Stalin) shifted to a more industrialist policy because of the internal political circunstances, but was still a more moderate stance than Trotsky's (a medium point between Trotsky and NEP, if u will to see it like that...). He even limited exporting many years in order to not alienate the peasants (and to avoid the famine extending). You all have to stop getting your historical facts from Hoi4, TH-cam videos of random people and Robert Conquest.
@@McInte The thing with Stalinism is that it did advocate for rapid and quick industrialisation, that is a fact. I am not saying that Trotsky and others didn’t either, and Stalin may of had a different viewpoint earlier in his political career, but as he grew older and his political doctrine developed Quick industrialisation and collectivisation became a core part of Stalinism, which then, similar to when Mao tried to adopt in under Maoism in China, it failed quite horribly and starved a lot of people.
Do you not also think it is possible that Stalin said one thing, then in reality when he gained and consolidated more power did something else? Considering the amount of people he purged, and the amount of things he backtracked on, just because he said something in the 20s does not mean that he did not do it later in the 30s and 40s, in this case, rapid collectivisation
@@viggoforster so, Leninism? NEP itself is to _actively build_ the conditions to start building socialism, instead of waiting until capitalism develops by itself out of control. And going to planned economy wasn't the end of NEP.
It's hard to define Maoism since there are 3 branches of it which were developed around the same time. 1.Mao Tse-Tung Thought (Marxism-Leninism as implemented in socialism until they turned to capitalism in the late 70s/80s.The Idealogy is exclusive to China) 2.Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (Universally applyable Mao Tse-Tung thought while rejecting Mao's revisionist and reactionary ideas and seeing it as the currentld highest stage of Marxism instead of a form of Marxism-Leninism. Invented in the 80s by Chairman Gonzalo) 3.Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,principally Maoism/Gonzalo thought (MLM but including Gonzalo's additions)
But none of those were REAL Communism, because you see my version of Communism is totally flawless and is in no way doomed to fail when- (I think ill let everyone else take it from there)
Fake. Every ideology which aims to achieve communism is communist, but not every mean is adequate to the end, so specific flaws of some ideologies are not the same of others.
When you said "private property", you showed a house. But house is a personal property. Marx makes a big difference between private ownership (when the bourgeoise owns means of production) and personal ownership (home for example, which shouldn't be collectivised)
The line between private and personal property shifts depending on what it's used for and who it affects. I don't think it's worth obsessing over other than explaining to someone why no one wants their toothbrush.
A small list of left-wing/right-wing that i dont know if they should count into the video 1.Neo-bolshevism/neo-sovietism 2.National Bolshevism 3.Syndicalism 4.Anarcho-Syndicalism Also, huge respect for doing all the effort of explaining all of them !!
Syndicalism might be right for the video, as is anarcho-syndicalism, but neo-Sovietism is more of a form of nostalgia for the USSR, and National-Bolshevism is far-right non-communist (even if nazbols say they are communists)
Hi, anarchist here. Anarchism is not a type of socialism or communism, it evolved separately and absolutely contradicted communism. Marx was not an anarchist, and what you ended up defining was communism as a whole and i feel as if most definitions here were completely fine until you brought anarcho communism up. Now it all falls apart.
I think most of his definitions lack the conflict between one another, but I don't he did that many mistakes with anarcism. These words (socialism, communism and anarchism) suffer a great deal of conflict, and changed their meaning over time. I woukd say though that anarchism in a way share many of the marxism principles: a stateless and classless society as a goal, as much as colective property. The big difference lies in the way to reach these goals: while marxism believes that the state should be taken by the workers to opress the bourgeoisie, anarchism (as represented by Mikhail Bakunin) advocate for an instant elimination of the state. This visions conflicted in the debates between Marx and Bakunin themselves in the first international.
@@mateussantana6738 Well yea a lot of that is correct but also anarchism favors an emphasis on a lack of authority regardless, we generally believe that authority will always lead backward.
I think the definition he gave was great. Anarcho-Communism seeks to make a communist society that is extremely decentralised and everyone does whatever they want (choose to help the community or not) from what I’ve read. Now imo who came up with this and actually thought it was applicable was high as fuck
@@realWWdude546 you should read a little bit more. Try the texts of Bakunin, Proudhon, Malatesta and others. Anarchism does not mean lack of organization, on the contrary, you should think that the state ceases to exist as all of the population take part of it. Something like athenian democracy but adapted to the industrial capitalist reality and of course without slavery an other privileges.
@@realWWdude546 The explanation was bad because it basically just defines communism, and entirely ignores anarchist ideology, not to mention, anarcho communism is explicitly NOT marxist, and thus not communist. The society seeked to be established is similar in many ways, but in basically all literature, described heavily differently and prioritizes different things. Anarchists often have more of a priority on the environment, and while a communist society can feature urban planning, an anarchist society will abolish urbanism as well.
When Marx, Lenin and other communist leaders used the word 'dictatorship of proletariat' they didn't mean a dictatorship of a single person ( like rule of Hitler or Mussolini). (Evidence: they used the term 'Dictatorship of Bourgeoisie' to depict capitalism. But that doesn’t mean political dictatorship of a person. It means dominance of Bourgeoisie in the society.) What they actually mean by this phrase, 'dictatorship of proletariat ' is dominance of working class over rich owners and workers will snatch the means of production (land, factory etc.) forcefully from the owners if they don't agree to hand them over politely!!!
Would like to give a correction to the distinction of Private and Personal Property The right to personal property is NOT exclusive to Anarchist-Communism, it is part of all forms of Communism/Socialism. Under all forms of Socialism/Communism, your right to Personal Property is guaranteed, Private Property is responsible for the production of the Personal Property you own and protect, therefore everyone is entitled to Private Property, Private Property is owned communally.
@@ExplainersEnigmaHow can you make a video explaining multiple kinds of communism without knowing what socialism is?? Nowadays there's almost no socialist democracies. Idk if you are referring to Europe or what (I guess that's the case because it's a common mistake), but no, there's nothing even close to a socialist country in Europe. It's all capitalism.
You forgot the most nationalistic type of socialism/communism - Ho Chi Minh-ism , it's a mix of Maoism and Marxism Leninists but involves a large sentiment of liberation and independence.
While everyone talks about material equality no one talks about equaliy of human capabilities. Is that ever possible, more importantly should that ever be pursued. I believe no, diversity is necessary, differences are necessary, human beings ought to be different from each other. Taking que from that belief i also believe material equality is also not natural, maybe within a particular society , maybe within a particular region, maybe within a cohesive community of a particular region it is helpful and should be pursued but the idea that material equality should be pursued the world over is not practical, it will fail due to the factor of inherent human differences. So, communism at local level ,at regional level, if and where there is homogeneity within society is very much desirable, infact it will be achievable but that between disparate communities with different types of people wont succeed. It can be similar to national socialism but even that national socialism will succeed if that nation is homogeneous and if that nation accepts and respects differences and similarities between different human beings across different nationalities and the fact that generational changes will bring in changes to situations and different types of human beings will be attracted to each other and each others environment and culture and therefore there will be an urge to mix. So there will be homogeneity within a region and that is desirable but there will also be movements between regions and that should be not be stopped but monitored, analysed and controlled . Global communism is bullshit. Global capitalism is even more so. Any singular global ism will always be a mirage.
Let's agree for a moment that material equality is unnatural, that's not an argument against it, we as humans do plenty of things everyday that aren't "natural". You're saying it's impossible and unnatural because people r built different, I don't see how people being built different renders it impossible, a popular Marx quote: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. People produce to society what they're able to, and receive what they need to live. The more work and value u add to society the more luxuries u should be able to enjoy.
@@milanstepanek4185 It Better NOT be Benito Mussolini, the same Dude who Betrayed the Working Class by being a Grifter and Creating Fascism that is a Bastardisation of Marxist Thought and it soon became the Ideology that is a Weapon for the Desperate Capitalist Ruling Class when Capitalist Decay Occurs! Sorry for being Harsh and Pissed, I'm Genuinely Sorry, I just really Loathe that Bastard who Betrayed his People and Ruined Revolutionary Ideologies While siding with the Ruling Class. Source: th-cam.com/video/VEJiWp0EzCU/w-d-xo.html
@@milanstepanek4185 Look, I Know this may be a bad time right now, but ummm... Benito Mussolini Betrayed the Working Class and Formed Fascism that is a Bastardised form of Marxist Thought to the Point of it being no longer Marxist, he was a Grifter who Formed Fascism into a Weapon that Protects the Ruling Class when Capitalist Decay Happens. th-cam.com/video/VEJiWp0EzCU/w-d-xo.html [This time I am doing this in Good Faith with Fair Criticism I do not Intend to cause any Harm to anyone or anybody, so you need to Leave my Comment alone until further Notice. Okay?]
