Well done Comrades the times are changing the working class can give no more the ruling elites have taken the usual lions share to such an extent that there is not enough left for the working class to afford a decent modern day lifestyle, proper education proper medical care and hospitals proper housing etc etc etc enough is enough working class people can now unite on mass to make real change happen if you miss this opportunity nothing will change the Tories and labour in UK will play the usual political game as government and opposition but nothing will change for the working class as usual the rich get richer now here is your choice for real change for the wealth to be distributed properly
Except for the fact that she's largely ignorant about what it's actually like to live under in communist country, having never lived in one herself. People who have don't tend to be as stupidly enthusiastic about it as ignoramouses like her.
I have a bit of a problem with how the Third International is supposedly bad for basing its parties in discrete countries one at a time and fitting the countries together into an International, two things that are at least verifiable if not material, but the Fourth International doesn't even need an International as long as some group of people unearths the one true Leninism and tells people about it.
Its bad because that encourages nationalism, a selfish deformity that divides the working class. It encouraged Russian chauvanism. I point (painfully) to my beloved Russia. Its nationalism led division amongst the R.S.S.F. Such inequality is still held against us almost a century later and works only as a brake to a classless, Stateless, communist end goal. A lack of an internationale united authority had its impacts, such as in Ukraine and Romania, where an internationalist unity could have done great good in supporting the countries, and as a result aiding in preventing famines (such as in Romania). To this day even Trotskyists are blamed for such revisionist nationalist decisions with far reaching effects. (Source Fred West interview RCP) Priveledge and luxury create social classes and with it encourage class conflict, if not immediately as a creeping corruption overtime of petty borgouis nationalist attitudes and inherent class anatagonisms. Such were the tools of Menshevik political manouvere for power, such as the purges. This corruption when combined with paranoia come at great cost to human life. Nikita Krushchev was the only one of the Ukrainian communist party not killed. Trotsky, the great general and founder of the red army, and his innocent apolitical child (who was tortured for information) paid the ultimate price as a result of this. Its workers of the world unite, not workers of this country then that country unite bit by bit. Such wopuld be a rather silly, unpragmatic quote and a silly, uneducated approach to party builiding and revolutionary agendas. Whatever route you want, from the fundementals of Lenin or Marxs internationalism, to practical reasons such as we are too weak for the luxury of division after Stalin and the beauracrats sullied our reputation world wide. You must understand that had workers had control of their society, the 76.4 percent that voted for the continuation of the soviet union would have held the power. From Ethiopia to China to Russia these nationalist, and divided ideas have failed to sustain themselves, in some cases such as Romania or Russias Breznev stagnancy era (poor Russia...tricked into liberalism), we are not communists if we do not use historical dialectics to assess past errors and correct them. Lenin has discussed this himself, such as in Left wing communism-an infantile disorder. To reject Marx and Lenin is to admit to revisionism, and "betraysl is inherent in reformism". I do wonder how Lenins stroke caused a seizure...very odd. I wonder why Stalin ordered a toxicology report to be done, claim Nehdezda said Lenin wanted to be put down, and against his wshes dumped him in a box. Hmmmmmmm...No matter. Such speculation is just that. But it is important to consider that and the Mensheviks beliefs when assessing their leaders and members policy. Call it historical dialectics if you will. Not to mention Stalin deliberately, at the request of Rooselvelt and Churchil, disbanded the international undemocratically, an ideological retreat and betrayal. He could have easily claimed he had no authority, called for an election and pulled the ol capitalist trick of 'That country/foreign thing, I have no jurisdiction' in defence of the revolutionary stronghold, but the encirclements during the second world war and his tactical blunders show the extent of his intellect. His paranoia drove him to seek security, but ultimately that same power reduced the spread of duties (alleviating the stress. Many hands make light work), and created a drift of power from the peoples party, and to their electee (the right of recal is exactly an example of our goal. The democratic dictatorship of the proletariat.), similar to horizontal borgouis democracy. And such was a factor in laying the similarities with Western democracy. Where Trotsky led a Bolshevik rise in power, Stalin led a borgouis reformist shift, ultimately leading to betrayal....what a suprise. The grey man was a very good organiser, but a truly awful thereotician, directly opposing lines such as 'Communism is international or it is nothing'. These are fundementals one aqcuires fom merely skimming the most basic texts by Marx Engels and Lenin. Even the communist manifesto includes it. Instead he disbanded the very organisation Lenin was a member of, showing his true loyalties as oppossed to Lenins goals. Nowhere is this clearer than his quote "there has been a misunderstanding' on the topic of further revolutions" Yes...there was. But it was not just the West who misunderstood...It was these policies, of which the mensheviks concieved. The misunderstanding was socialism in one state, and the idea that communism could be safe whilst capitalist imprialists were free to seek an expanding market
Except for the fact that she's largely ignorant about what it's actually like to live under in communist country, having never lived in one herself. People who have don't tend to be as stupidly enthusiastic about it as ignoramouses like her.