1. Under Marxism, the products are not "shared," but socially redistributed 2. Dictatorship of the Proletariat was not a Leninist idea, it was Marx's 3. Vanguard was not Lenin's idea, it was Marx's 4. Stalinism was not the official political ideology for the Soviet Union, Marxism-Leninism was. This is disinformation. 5. Stalinism is not an ideology. It is simply an insult for Marxism-Leninism. Stalin and Lenin did not differ besides some foreign and economic mistakes by Stalin. Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist, a student of Lenin's and it is ridiculous to call Stalinism an ideology because it is was simply the continuation of Leninism 6. "Stalinism" is not a synthesis of Marxism-Leninism. Leninism is just Marxism in the age of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Lenin was a very consistent Marxist. 7. Accusations of state ownership: Yes. True. But that is social ownership when the state is a tool of the social peoples. 8. "Statelessness" as a core of "Stalinism". When Marx wrote on the state, he said it would wither as a tool of class oppression. This does not mean no rules, it means no class oppression. A state ran by the whole of society with the absence of classes is not a "state," but rather policing would become a tool as simple as firefighting or schooling. It will lose its class characteristic. 9. On Trotsky: "Anti-authoritarianism" is un-Marxist. Read "The Chief Apostle of Counter-Revolution - Karl Kautsky" by Yrjö Sirola or "On Authority" by Engels 10. Centralization is also necessary under any reading of "Critique of the Gotha Program", "State and Revolution", "What is to be Done?" etc 11. Mao did not develop Maoism, Abimael Guzman did. 12. Maoism: "Peasants were the central force". No. Mao still believed the Proletarian guided the peasants, and the peasants turned into Proletarians. Otherwise the description of Maoism is good. 13. No description of Juche???
I'm an Anarcho-Communist and your Definition was ON POINT! That is Absolutely Correct and I'm also somewhat of an Autonomist myself when it comes to the Fusion of Marxist and Anarchist Theory/Philosophy! Long Live Communo-Anarchy!
@@ExplainersEnigma No, your German Accent isn't Annoying. I Love German, and Besides; it's my Favourite Language that I want to Learn one day because of how Beautiful and Fascinating the Language is, and I want to get in Touch in my Western European Heritage like German not because of Blinding Pride but to get to Know my Past and Appreciate it and be Happy for what I got from it!
@@SPAnComCat appreciate it mate. Haha you're one of the first people saying that German is "beautiful". I consider it a super ugly language but oh well 😂☕
@@ExplainersEnigmathere probably wouldn't be enough content. Maybe a video about the different kinds of capitalism and include fascism in it as a late stage form of it?
@@EroUsagiSamalook at the body count of communist revolutions, the fact that they reject any other "political or social" idea other than there parties...there's your fascism
I get what you’re trying to do with this and I’m not trying to diss you by saying this but anyone who wants even a basic understanding of these concepts won’t really get that after watching this. I think you did a decent job with the time you did this in and I think that you tried to do it objectively without trying to misinform people and while there were only a couple mistakes the bigger problem is when you try to to explain these things in such a short time you misinform people by leaving out key concepts for the sake of brevity that actually changes the way these concepts are understood.
Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, the format doesn't allow me to really dive deep. Just scratching the surface of course and the video just functions to spark interest. You would need to do further research if a subtopic interests you.
You should also have mentioned Albania's Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea (Khmer Rouge movement), Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania and North Korean Juche.
@@andonhoward532 Pol Pot was inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who claimed that private property was the source of inequality. He wasn't a fan of Marx, claiming that he found it too difficult, but was, nevertheless, an ardent admirer of Stalin and Mao. Photographs of Pol Pot and his inner circle conducting political meetings in the middle of the jungle, circa 1970, with the Soviet flag and portraits of Marx, Lenin and Engels in the background, would imply that they had communist leanings. More accurately, the Khmer Rouge movement was a murderous blend of Maoism, ethnonationalism and communo-primitivism. While the top brass may have espoused communist rhetoric, the rank and file soldiers never used the term "communist" when referring to themselves. After they were ousted by the Vietnamese, they conveniently decided that they were "no longer communists, just nationalists", in order to garner support from the US and ASEAN ( as well as continued support from China) to counter Vietnam. And so, if you go by the Chinese model of communism, whereby the peasantry were to be unheld as "the paradigm of communist virtue", then yes. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge movement were, at least until 1980, radical communists.
Pol Pot, really? A man who directly renounced Marxism, who did nothing for the left movement, but simply destroyed all dissenters and resettled people from cities to villages, do you propose to include them in the list of communists?
I would not call Anarchism a type of Communism In fact, there are some similarities, like the coletivization and anti-capitalist thing, but the way that the revolution starts, develops, view of democracy and freedom etc are completely different Also they developed separately and with a lot of divergences like Bakunin-Marx Also Catalonia was not exactly Anarcho-Communist, but well Anarcho-Syndicalism is kinda similar and even with the differences the two ideas are historically united. If you are an Anarcho-Communist you probably also likes Anarcho-Syndicalism and vice-versa.
@@giulialigabue3361 eurocomunismo non è socialdemocrazia, a questo proposito berlinguer fece un discorso molto interessante sul concetto di “riforme rivoluzionarie”. E poi non puoi non considerare i tempi e la situazione politica italiana. Smettiamo di scannarci tra di noi perché le idee sono le stesse✊
1 The Base 2 revolutionary practice 3 authoritarian betrayal 4 misunderstood martyr 5 misguided hero 6 good ideas/infantile disorder 7 the original state of mankind 8 based, but delusional 9 literally an infantile disorder 10 undecided and stubborn jews 11 literally treason 12 based update for the base
Eurocommunism or eurosocialism if you prefer literally achieved more and scared uncle Sam more than most of all of this because it actually worked in the short term (achieving better conditions for workers) and was able to hold a mirror and criticise the liberal capitalist system while proposing itself as the beginning of an alternative
@@eccoeco3454 euro communism without the ussr's existence is harmless. The moment the ussr fell neoliberalism started to destroy all the achievements of eurocomunism with no sight of recovery.
@@eccoeco3454issue is the eurocommunists failed at managing Italy’s finaces worsening a problem that had already created itself with Craxi’s Socialists then with Berlusconi’s government finding itself in an economic crisis
Yeah, being able to create societies with no unemployment, full housing and political access is awful. OMG how awful. Remember that when you have o pay 60% of your salary to your landlord otherwise you'll live in the streets.
@@ΓΕΏΡΓΙΟΣ-ι8ν Social democracy doesn't work in the long term because the problem is political. Social democracy keeps the power in the hands of people with money. And when they start thinking that there's too much welfare they'll do whatever they can to cut it. This is what we're living through right now. Governments have been trying to erase the welfare built in the post-ww2 since the 80's. And it directly correlates to the drop in living standards. The only solution is to remove the mechanism that allow rich people to exist in the first place. Which is the private property of the means of production. Economical power is political power.
Stalinism isn't a thing. Do you research or just google and take the first AI generated answer? If Stalinism is an actual ideology, instead of a few things Stalin did, then Bidenomics or reformer capitalism are independent schools of economic thought.
Marxism-Leninism is the political philosophy he followed, but lots of people called his "ways" Stalinism. Also it sounds better. Has nothing to do with AI or researching.
@ExplainersEnigma oh, wow, well, that's even more sad and lame. So, you're just admitting that it's bunk and marketing. I've screenshotted that. I mean, hats off to you. You just admitted that Stalinism isn't a thing and you're either lazy or a liar.
@@Charles-js3ri It is a thing, look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Lots of people called his Marxist-Leninist policies Stalinism. You call someone who spends loads of time and work on a free video lazy? Fair enough.
@@ExplainersEnigma I know lots of people call it Stalinism. That's why I called you out on it. When you dig into the ideology you have experts agreeing that Stalinism isn't a form of communism. It's left over nonsense from red baiting and fear mongering. It's fine to not like people. I am not a fan of Stalin myself. But accuracy matters and choosing to perpetuate falsehoods is terrible and misinform people. That's how we get people arrogantly spouting off crap. People acting as reasonable authorities need to be held to a higher standard.
That was the worst description of "Stalinism" iv ever heard. Also Mao wasn't a Maosit. He was a Marxist Leninist and his line is called Mao-Tsung thought. Moaism is different then Mao-Thought
Maybe I should make a video like this one, since the person who made this one seems to be an anti-communist. Time to go learn video making skills to see if it’s worth it
@@ExplainersEnigma National Socialism is not Fascism, that's a different type of communism that's more focused on syndicalism. Mussolini was always a socialist, he first got introduced to socialism by his father who was a socialist and then joined the socialist party. Hitler was also a socialist who said that Marxism is not real socialism, but his type is the real one. The policies and economy of Germany during the NSDAP rule were incredibly socialist.
Except when all socialist countries managed to provide housing, employment and political access to the population. I wanna see a person that has to spend all their salary in rent say they'd prefer the current system instead of one that provides virtually free housing.
@@ciro_costaOr when Mao actually increased the literacy rate, the constant famines that ravaged China before his rule have stopped, increased life expectancy, took China from agrarian feudal society that was being ravaged by imperialist powers and turned it into a world power, and liberated woman. But no. Let’s just ignore all of that. Just like we’ll ignore all the good Castro, Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh did.
Hey. Great video. However a little eurocentric, you completely overlooked Latin America. Here we have proposed some important forms of communism as well. Indigenous communism (Movimiento Armado Quintín Lame and others). Catholic Communism (Teología de la Liberación). The influence of communism in Pedagogy with Paulo Freire and his pedagogy of the oppressed... And Latinoamerican communism in general (Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mariategui, Enrique Dussel). These people have also theorized communism but more applied to our context of the "global south".
A mountain of debts on every American's shoulders says the opposite of what you're trying to say. You are scared of communism because in the middle 20th century you had political reppressions of socialist institutes and unions and individuals. This left in America a disillusional belief on why communist states collapse over time. It's not because "STALIN SENT INTO GULAGS AND UNALIVED 100 GAZILLIONZ OF PEUPL SO GOBBUNISM IS BAD" but because those states faced continuous threats and repressions from capitalist countries, and there are tons of other misconceptions about even what Marxism, Socialism and Communism are (and probably you also don't know the differences).
-20 points for not including fully automated luxury space gay communism
@@GavinWilkins-kg2yu 😂😂☕
Let’s be real, if it was ever actually possible then I think it would be the best ideology.
@@KaiMaher-jx7qzwhy exactly do u think it is impossible?
@@KaiMaher-jx7qz communism is possible, just not the conventional Leninism and Stalinism (and definitely not Maoism)
@@dwightdeisenhower53 Most of the time comunism is sabotated by the west. Like at least 1:3 of Latin America
No intro, No outro, short Explanation, Exactly what I want ❤
Yep!
Straight to the Point!
You need to read to develop proper understanding of complex things not watch 11 min youtube videos
@@RedTomato1917no you
@@lukesalazar9283 I do read
@@RedTomato1917 then read more.
Personal Property exists pretty much under all types of Socialism, not just AnComs
True, I should've made this more clear. Sorry for that.
Except Collectivism.
it's literally impossible to get rid of personal property
@@dinamosflams😂😂😂
Go educate yourself, mate.
Do you want me to tell you where to start?
The problem is that "personal property" isn't the same as "private property". Your clothes, your toothbrush, your copy of the manifesto -> your Personal belongings that you yourself use. No one wants to get rid of that.
"Your" factory? "Your" houses? That belongs to the people who work/live there - according to socialist/communist ideologies. All of them. they differ on the how - AnComs wouldn't consider "state owned" as "owned by the people" while ML/Ms would.
There is a mistake at 3:31. Lenin never advocated for socialism in one country, in fact he opposed it very strongly. Lenin said multiple times that he would sacrifice the russian Revolution for a Revolution in a advanced industrialised country. He counted on the success of the revolutionary wave sweeping over western europe after WW1. While Lenin and Trotsky had some differences, both were staunch internationalists
Yeah, they were both internationalists, but what sets them apart is that Lenin advocated for spontaneous global revolutions headed by communist parties, while Trotsky was pretty much a “red imperialist”, believing the revolution should actively be exported by the original socialist country, in a permanent revolution
Trotsky believed that the revolution would fail without international support. Both Lenin and Stalin knew that Socialism could work in a single country, but the more countries that were socialist, the better, which is why Stalin would go on to give support to other socialist projects like the DPRK and China. Lenin saying that he would sacrifice the Russian Revolution for a revolution in an advanced industrialized country means nothing in terms of his views on Socialism in one country as it just means that he would sacrifice socialism in country A for socialism in country B.
@@theparadigm8149 shortly after the Russian revolution, leading bolsheviks including Trotsky and Lenin had hoped that the more developed German working class would seize state power and come to the aid of the bolsheviks given that Russia was clearly still a backwards state shortly after the October revolution. They had no illusions that they were capable of exporting revolution elsewhere until the moment had passed and they were completely isolated
What a wildly idealist view. The idea that support for socialism in one country is contrary to internationalist policy is, a take for sure. These Vanguard parties are to pop up in miscellaneous (already nationally organized) countries, overthrow their state, and surrender their national identity and sovereignty to some far off foreign political entity? Good luck selling that to any post-colonial nation. The USSR didn't have the industry nor the capital to compete with the west in terms of foreign political influence until after the second world war. Had Stalin not strengthened that national industrial base, the entire proletariat of the USSR would have fallen to fascism. What should the Soviets have done to help themselves? If that wave of revolutions over Europe didn't take hold, what then? Should the Soviets have dissolved? A successful revolution can organize a state that's cooperative with other proletarian dictatorships. I do heavily criticize Stalin for his role in the dissolution of the Comintern, but that's what history gave us. Socialism in one country, however, is not only necessary, but materially the only way it would ever go down. Peoples will maintain their national identity and sovereignty until it becomes nothing more than cultural identity with the withering away of the state. Again, I've got a lot of critiques about Stalin, but he's right on this one. The revolutions across what became the USSR already shared something of a national identity, but there's simply no way in 1949, the CPC would have merged with the USSR. In my view, that's wildly idealist to presume.
@@theparadigm8149 thats a just a misconception/ slander Trotsky never advocated for spreading the Revolution through wars of aggression or "red Imperialism". He emphasizing that socialism in Russia needed to inspire and support revolutions in other countries. While he anticipated the possibility of defensive revolutionary wars, he did not argue for initiating wars to forcibly spread communism. Instead, he focused on political and ideological support for global revolution
If you wanted to explain EVERY type of communism, this video would last dozens of hours
What's missing? Some were skipped since they're so similar to other subtypes and to keep the video concise.
@@ExplainersEnigma ooooohhhhhh it's a can of worms my friend, Juche, Deng Xiaoping Thought, Xi Jinping Thought, Hoxhaism, Luxemburgism, Council Communism, Proudhonism, The New Left movement, Zapatismo etc. etc. It depends on who you ask for the most part but as far as the video you made goes, pretty solid job. Stalinism ain't a thing tho lol however, you might not want to go through your comments liking those made by nazis so they get highlighted under the video calling the subject of the video terrible and evil
As a Commie. Most versions of it are revisionist which some Communist don't even call Socialist at all
ExplainersEnigma can Split it into Different parts like Part 1, Part 2, so on and so Forth!
Wouldn't that be a Good Idea?
[3 Hour EDIT]: My God! I didn't Expect ExplainersEnigma to Like my Idea!
Thanks Mate!
@@ExplainersEnigmaMarxism-Leninism, Libéral Socialism, national-Bolshevism, Bolshevism, and a lot a lot of other ideologies
Correction, marx never wanted to abolish religion, he just believed that after we establish a socialist society we would no longer need religion.
True, but he also did criticize it for it's utility as an effective weapon by the bourgeoisie & ruling classes from previous economic modes of production to justify, preserve & protect current power structures, elitisms & exploitation.