Except for the fact that she's largely ignorant about what it's actually like to live under in communist country, having never lived in one herself. People who have don't tend to be as stupidly enthusiastic about it as ignoramouses like her.
Socialism and social fairness arn't about happiness or unhappiness of those who are "beaten". Especially when those "beaten" ones are capitalists or their far-right dogs
This was fun and educationall Thanks! However, I have one quibbie with it: I wish people would stop talking about the "mistakes" and "errors" of Stalinism. Nobody talks about the "mistakes" or "errors" of Nazism because nobody feels a need to cut Hitler and Company a break or make excuses for them. In fact, many of the actions and policies of Stalin's about which people wave their hands and mutter vague regrets weren't mistakes or errors at all, at least not from Stalin's point of view, any more than the actions and policies of the Third Reich were considered errors by the Nazis. Rather than nattering about errors and mistakes, it would be useful for people not only to recognize but admit that guys like Stalin were truly horrible people whose largely self-serving rule was disastrous for those over whom they held sway, and in fact helped to discredit communism and socialism in the minds of many sensible people. The fact that Stalin and his buddies arose from and through the Communist Party and hijacked it for their own purposes, with the willing participation of many self-styled Communist rank and file members, is just something you need to face up to.
What you described is basically the main theme of Trotsky's contribution to Marxism - the conditions which allow a bonapartist to seize power in a rapidly degrading proletarian state
@@henfencey5751 Cool! Thanks much for that. In that case, I'd say Trotsky was a pretty smart guy and acute thinker. It's funny, I remember how some of my leftist friends when I was younger used to mutter darkly about the "Trots," as if they were some kind of evil traitors.
@@KenCunkle Oh yeah, I'd say Trotsky is one of the most slandered figures of the 20th century, and people still misunderstand his role in history. If you're interested in his in-depth explanation of how Stalinism took form and developed, I highly recommend reading The Revolution Betrayed.
Love Truth above All Things ❤️ Accept and Thank the Suffering 💚 (from the Knowledge of Truth) Confront and Illuminate Malevolence 💜 Tirany is the Seed of its Own Destruction !!! The Ends Never Justify the Means The Means Always Determine the Ends From the UnConscious Hell ❤️ To the Conscious Hell 💚 Until the Paradise of Consciousness 💜 Stay Awake Not Woke ❤️ 💚 💜 Thaaannnk Yooouuu ❤️ 💚 💜
@@cardboardcapeii4286 Because of anti-semitism in Imperial Russia? You do understand this is circular logic? “They were oppressed and that’s why they were communists and because they were communists that’s why they were oppressed”
“The dictatorship of the proletariat . . . in reality it would be, for the proletariat, a barrack regime where the standardized mass of men and women workers would wake, sleep, work and eat to the beat of a drum ; for the clever and learned a privilege, of governing : and for the mercenary minded attracted by the state bank, a vast field of lucrative jobbery.” - Mikhail Bakunin.
What you or even Bakunin described is not suggested Dictatorship of Proletariat, but only a war-time communism that was forcibly necessary for Soviet Republic to survive during & after Civil War and WWII. But who cares! You just wanted what you saw on western magazine cover page, didn't you?