Well if he wants everyone to be equal and free society then they shouldn't distinguish right?
Marx was right . Religion for the most is used by the capitalist to coerce the masses .
the crackdown on religious institutions by the soviet union is also widely seen as a negative thing among modern communists
@@kimbanton4398 i feel that was criticism towards the infrastructure the different churches built up around themselves, not at the believe itself.
One thing to note: Stalinism isn't really a COMMUNIST ideology in the sense like Marxism (theoretical) or Leninism (practical application). Rather, it is the name of the governance and system of policies Stalin had pushed throughout his tenure as leader, which included rapid industrialization, mass collectivism, collective forced agrarianization, and the like.
Also worthy of note is the fact that Stalinism was created in the context of the post revolutionary state, declaration of Socialism in One Country changes the focus of the doctrine away from revolution and towards consolodating the power of the Soviet State. This explains many of the contradictions of Stalinism.
This is covered briefly in the section on Trotskyism but I think it warrants mentioning.
@@mrhelzbygrad7485 Stalinism was partly also a national response to the failure of Trotskyism due to the clear failure of communist revolutions in more industrialized nations. Which is why it placed a lot of emphasis in patriotic and self-sufficiency in order to strengthen the Soviet state and maximize overall power.
@@jorgenoberwell1181 I suppose what I was trying to say was, to discuss these ideologies heavily based on historical materialism, it would be helpful to put them more in their historical and material context.
I get they tried to fit a lot into a small video, but I hope you see my point.
@@mrhelzbygrad7485 Agreed. Big-C communism is already a big topic in and of itself. When you include the practical and historical applications such as Leninism... you have to consider not only historical materialism, but the cultural behavior, sociopsychological analyses, circumstances of that era, and a whole lot of can of worms I am too tired to list out.
This video makes a lot of confusion. Marx did also advocate for the dictatorhip of the proletariat not just Lenin.
Lenin also advocated for International revolution just like Trotsky. Also Trotksyism is not really different from leninism.
For anyone questioning the "4" on the hammer and sickle for trotskyism, it stands for "Fourth International"
Also Eurocoms arent the only ones who support femminism anf lgbt
>Trotskyism is not different from leninism
Trotsky often enough ignored the direct Lenin's orders.
The main one - he didn't sign the Brest peace in time, resulting in a severe territory loss.
Then, Trotsky wrote about "class of nomenclature" and "deformed worker state" (which shows that he lacks the idea of what a class is, and thus, isn't even Marxist).
About the guy you probably think is Trotsky who was the "right hand of Lenin" - he's Kalinin.
About the guy who was a true follower of Lenin and his ideas - he's Stalin.
Yes, Marx did advocate for the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, Lenin’s interpretation of what that meant, upon further reading of Marx’s work (especially his later work) was vastly different from Marx himself. While not an anarchist, Marx did hold healthy skepticism of the state, and in his (and Engel’s) later works he even veered away from calling communist forms of governments “states”
Marx with "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant a state (or society) in which economic and political power is in the hands of the workers, not a literal party dictatorship. Lenin instead favored a vanguard party, democratic internally but which would exclude the rest even if they were socialists or social democrats.
Yep, as an example, we could quote Mao Zedong: "women hold up half the sky"
@@calebdunlap7566 Wrong, Lenin's interpretation was exactly what Marx meant. Marx had no "healthy skepticism of the state" because he didn't turn the state into an abstraction with eternal properties like anarchists do, that's called idealism. Marx and Lenin both understood the state to be an apparatus of the ruling class. Mao and Stalin continued Lenin and Marx's developments, but Deng and Khruschev derailed it all.
5:47 No type of communism says you have to share watch or underwear or other personal stuff... Every ideology advocated the 'means of productions'(land factory etc.) to be owned by society. Noy personal properties...Do you think in USSR or in China or in Cuba people share their personal stuff like pen, clothes, watches etc. 😂😂😂
YOU SHALL SHARE YOUR TOOTHBRUSH AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!!!!!!!
That example was just to clarify what the means of production are. But imagine sharing your underwear 😂😂😂☕
That's hilarious 😂
Wrong, "personal vs private" is just nonsense used to "sell" communism to privileged Westerners. In higher-stage communism the personal is social and the social is personal, no you don't necessarily keep your toothbrush.
@@ExplainersEnigma It is a bit shocking how often personal and private property are confused :p so ya, can't hurt to try and make that clear somewhere along the video
I would say it’s misguided to call China a Marxist Leninist Nation, their policies of market liberalization under Deng Xiaoping really changed them into something entirely new.
Yeah like I would say it’s fair to say that a lot of Marxist would say China is still “Dengist” and way more influenced by Deng than Mao and from what I’ve heard a lot Chinese people say the same thing.
@@nopasaran191And now Xiist.
@@nopasaran191I’d go as far as to say china isn’t even communist anymore. It’s Just a capitalist country with the old “ communist “ party still in charge.
China right now is clearly a capitalist, perhaps even fascist country. The state no longer controls the majority of the economy, criticism of enterprises was prohibited, and they also sent the cops to beat workers on strikes
China today is a capitalist nation
This video doesn't do a great job of distinguishing between Leninisn, Stalinism, and Marxism-Leninism (which isn't even named), nor does it clarify which flavor of Maoism it is attempting to address: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Mao Zedong Thought, or even Gonzalo thought.
Thanks for the feedback, I tried my best. Marxism-Leninism was filed under Stalinism since they overlap quite a bit. The thing is: these ideologies aren't that easy to distinguish since they are alike.
@@ExplainersEnigma they all have clear distinction. Like for example, marxism is like the base game, leninism is update 1.1, stalinism is the update 1.2 that breaks the game, trotskyism is like a beta version of 1.2 that was made into a separate parody game, maoism is the indie remake of 1.2, an-com is like an overambitious and unrealistic attempt at making a full game from scratch...
you could also talk about maoist spontaneism that was popular during the may 1968 in france
@@commieblock1917 Stalinist... don't understand Marx and they never will.
Purges on opponents and no division of the three State powers under the Soviets (no respect for proletarian democracy and anti-leninism) - Corruption and favouritism to maintain the privileges of a dictatorial State (by each according to his abilities etc. meritocracy betrayed) - Anti-internazionalism (socialism in only one country) - Militarism and nazionalism (In favour of the Urss the first and by Russian cuture the second) - Imperialism (unequal exploitation of resources and those who sought independence they sent tanks, first in Hungary then to Cecoslovacchia; even though Khrushchev was an anti-stalinist military power was magnified by Stalin and the war) - forced collectivisation (wich lead the Holomodor) as well as the overdevelopment of heavy industry in favor of war plant. Need to go on?
Stalin betrayed the revolution and create an "animal farm"!
@@commieblock1917 Stalinism is the upgrade?! Read Marx and Lenin first - then see what Stalin did!
Authoritarianism and repression - Forced collectivisation - Suppression of the Soviet - Anti-internazionalism and nationalism - Corruption and privileges that betrayed marxist meritocracy.
Need i go on?
You forgot the most based one, posadism.
Interesting, but this seems Trotskyist based.
@@ExplainersEnigma it's not interesting. It's a joke. Just like trotskyism.
Egoism the Best
@@ExplainersEnigmaIs that why Titoism isn’t in the video either? (Like Tito branched his thoughts off other branches)
@@r0bot657 I think I simply overaw Titoism. Could've been an addition.
You forgot Syndicalism and Anarcho-Syndicalism
Thanks for the additions, noted
Those are socialism
Not communism
@@kholodyeg7210not really, syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism can both be revolutionary
@@thebutcher7541 And? Liberals were once revelutionary, you don't have to be communist to be that, Syndicalism is an anti-marxist strain of Socialism that has utterly failed to get any traction post WW1
neither of those are communism
As a great man once wrote: Eurocommunism is anti-communism
Lmao based. Alexander Dubček shouldn’t have pussied out of office
@@TheSahloknir is the best way to describe.
Personal property is a concept that exists in all of these examples, no one wants your toothbrush
I would still share it🙏☕
You're confusing private property and personal property.
Things would be much easier if Karl Marx didn't wrote in german.
Oh wait i read it wrong.
@@phgs_smntDoes it really matter…? Socialism doesn’t work in the real world. It’s a delusional fairytale pipe dream.
No, just everything else.
That is one of the most German sounding voices i have ever heard :D Great video mate.
@@mertcanozkan7891 haha nice one
I am not an expert but if I am not mistaken every comunist ideology defends personal property not just the anarcho-comunists like you said, and I again, if I am not mistaken the spainish faction you mentioned was anarcho-syndicalist
hivemind communism actually advocates for the abolishment of all property
You are indeed right all communist ideological thought believe in personal ownership just not private, aka excess land, private ownership of the means of production etc.
No
Could you also make a video like this on communitarianism?
Yeah why don't hear more about at
@@begumhasina1052
Because that's newspeak for communism.
Interesting, thanks for the addition!
The way I see it, there are no separate "types" of communism or socialism, there were various theories that tried to integrate marxist concepts, as well as individual leaders that needed a distinct "brand" of ideology to differentiate themselves from the "mainstream", often along nationalist lines e.g Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, Titoism, Trotskyism. Ultimately, they were just experimenting with theory trying to find a politically feasible path towards some future ideal state of society.
Marx himself (as well as Engels) tried to imagine what the future communist society may look like, but was only able to propose a few very broad features, i.e. technologically advanced global community with no nations, no government bureaucracy, no classes, where your hobby is your job and each individual is free to explore and realize their talents.
Rather than identifying a myriad of labels, we could try to find key differentiating features of each, perhaps even put some of them on an axis.
Global vs National/Local;
Authoritarian vs Stateless;
Market Pricing vs Central Planning (e.g. Yugoslavia under Tito vs. USSR under Khruschev);
State vs Workers (cooperatives) vs Private - ownership of economic assets;
Council Democracy (Soviet model) vs Republican Democracy (parliamentary model with separation of powers);
and so on.
Very nice comment and breakdown, thanks for your thoughts.
I think that's even a better way to visualize political ideologies in general.
♈️: Leninism
♉️ : Bundism
♊️: Maoism
♋️: Religious
♌️: Stalinism
♍️: Orthodox Marxism
♎️: Primitive
♏️: Trotskyism
♐️: Anarchocommunism
♑️: Left communism
♒️: Autonomism
♓️: Euro
Nice colors
Aquarius is autonomism? Would've hoped for an-com, but still pretty cool :)
So i am an Anarcho-communist ? damn I knew i was so damn based 😎
@@nicolasiiiletzar7984 me jelly!! but autonomism is still a nice second ;)
Using a Japanese imperial flag to illustrate a topic about china is crazy
I've always wondered what were the differences between these types. I'm not Communist, but if I were, Trotskyism appeals to me the most.
why trotskyism?
@@LeTortedemocracy
@@notcharging i dont think Trotsky really believed in democracy he advocated for the red terror which was a massacre. Trotsky is also kind of inconsistent in what he says, even permanent revolution which is his basic idea changes meaning. Some people say permanent revolution means the whole world revolts but it differentiates with other trotskyites. If you wanted democracy it would be pure Marxism, as Marxism advocated for the people themselves to govern themself. Marxism would have a direct democracy
Look up any Trotskyist party and that appeal should disappear immediatly, There have been rape and pedophilia scandals in the Canadian, Swedish and Brittish sections of the IMT and seeing as they all function like each other i can only guess that the same is happening in other countries where the IMT is present
@@notcharging read the book Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan
You should do a vid like this on fascism, alot of people know the horrors of national socialism, but beyond that, not many know about the characteristics of Christian fascism or neo fascism for example.
Good idea, noted.
Christofascism, Hindu fascism, islamofascism, Zionism, all gotta be in it
neo facism still exist to nowadays in some western countries
@@alexandernaydenov7539 Oh yeh, no fascism in India under Mohdi, right ?
@@johnnyoranges What fascism cause he is supporting Russia not USA ?
This is actually explained in the best way possible wow, good work
@@jovanmandic1228 thanks a lot Jovan, much appreciated 👍
I know you're obviously making this to be brief and stuff but a common misconception:
Maoism developed AFTER Mao. During the Cold War to be a Maoist just meant taking Beijing's side over Moscow's. After the Cold War was when the principles of the believers were formally established, quite akin to how Marxism-Leninism wasn't developed under Lenin but rather Stalin.
Yeah tried to be as Brief as possible and some details were skipped.
really thx. never seen something that look little bit similar but made in russian language. appreciate u!
Glad you liked the video!
bundists aren't really communists. The Bund is revolutionary but fairly moderate (unlike most Russian groups of the time, they refuse to engage in propaganda by deed). The Bundists only claimed to be social democrats (before this term lost its meaning). There were indeed Bundists who split off and claimed to be communists, but these organizations quickly fell into decline.
Very good video, though, and very clearly explained (which is really not easy).
So i joined the RCA recently and they claim to be Trotskyist that study all versions of communism to puck out the best parts of each philosophy, but the leadership in Missouri is acting more like Stalinist, kicking people out who adress criticism, and claim its because they're in a poor financial situation. But they been in their position for 20 and 7 years, so they're drunk on their power and realize that the rest of the party nation wide and international disagrees with them, and they are killing 2 cells that i started up myself, the Missouri leadership is already sowing the seeds for the Party's destruction.
Sounds like you're too smart to be associating with those losers.
POV: Jackson Hinkle out here with his MAGA Communism
9:46 I’m a bundist. We believe in doykayet, hereness. This is our home, wherever we live, we have a right to live here. We have an obligation to make the world better, safer, more just for everyone, not just us. That’s Tikkun Olam (a central Jewish concept). Lenin and the Bund were constantly arguing, and Lenin disarmed the JLB’s Self Defense Leagues, preventing us from defending ourselves from the horrors of the Pogroms, which everyone but the mackhinovisha participated in. We were the Black Panther party but for Jewish in Eastern Europe. However, our strategy was meant to fend off the only semi-organized pogroms. Not the Nazi slaughter machine. Most of the bund fought as partisans.
*Add on to Stalinism: it believes in quick and rapid industrialisation and collectivisation, instead of it being something slow and steady
No lol. Then why in The Great Debate (1923-1926) Stalin was on the side of the NEP (sort of a socialist market economy and gradual collectivisation) and Trotsky was the one calling for a collectivisation and forced industrialization at the expense of the peasntry? Later, he (Stalin) shifted to a more industrialist policy because of the internal political circunstances, but was still a more moderate stance than Trotsky's (a medium point between Trotsky and NEP, if u will to see it like that...). He even limited exporting many years in order to not alienate the peasants (and to avoid the famine extending). You all have to stop getting your historical facts from Hoi4, TH-cam videos of random people and Robert Conquest.
@@McInte The thing with Stalinism is that it did advocate for rapid and quick industrialisation, that is a fact. I am not saying that Trotsky and others didn’t either, and Stalin may of had a different viewpoint earlier in his political career, but as he grew older and his political doctrine developed Quick industrialisation and collectivisation became a core part of Stalinism, which then, similar to when Mao tried to adopt in under Maoism in China, it failed quite horribly and starved a lot of people.
Do you not also think it is possible that Stalin said one thing, then in reality when he gained and consolidated more power did something else? Considering the amount of people he purged, and the amount of things he backtracked on, just because he said something in the 20s does not mean that he did not do it later in the 30s and 40s, in this case, rapid collectivisation
@@McInte Stalinism at its core advocated for rapid industrialisation, collectivisation and centralisation under one state
@@viggoforster so, Leninism?
NEP itself is to _actively build_ the conditions to start building socialism, instead of waiting until capitalism develops by itself out of control.
And going to planned economy wasn't the end of NEP.
It's hard to define Maoism since there are 3 branches of it which were developed around the same time.
1.Mao Tse-Tung Thought (Marxism-Leninism as implemented in socialism until they turned to capitalism in the late 70s/80s.The Idealogy is exclusive to China)
2.Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (Universally applyable Mao Tse-Tung thought while rejecting Mao's revisionist and reactionary ideas and seeing it as the currentld highest stage of Marxism instead of a form of Marxism-Leninism.
Invented in the 80s by Chairman Gonzalo)
3.Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,principally Maoism/Gonzalo thought (MLM but including Gonzalo's additions)
But none of those were REAL Communism, because you see my version of Communism is totally flawless and is in no way doomed to fail when-
(I think ill let everyone else take it from there)
@@CasualChairEnjoyer ☕☕
*I have 5 million power in Rise of Kingdom
Fake. Every ideology which aims to achieve communism is communist, but not every mean is adequate to the end, so specific flaws of some ideologies are not the same of others.
fr the stupidest ideology on the planet communism hah
Most of the 'flawed' communist models are still better than Capitalism...