Blessed void What kind of work do you do for a living? I mean this history was at the height of industrialization. Incase you haven’t noticed between the de-industrialization of the West, ai and outsourcing of western jobs the working class of the West doesn’t have much to offer in regards to revolution. Unless of course you mean a revolution amongst welfare receipts, drug dealers, immigrants that can’t find work, led by intellects and students. You know, revolution as a means for mass murder. 😉
@@robsonbarstow9355 nah I just love pissing off trots On a serious note, his death was neither funny nor pathetic. How he fought mercader ect. its so insane that is sounds made up We from the tradition of the Italian left see trotsky not as a counterrevolutionary, as we do Stalin, but as an opportunist who continued holding on to class positions
Thank you! Forward with the proletarian Revolution.
Fiona Lali must be amongst the most engaging speakers in our time.
Well done Comrades the times are changing the working class can give no more the ruling elites have taken the usual lions share to such an extent that there is not enough left for the working class to afford a decent modern day lifestyle, proper education proper medical care and hospitals proper housing etc etc etc enough is enough working class people can now unite on mass to make real change happen if you miss this opportunity nothing will change the Tories and labour in UK will play the usual political game as government and opposition but nothing will change for the working class as usual the rich get richer now here is your choice for real change for the wealth to be distributed properly
Excited to listen to this ✊
I'm excited to check this out when I get a chance. This should be a great series
Very informative, nice to hear again and remember
Really interesting talk and very well prepared and presented.
Except for the fact that she's largely ignorant about what it's actually like to live under in communist country, having never lived in one herself.
People who have don't tend to be as stupidly enthusiastic about it as ignoramouses like her.
I'm not a communist but ty she is a wonderful speaker
@@fuanon3441 Why not?
@@ONEisN0THING it's an ideal that necessitates rivers of bl00d
@@ONEisN0THING because Communism doesn't work
Uhuru APSP African Peoples Socialist Party
I have a bit of a problem with how the Third International is supposedly bad for basing its parties in discrete countries one at a time and fitting the countries together into an International, two things that are at least verifiable if not material, but the Fourth International doesn't even need an International as long as some group of people unearths the one true Leninism and tells people about it.
Its bad because that encourages nationalism, a selfish deformity that divides the working class. It encouraged Russian chauvanism.
I point (painfully) to my beloved Russia. Its nationalism led division amongst the R.S.S.F. Such inequality is still held against us almost a century later and works only as a brake to a classless, Stateless, communist end goal. A lack of an internationale united authority had its impacts, such as in Ukraine and Romania, where an internationalist unity could have done great good in supporting the countries, and as a result aiding in preventing famines (such as in Romania). To this day even Trotskyists are blamed for such revisionist nationalist decisions with far reaching effects. (Source Fred West interview RCP)
Priveledge and luxury create social classes and with it encourage class conflict, if not immediately as a creeping corruption overtime of petty borgouis nationalist attitudes and inherent class anatagonisms.
Such were the tools of Menshevik political manouvere for power, such as the purges. This corruption when combined with paranoia come at great cost to human life. Nikita Krushchev was the only one of the Ukrainian communist party not killed. Trotsky, the great general and founder of the red army, and his innocent apolitical child (who was tortured for information) paid the ultimate price as a result of this.
Its workers of the world unite, not workers of this country then that country unite bit by bit. Such wopuld be a rather silly, unpragmatic quote and a silly, uneducated approach to party builiding and revolutionary agendas.
Whatever route you want, from the fundementals of Lenin or Marxs internationalism, to practical reasons such as we are too weak for the luxury of division after Stalin and the beauracrats sullied our reputation world wide.
You must understand that had workers had control of their society, the 76.4 percent that voted for the continuation of the soviet union would have held the power.
From Ethiopia to China to Russia these nationalist, and divided ideas have failed to sustain themselves, in some cases such as Romania or Russias Breznev stagnancy era (poor Russia...tricked into liberalism), we are not communists if we do not use historical dialectics to assess past errors and correct them.