When you said "private property", you showed a house. But house is a personal property. Marx makes a big difference between private ownership (when the bourgeoise owns means of production) and personal ownership (home for example, which shouldn't be collectivised)
True, should've used a different icon for that.
The line between private and personal property shifts depending on what it's used for and who it affects. I don't think it's worth obsessing over other than explaining to someone why no one wants their toothbrush.
You should now do diffrent forms of socialism
Nice idea, looking into it. Thanks for the suggestion
Stalinism is not an ideology. It is simply an insult for Leninism.
Anarcho Communist here
based
A small list of left-wing/right-wing that i dont know if they should count into the video
1.Neo-bolshevism/neo-sovietism
2.National Bolshevism
3.Syndicalism
4.Anarcho-Syndicalism
Also, huge respect for doing all the effort of explaining all of them !!
thanks, a pleasure!
Syndicalism might be right for the video, as is anarcho-syndicalism, but neo-Sovietism is more of a form of nostalgia for the USSR, and National-Bolshevism is far-right non-communist (even if nazbols say they are communists)
Hi, anarchist here.
Anarchism is not a type of socialism or communism, it evolved separately and absolutely contradicted communism.
Marx was not an anarchist, and what you ended up defining was communism as a whole and i feel as if most definitions here were completely fine until you brought anarcho communism up. Now it all falls apart.
I think most of his definitions lack the conflict between one another, but I don't he did that many mistakes with anarcism. These words (socialism, communism and anarchism) suffer a great deal of conflict, and changed their meaning over time. I woukd say though that anarchism in a way share many of the marxism principles: a stateless and classless society as a goal, as much as colective property. The big difference lies in the way to reach these goals: while marxism believes that the state should be taken by the workers to opress the bourgeoisie, anarchism (as represented by Mikhail Bakunin) advocate for an instant elimination of the state. This visions conflicted in the debates between Marx and Bakunin themselves in the first international.
@@mateussantana6738 Well yea a lot of that is correct but also anarchism favors an emphasis on a lack of authority regardless, we generally believe that authority will always lead backward.
I think the definition he gave was great. Anarcho-Communism seeks to make a communist society that is extremely decentralised and everyone does whatever they want (choose to help the community or not) from what I’ve read. Now imo who came up with this and actually thought it was applicable was high as fuck
@@realWWdude546 you should read a little bit more. Try the texts of Bakunin, Proudhon, Malatesta and others. Anarchism does not mean lack of organization, on the contrary, you should think that the state ceases to exist as all of the population take part of it. Something like athenian democracy but adapted to the industrial capitalist reality and of course without slavery an other privileges.
@@realWWdude546 The explanation was bad because it basically just defines communism, and entirely ignores anarchist ideology, not to mention, anarcho communism is explicitly NOT marxist, and thus not communist. The society seeked to be established is similar in many ways, but in basically all literature, described heavily differently and prioritizes different things. Anarchists often have more of a priority on the environment, and while a communist society can feature urban planning, an anarchist society will abolish urbanism as well.
When you said "Friedrich Engels", I could tell where you're from.
Easy to tell
When Marx, Lenin and other communist leaders used the word 'dictatorship of proletariat' they didn't mean a dictatorship of a single person ( like rule of Hitler or Mussolini).
(Evidence: they used the term 'Dictatorship of Bourgeoisie' to depict capitalism. But that doesn’t mean political dictatorship of a person. It means dominance of Bourgeoisie in the society.)
What they actually mean by this phrase, 'dictatorship of proletariat ' is dominance of working class over rich owners and workers will snatch the means of production (land, factory etc.) forcefully from the owners if they don't agree to hand them over politely!!!
Would like to give a correction to the distinction of Private and Personal Property
The right to personal property is NOT exclusive to Anarchist-Communism, it is part of all forms of Communism/Socialism.
Under all forms of Socialism/Communism, your right to Personal Property is guaranteed, Private Property is responsible for the production of the Personal Property you own and protect, therefore everyone is entitled to Private Property, Private Property is owned communally.
Yeah, I should've made this more clear. Thanks for your comment!
Dont show this to righ wing supporters they will complain saying that there is just comunism
The devil sure does have a lot of faces
Almost every one of these are better than todays democracy
Today's democracies are mainly socialist anyway.
@@ExplainersEnigmaHow can you make a video explaining multiple kinds of communism without knowing what socialism is??
Nowadays there's almost no socialist democracies. Idk if you are referring to Europe or what (I guess that's the case because it's a common mistake), but no, there's nothing even close to a socialist country in Europe. It's all capitalism.
@ExplainersEnigma almost all modern democracies are capitalist. Here we see your lack of credibility
@@Delta.e Yes it's capitalism, but with a lot of socialist elements (in Europe at least).
@@gabri41200 Yes they are capitalist, but especially in Europe you have a lot of Social Democracies.
You forgot the most nationalistic type of socialism/communism - Ho Chi Minh-ism , it's a mix of Maoism and Marxism Leninists but involves a large sentiment of liberation and independence.
You forgot council communism
Fair enough, I kinda found it a bit redundant since it's already kinda covered by some of the others
While everyone talks about material equality no one talks about equaliy of human capabilities. Is that ever possible, more importantly should that ever be pursued.
I believe no, diversity is necessary, differences are necessary, human beings ought to be different from each other.
Taking que from that belief i also believe material equality is also not natural, maybe within a particular society , maybe within a particular region, maybe within a cohesive community of a particular region it is helpful and should be pursued but the idea that material equality should be pursued the world over is not practical, it will fail due to the factor of inherent human differences.
So, communism at local level ,at regional level, if and where there is homogeneity within society is very much desirable, infact it will be achievable but that between disparate communities with different types of people wont succeed.
It can be similar to national socialism but even that national socialism will succeed if that nation is homogeneous and if that nation accepts and respects differences and similarities between different human beings across different nationalities and the fact that generational changes will bring in changes to situations and different types of human beings will be attracted to each other and each others environment and culture and therefore there will be an urge to mix.
So there will be homogeneity within a region and that is desirable but there will also be movements between regions and that should be not be stopped but monitored, analysed and controlled .
Global communism is bullshit. Global capitalism is even more so.
Any singular global ism will always be a mirage.
Let's agree for a moment that material equality is unnatural, that's not an argument against it, we as humans do plenty of things everyday that aren't "natural".
You're saying it's impossible and unnatural because people r built different, I don't see how people being built different renders it impossible, a popular Marx quote: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. People produce to society what they're able to, and receive what they need to live. The more work and value u add to society the more luxuries u should be able to enjoy.
Marx didn't advocate for total equality. He even said it was not possible.
Titoism?
Fair addition, missed that one
For an ideology that doesn’t like conflict it sure does like some conflict.
It would be funny if he added syndicalism with kaiserreich references
It would be Funny.
Syndicalism existed in current timeline as well, certain Benito ran with it.
@@milanstepanek4185 It Better NOT be Benito Mussolini, the same Dude who Betrayed the Working Class by being a Grifter and Creating Fascism that is a Bastardisation of Marxist Thought and it soon became the Ideology that is a Weapon for the Desperate Capitalist Ruling Class when Capitalist Decay Occurs!
Sorry for being Harsh and Pissed, I'm Genuinely Sorry, I just really Loathe that Bastard who Betrayed his People and Ruined Revolutionary Ideologies While siding with the Ruling Class.
Source: th-cam.com/video/VEJiWp0EzCU/w-d-xo.html
@@milanstepanek4185 Look, I Know this may be a bad time right now, but ummm...
Benito Mussolini Betrayed the Working Class and Formed Fascism that is a Bastardised form of Marxist Thought to the Point of it being no longer Marxist, he was a Grifter who Formed Fascism into a Weapon that Protects the Ruling Class when Capitalist Decay Happens.
th-cam.com/video/VEJiWp0EzCU/w-d-xo.html
[This time I am doing this in Good Faith with Fair Criticism I do not Intend to cause any Harm to anyone or anybody, so you need to Leave my Comment alone until further Notice. Okay?]
Straight to it, you're English is getting better. Another no nonsense video :)
ПРАВДА!!!!!!! ПРОРАБОТЯЩИЕСЯ ВСЕХ МИРОВ, ОБЪЕДИНЯЙТЕСЬ!!!!!!
Only if American right wingers would see this and finally learn what Marxism is.😞
What about Juché?
True, I missed that
@ExplainersEnigma juche is just feudalist absolute monarchy mixed with ingsoc
1. Under Marxism, the products are not "shared," but socially redistributed
2. Dictatorship of the Proletariat was not a Leninist idea, it was Marx's
3. Vanguard was not Lenin's idea, it was Marx's
4. Stalinism was not the official political ideology for the Soviet Union, Marxism-Leninism was. This is disinformation.
5. Stalinism is not an ideology. It is simply an insult for Marxism-Leninism. Stalin and Lenin did not differ besides some foreign and economic mistakes by Stalin. Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist, a student of Lenin's and it is ridiculous to call Stalinism an ideology because it is was simply the continuation of Leninism
6. "Stalinism" is not a synthesis of Marxism-Leninism. Leninism is just Marxism in the age of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Lenin was a very consistent Marxist.
7. Accusations of state ownership: Yes. True. But that is social ownership when the state is a tool of the social peoples.
8. "Statelessness" as a core of "Stalinism". When Marx wrote on the state, he said it would wither as a tool of class oppression. This does not mean no rules, it means no class oppression. A state ran by the whole of society with the absence of classes is not a "state," but rather policing would become a tool as simple as firefighting or schooling. It will lose its class characteristic.
9. On Trotsky: "Anti-authoritarianism" is un-Marxist. Read "The Chief Apostle of Counter-Revolution - Karl Kautsky" by Yrjö Sirola or "On Authority" by Engels
10. Centralization is also necessary under any reading of "Critique of the Gotha Program", "State and Revolution", "What is to be Done?" etc
11. Mao did not develop Maoism, Abimael Guzman did.
12. Maoism: "Peasants were the central force". No. Mao still believed the Proletarian guided the peasants, and the peasants turned into Proletarians. Otherwise the description of Maoism is good.
13. No description of Juche???
What about Titoism?
Missed that one...
Marxist Leninism and Stalinism are to entirely separate ideas
I'm an Anarcho-Communist and your Definition was ON POINT!
That is Absolutely Correct and I'm also somewhat of an Autonomist myself when it comes to the Fusion of Marxist and Anarchist Theory/Philosophy!
Long Live Communo-Anarchy!
Thank you mate
@@ExplainersEnigma No Worries, Mate!
And by the way; are you Australian like me?
@@SPAnComCat No Sir, I'm German - that's why I have this annoying accent
@@ExplainersEnigma No, your German Accent isn't Annoying.
I Love German, and Besides; it's my Favourite Language that I want to Learn one day because of how Beautiful and Fascinating the Language is, and I want to get in Touch in my Western European Heritage like German not because of Blinding Pride but to get to Know my Past and Appreciate it and be Happy for what I got from it!
@@SPAnComCat appreciate it mate. Haha you're one of the first people saying that German is "beautiful". I consider it a super ugly language but oh well 😂☕
Where's Titoism?
Tito's communism changed the world.
Missed that one, sorry
Can you do one on different types of fascism
Looking into it, thanks for the suggestion.
@@ExplainersEnigmathere probably wouldn't be enough content. Maybe a video about the different kinds of capitalism and include fascism in it as a late stage form of it?
@@EroUsagiSama I'm cooking something up, stay tuned ☕
@@EroUsagiSamalook at the body count of communist revolutions, the fact that they reject any other "political or social" idea other than there parties...there's your fascism
I get what you’re trying to do with this and I’m not trying to diss you by saying this but anyone who wants even a basic understanding of these concepts won’t really get that after watching this. I think you did a decent job with the time you did this in and I think that you tried to do it objectively without trying to misinform people and while there were only a couple mistakes the bigger problem is when you try to to explain these things in such a short time you misinform people by leaving out key concepts for the sake of brevity that actually changes the way these concepts are understood.
Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, the format doesn't allow me to really dive deep. Just scratching the surface of course and the video just functions to spark interest. You would need to do further research if a subtopic interests you.
Thank God for capitalism 🙏
Capitalism is the new religion, communism was a form of religion too
@@eXit-ubermensch Neither is. Not even close. Economic policies aren't religions
Kicking the poor..but look Trumpy Wumpy has new casino!
Yes, capitalism is doing really great. Everyone's needs are being met.
@@therongjr😂
I'd say Primitive Communism, Religious Communism, Eurocommunism & Autonomism are probably the best types listed in the video.
Do a vid on each type of fascism
Not counting all of these types, naturally.
Thanks for the suggestion, looking into it
Fascism is Capitalism in Decay - Vladimir Lenin
@@ExplainersEnigma got it thx
I do believe that Ukrainian Black Army and Catalonian Anarchist were Anarcho-Syndicalists, they were not Anarcho-Communists
Marx didn't propose... It's REAL MOVEMENT
With the way you describe it, it sounds like Anarcho-Communism is literally just any city or town.
We're is mazdakism ?
Wasn't Mazdakism a religion? I don't see how it would be connected to Communism.
Wrong vid bro
You should also have mentioned Albania's Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea (Khmer Rouge movement), Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania and North Korean Juche.
Good additions, thanks.
Was pol pots Cambodia communist in anything other than name?
@@andonhoward532 Pol Pot was inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who claimed that private property was the source of inequality. He wasn't a fan of Marx, claiming that he found it too difficult, but was, nevertheless, an ardent admirer of Stalin and Mao. Photographs of Pol Pot and his inner circle conducting political meetings in the middle of the jungle, circa 1970, with the Soviet flag and portraits of Marx, Lenin and Engels in the background, would imply that they had communist leanings.
More accurately, the Khmer Rouge movement was a murderous blend of Maoism, ethnonationalism and communo-primitivism. While the top brass may have espoused communist rhetoric, the rank and file soldiers never used the term "communist" when referring to themselves. After they were ousted by the Vietnamese, they conveniently decided that they were "no longer communists, just nationalists", in order to garner support from the US and ASEAN ( as well as continued support from China) to counter Vietnam.
And so, if you go by the Chinese model of communism, whereby the peasantry were to be unheld as "the paradigm of communist virtue", then yes. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge movement were, at least until 1980, radical communists.
Pol Pot, really? A man who directly renounced Marxism, who did nothing for the left movement, but simply destroyed all dissenters and resettled people from cities to villages, do you propose to include them in the list of communists?
Awful ideas. Keep that in the Eastern Hemisphere
Chauvinism and a tinge of racism, great work!
Which is Ironic considering they were originally from western europe.
@@Douli218all humans are tribalistic and nationalistic, that's just how social animals work
I would not call Anarchism a type of Communism
In fact, there are some similarities, like the coletivization and anti-capitalist thing, but the way that the revolution starts, develops, view of democracy and freedom etc are completely different
Also they developed separately and with a lot of divergences like Bakunin-Marx
Also Catalonia was not exactly Anarcho-Communist, but well Anarcho-Syndicalism is kinda similar and even with the differences the two ideas are historically united. If you are an Anarcho-Communist you probably also likes Anarcho-Syndicalism and vice-versa.
Great content ❤❤❤❤
Thank you, glad you like the video!
3:30 Lenin never advocated for socialism in one country. He, like Marx and Trotsky, believed that workers in all countries must be liberated
Hmm... eurocommunism doesnt seem that bad... even pretty good...
look at the ideas of Enrico Berlinguer, the leader of the Italian Communist Party 🚩🇮🇹
@@nicco3663Berlinguer era un riformista
@@giulialigabue3361 eurocomunismo non è socialdemocrazia, a questo proposito berlinguer fece un discorso molto interessante sul concetto di “riforme rivoluzionarie”. E poi non puoi non considerare i tempi e la situazione politica italiana. Smettiamo di scannarci tra di noi perché le idee sono le stesse✊
@@nicco3663 l'eurocomunismo sarebbe un comunismo più riformista,una specie di revisionismo. Compagno,proletari di tutti i paesi,UNITEVI/UNIAMOCI!
@@nicco3663se vuoi vedere il mio commento,vai su commenti più recenti.