Lenin has discussed this himself, such as in Left wing communism-an infantile disorder. To reject Marx and Lenin is to admit to revisionism, and "betraysl is inherent in reformism".
I do wonder how Lenins stroke caused a seizure...very odd. I wonder why Stalin ordered a toxicology report to be done, claim Nehdezda said Lenin wanted to be put down, and against his wshes dumped him in a box.
Hmmmmmmm...No matter. Such speculation is just that.
But it is important to consider that and the Mensheviks beliefs when assessing their leaders and members policy. Call it historical dialectics if you will.
Not to mention Stalin deliberately, at the request of Rooselvelt and Churchil, disbanded the international undemocratically, an ideological retreat and betrayal.
He could have easily claimed he had no authority, called for an election and pulled the ol capitalist trick of 'That country/foreign thing, I have no jurisdiction' in defence of the revolutionary stronghold, but the encirclements during the second world war and his tactical blunders show the extent of his intellect. His paranoia drove him to seek security, but ultimately that same power reduced the spread of duties (alleviating the stress. Many hands make light work), and created a drift of power from the peoples party, and to their electee (the right of recal is exactly an example of our goal. The democratic dictatorship of the proletariat.), similar to horizontal borgouis democracy. And such was a factor in laying the similarities with Western democracy. Where Trotsky led a Bolshevik rise in power, Stalin led a borgouis reformist shift, ultimately leading to betrayal....what a suprise.
The grey man was a very good organiser, but a truly awful thereotician, directly opposing lines such as 'Communism is international or it is nothing'.
These are fundementals one aqcuires fom merely skimming the most basic texts by Marx Engels and Lenin. Even the communist manifesto includes it.
Instead he disbanded the very organisation Lenin was a member of, showing his true loyalties as oppossed to Lenins goals. Nowhere is this clearer than his quote
"there has been a misunderstanding' on the topic of further revolutions"
Yes...there was. But it was not just the West who misunderstood...It was these policies, of which the mensheviks concieved. The misunderstanding was socialism in one state, and the idea that communism could be safe whilst capitalist imprialists were free to seek an expanding market
This was very informative and helpful. Thank you 😊
Excellent lead off!
Except for the fact that she's largely ignorant about what it's actually like to live under in communist country, having never lived in one herself.
People who have don't tend to be as stupidly enthusiastic about it as ignoramouses like her.
Great work!
Except for the fact that she's largely ignorant about what it's actually like to live under in communist country, having never lived in one herself.
People who have don't tend to be as stupidly enthusiastic about it as ignoramouses like her.
When the people own the stick they also own the carrot ~ me.
What, precisely, is wrong with "all men are brothers" ?
📍25:13
I had a good laugh
⛏⛏⛏⛏⛏⛏
“When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick." - Mikhail Bakunin
Damn straight
Socialism and social fairness arn't about happiness or unhappiness of those who are "beaten". Especially when those "beaten" ones are capitalists or their far-right dogs
This was fun and educationall Thanks! However, I have one quibbie with it: I wish people would stop talking about the "mistakes" and "errors" of Stalinism. Nobody talks about the "mistakes" or "errors" of Nazism because nobody feels a need to cut Hitler and Company a break or make excuses for them. In fact, many of the actions and policies of Stalin's about which people wave their hands and mutter vague regrets weren't mistakes or errors at all, at least not from Stalin's point of view, any more than the actions and policies of the Third Reich were considered errors by the Nazis. Rather than nattering about errors and mistakes, it would be useful for people not only to recognize but admit that guys like Stalin were truly horrible people whose largely self-serving rule was disastrous for those over whom they held sway, and in fact helped to discredit communism and socialism in the minds of many sensible people. The fact that Stalin and his buddies arose from and through the Communist Party and hijacked it for their own purposes, with the willing participation of many self-styled Communist rank and file members, is just something you need to face up to.
What you described is basically the main theme of Trotsky's contribution to Marxism - the conditions which allow a bonapartist to seize power in a rapidly degrading proletarian state
@@henfencey5751 Cool! Thanks much for that. In that case, I'd say Trotsky was a pretty smart guy and acute thinker. It's funny, I remember how some of my leftist friends when I was younger used to mutter darkly about the "Trots," as if they were some kind of evil traitors.