Those who have lived in collectivist states call it everything from shit to fucking shit.
1 The Base
2 revolutionary practice
3 authoritarian betrayal
4 misunderstood martyr
5 misguided hero
6 good ideas/infantile disorder
7 the original state of mankind
8 based, but delusional
9 literally an infantile disorder
10 undecided and stubborn jews
11 literally treason
12 based update for the base
Holy moly, that was intense. I like it.
Eurocommunism or eurosocialism if you prefer literally achieved more and scared uncle Sam more than most of all of this because it actually worked in the short term (achieving better conditions for workers) and was able to hold a mirror and criticise the liberal capitalist system while proposing itself as the beginning of an alternative
@@eccoeco3454 euro communism without the ussr's existence is harmless. The moment the ussr fell neoliberalism started to destroy all the achievements of eurocomunism with no sight of recovery.
@@eccoeco3454issue is the eurocommunists failed at managing Italy’s finaces worsening a problem that had already created itself with Craxi’s Socialists then with Berlusconi’s government finding itself in an economic crisis
Politics is like quantum theory. The more you think you understand the less you understand.
Communism on paper: pretty nice
Communism on practice: 🥶
communism is not even good on paper
cool?
Turning a semi-feudal shithole into a global Superpower with space program, as the first system of it's kind in constant struggle, is bad practice?
@@Búnchảchấmmắmtôm-u5cmore like another genocide and mass murders of opposition
Monarchist account 💀
You forgot (Insert niche political ideology)
Yeah, it's tricky to really cover them all. I tried though.
So many versions of a terrible idea
Yes, liberalism has many variations.
Yeah, being able to create societies with no unemployment, full housing and political access is awful. OMG how awful. Remember that when you have o pay 60% of your salary to your landlord otherwise you'll live in the streets.
I dont defend but i think social democracy is better alternate than any of this
@@ΓΕΏΡΓΙΟΣ-ι8ν Social democracy doesn't work in the long term because the problem is political.
Social democracy keeps the power in the hands of people with money. And when they start thinking that there's too much welfare they'll do whatever they can to cut it. This is what we're living through right now.
Governments have been trying to erase the welfare built in the post-ww2 since the 80's. And it directly correlates to the drop in living standards.
The only solution is to remove the mechanism that allow rich people to exist in the first place. Which is the private property of the means of production.
Economical power is political power.
@@ciro_costa true words
You should’ve added in Socialism with a Human Face. I love Alexander Dubček so much.
Not quite sure what you mean. We got dedicated video on Socialism types though: th-cam.com/video/md2_jkF-Jcs/w-d-xo.html
It wasn't a special ideology, come on. It's just a transition from communism to democratic socialism under a sweet flavor.
Stalinism isn't a thing. Do you research or just google and take the first AI generated answer? If Stalinism is an actual ideology, instead of a few things Stalin did, then Bidenomics or reformer capitalism are independent schools of economic thought.
Marxism-Leninism is the political philosophy he followed, but lots of people called his "ways" Stalinism. Also it sounds better. Has nothing to do with AI or researching.
@ExplainersEnigma oh, wow, well, that's even more sad and lame. So, you're just admitting that it's bunk and marketing. I've screenshotted that. I mean, hats off to you. You just admitted that Stalinism isn't a thing and you're either lazy or a liar.
@@Charles-js3ri It is a thing, look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Lots of people called his Marxist-Leninist policies Stalinism. You call someone who spends loads of time and work on a free video lazy? Fair enough.
@@ExplainersEnigma I know lots of people call it Stalinism. That's why I called you out on it. When you dig into the ideology you have experts agreeing that Stalinism isn't a form of communism. It's left over nonsense from red baiting and fear mongering. It's fine to not like people. I am not a fan of Stalin myself. But accuracy matters and choosing to perpetuate falsehoods is terrible and misinform people. That's how we get people arrogantly spouting off crap. People acting as reasonable authorities need to be held to a higher standard.
@@Charles-js3ri fair enough Charles
there are some mistakes, but still good for people that are new at this.
And every form is absolute 🗑.
Agreed
That was the worst description of "Stalinism" iv ever heard.
Also Mao wasn't a Maosit. He was a Marxist Leninist and his line is called Mao-Tsung thought.
Moaism is different then Mao-Thought
I love communism.
☕☕🍺🔨
Wow Lenin was abolutly nuts.
And each and every one is a complete and total failure
Says you with SS video on your channel 💀
@@missk1697 LMAO
Maybe I should make a video like this one, since the person who made this one seems to be an anti-communist.
Time to go learn video making skills to see if it’s worth it
@@missk1697 womp womp cry harder commie
@@Suo_kongque commie detected, opinion disregarded
Please never ever explain anything include marxism, thank you.
Funny how the ruling class is never the problem.
On the contrary, controlling the ruling class is one of maoisms' main objectives. You would have known this if you had seen the video
Did you miss the part about local councils. Where people outside the party can run and win. And how there's high accountability.
It's not, because without the state protecting their private property they are nothing
You didnt explain National Socialism
That's like putting the Democratic Republic of Korea in a video about democracy.
Because that's fascism. Check out our newest video on Fascism.
@@tagnoch It's not like that at all
@@ExplainersEnigma National Socialism is not Fascism, that's a different type of communism that's more focused on syndicalism.
Mussolini was always a socialist, he first got introduced to socialism by his father who was a socialist and then joined the socialist party.
Hitler was also a socialist who said that Marxism is not real socialism, but his type is the real one.
The policies and economy of Germany during the NSDAP rule were incredibly socialist.
@@Bluz1 The big corporations supported Hitler. For example: Krupp, Porsche, AEG and many more.
The best part?
None of them work!
Not only does Communism not work it doesn't even make sense or look appealing in theory.
hows china benn treting you latly
Except when all socialist countries managed to provide housing, employment and political access to the population. I wanna see a person that has to spend all their salary in rent say they'd prefer the current system instead of one that provides virtually free housing.
@@ciro_costaOr when Mao actually increased the literacy rate, the constant famines that ravaged China before his rule have stopped, increased life expectancy, took China from agrarian feudal society that was being ravaged by imperialist powers and turned it into a world power, and liberated woman.
But no. Let’s just ignore all of that. Just like we’ll ignore all the good Castro, Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh did.
Are you implying that it was good to let millions and millions of people to starve?
"German philosophers" lol ok, yeah sure thing buddy
They always suck
and they all suck
I would love to hear how. I see all the times poor mfs advocating for capitalism, nigga u not a capitalist.
Besides you were told to think this, why?
@@emanuelrogers1162those communist leaders were rich and fat or lean, while there people were impoverished
Hey. Great video. However a little eurocentric, you completely overlooked Latin America. Here we have proposed some important forms of communism as well. Indigenous communism (Movimiento Armado Quintín Lame and others). Catholic Communism (Teología de la Liberación). The influence of communism in Pedagogy with Paulo Freire and his pedagogy of the oppressed... And Latinoamerican communism in general (Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mariategui, Enrique Dussel). These people have also theorized communism but more applied to our context of the "global south".
Thanks for the feedback Stefano, appreciate the additional info. As an European, it's tricky for me to find non-eurocentric sources.
@@ExplainersEnigma For sure. It tends to happen. Thanks for being open to the feedback and great job once again for that awesome video.
This video is an Americans worst nightmare. This is the rebuttal anytime someone says "you know, things could be better here"
A mountain of debts on every American's shoulders says the opposite of what you're trying to say. You are scared of communism because in the middle 20th century you had political reppressions of socialist institutes and unions and individuals. This left in America a disillusional belief on why communist states collapse over time. It's not because "STALIN SENT INTO GULAGS AND UNALIVED 100 GAZILLIONZ OF PEUPL SO GOBBUNISM IS BAD" but because those states faced continuous threats and repressions from capitalist countries, and there are tons of other misconceptions about even what Marxism, Socialism and Communism are (and probably you also don't know the differences).
You need like 4 seconds to explain them all with one sentence.
Will you ever explain non-marxist socialism like NationalSocialism, Fascism, National
Syndicalism and anarchism?
@@the4thindustrialrevolution225 in the works
There’s some mistakes you made but I’m still thankful and think you tried being factual and neutral so I gratulate you for that😁🙏🙏
Appreciate that 👍