@@KenCunkle Oh yeah, I'd say Trotsky is one of the most slandered figures of the 20th century, and people still misunderstand his role in history. If you're interested in his in-depth explanation of how Stalinism took form and developed, I highly recommend reading The Revolution Betrayed.
@@henfencey5751 But Trotsky still failed to identify which parts of Marxist theory are incorrect (a number of them).
@@henfencey5751 Thanks much. I will check that out for sure. Much appreciated.
The virgin Trotsky vs the chad Stalin
Piss boy
Chad Stalin: killed 31 million people 🗿
@@The_Indian_Politician I know, I just wanted to piss off these unironic “Trotskyites” with their equally shit ideas.
Love Truth above All Things ❤️
Accept and Thank the Suffering 💚
(from the Knowledge of Truth)
Confront and Illuminate Malevolence 💜
Tirany is the Seed of its Own Destruction !!!
The Ends Never Justify the Means
The Means Always Determine the Ends
From the UnConscious Hell ❤️
To the Conscious Hell 💚
Until the Paradise of Consciousness 💜
Stay Awake Not Woke ❤️ 💚 💜
Thaaannnk Yooouuu ❤️ 💚 💜
This seems irrelevant
“Why are they all jewish?”
-Leafyishere
Because they were one of the most oppressed minorities in Tsarist Russia.
@@robsonbarstow9355 …and that was for a reason.
@@cardboardcapeii4286 Because of anti-semitism in Imperial Russia? You do understand this is circular logic? “They were oppressed and that’s why they were communists and because they were communists that’s why they were oppressed”
@@cardboardcapeii4286 If you disagree, please share your ahistorical analysis.
@@robsonbarstow9355 no they’ve been kicked out of 113 countries for creating things like communism
Позор троцкистам
Позор людоедского и преступному сталинизму (хоть, и на Ленине и Троцком тоже есть много крови, но меньше, чем на Сталине).
JUDEN!
Cool story
“The dictatorship of the proletariat . . . in reality it would be, for the proletariat, a barrack regime where the standardized mass of men and women workers would wake, sleep, work and eat to the beat of a drum ; for the clever and learned a privilege, of governing : and for the mercenary minded attracted by the state bank, a vast field of lucrative jobbery.” - Mikhail Bakunin.
What you or even Bakunin described is not suggested Dictatorship of Proletariat, but only a war-time communism that was forcibly necessary for Soviet Republic to survive during & after Civil War and WWII. But who cares! You just wanted what you saw on western magazine cover page, didn't you?
trots get the pike
Workers of the world unite. We should not kill each other over labels, we should unite against the upper class
@@Blessed_V0id no Trots like Maoists have been the bane of successful Marxist Leninist revolutions
Blessed void
What kind of work do you do for a living?
I mean this history was at the height of industrialization.
Incase you haven’t noticed between the de-industrialization of the West, ai and outsourcing of western jobs the working class of the West doesn’t have much to offer in regards to revolution.
Unless of course you mean a revolution amongst welfare receipts, drug dealers, immigrants that can’t find work, led by intellects and students.
You know, revolution as a means for mass murder. 😉
You get a spray of bullets from Kyle Rittenhouse's AR 15
⛏
Marxism wrongly claims that profit is made by underpaying labor, which just isn't true.
Yep, just like the rest of Lenin’s comrades. What a great revolutionary and autocrat Stalin was… how grown up his disciples are.
@@robsonbarstow9355 nah I just love pissing off trots
On a serious note, his death was neither funny nor pathetic. How he fought mercader ect. its so insane that is sounds made up
We from the tradition of the Italian left see trotsky not as a counterrevolutionary, as we do Stalin, but as an opportunist who continued holding on to class positions
@@CapitalAccumulator Always interested in alternative perspectives. Any material you’d like to recommend? By Italian left do you mean Bordiga?
FREE PALESTINE...