What Is Communism? & Why It's Doomed To Fail
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ค. 2019
- Let's learn about COMMUNISM! Today we are going to learn WHAT IS COMMUNISM, how it's failed in the past, and can a communist society work in today's world.
Subscribe to the channel here: / @jeffreymarr
Join our newsletter for updates: betweenthelines.media/youtube
What Is Communism? And Can We Make It Work? Can Communism Ever Work
Today we are going to be learning about Communism. One of the most controversial political philosophies. What it is, and how we can make it work if we try it properly for once.
So... What is Communism?
Communism is a political ideology that in a nutshell, looks to remove money and private ownership, and distribute everything among the people.
Not to be confused with Socialism that gives everyone equal share in profit and prosperity. Socialism is what’s been attempted before, Communism has not.
Socialism is sort of the bridge between capitalism and full communism.
In a Communist society, everyone works, and everyone is provided for equally. If you’re struggling, your fellow man is there to help you out. If you’re able to work more, you do. The goal is to take the power away from those who own the means of production and don’t do any work, The Bourgouisie, and place it in the hands of the workers. The Proletariat.
The thought is that those who own the means of production are the oppressors who get most of the profit from that production. But they don’t have to work, and they only profit because they own the facilities or machines.
Whereas the people who actually work on the production are paid as little as possible to sustain them. In Communism this is flipped upside down and the workers are provided the means of production, with the rewards being provided to everyone much more evenly.
What does the ideal communist world look like?
That's an answer for the video. WHAT IS COMMUNISM is answered and how to build a communist society. and then of course. ... can we make Communism work in todays world.
Cheers Comrades.
Interested in more than just political ideologies? Check out my Philosophy Channel: www.youtube.com/@projectstoicism
It's been growing like crazy over on Tiktok and I no longer upload content to this channel, so if you want more of stuff like this video, check it out and enjoy.
Hi can you tell me what application was used to make the image for the video I'm working on making a Logo for my business?
@@tyriquehofsta3362 photoshop
The Satanic Origin of Communism: The Bavarian Illuminati was founded, foreshadowed to be purposely picked to be founded on May 1st, after the ancient Celtic fire festival of blood sacrifice known as Beltane also founded on May 1st. The pagans celebrate Beltane as Walpurgis, which is also celebrated on May 1st. In fact, the Illuminati funded, created and controlled movement of communism also celebrates May 1st as one of its most important holidays in communist nations. Communism can literally be traced to the Bavarian Illuminati of 1776 and its co-founder Illuminatus Adam Weishaupt:
“Karl Marx, the recognized father of modern Communism, edited his teachings out of the writings of Adam Weishaupt. The views expressed by both men are identical at many points. The first Communist Manifesto published by Marx in 1848 embodies both the principles and the spirit of the Illuminati. Therefore, what we know as Communism today is the lineal descendant of the same anti-Christ conspiracy that brought about the French Revolution.”-Adam Weishaupt: Human Devil, page 45
The Illuminati, after it was exposed in the late 1700s, began working behind the scenes through front governments, rulers and movements. One of their movements was Communism:
“The Rothschilds (and other top Satanic families in a lesser way) financed a Jewish Mason and devoted Satanist named Karl Marx to write his Das Kapital. Satanists controlling Masonic and other groups got Communism started. Satan originated their plans and gave these plans at a Feast of the Beast in meticulous detail to those highest in the Satanic Hierarchy. Albert Pike and Guiseppe Mazzini, who were in strategic positions of control, were let in on the plans.”-Bloodlines of the Illuminati, page 302
The historical fact is that Karl Marx was by blood related to the Illuminati Satanic Rothschild bloodline:
“The connection of Karl Marx with the Rothschild dynasty through their common Barent-Cohen ancestor of Amsterdam is well known.”-Edward Gelles, 2017
“The Rothschilds connection becomes more evident when one knows that the ‘Bund der Gerechten’ (League of the Just), later known as the ‘Bund der Kommunisten’ (League of the Communists), which paid Marx to write the Communist Manifesto and was the predecessor to the Communist party, was actually financed by the Rothschilds. The Bund actually had prominent members in its ranks, many of them Jews, for example, a member of the Oppenheimer family, who are said to be one of the thirteen Illuminati bloodline families. Marx was just an agent of the Illuminati and not a fighter for mankind.”-Henry Makow in an article on his website titled “Karl Marx Was Rothschilds’ Third Cousin.”
Make no error. The primary force behind ecological destruction, excessive waste, depletion, and pollution. The chief contributor to violence, war, crime, poverty, animal cruelty, and inhumanity. The foremost creator of personal and societal issues such as neurosis, mental disorders, depression, and anxiety. Additionally, it stands as the major impediment to adopting innovative approaches for personal health, global sustainability, and planetary progress.
This pervasive influence is not a corrupt government, legislation, rogue corporation, banking cartel, flaw in human nature, or a secret cabal controlling the world. Instead, it is the very foundation of the socioeconomic system itself. Just remember human nature is malleable and varies depending on circumstances. I don’t know what it will take to replace the market, but capitalism will destroy our species.
The secret cabal is the Illuminati. You may want to learn more about your enemy that is planning on destroying you!
Well, communism DOES work in small communes. On a small scale, like a village of 150 people. Where everyone has a job to maintain their village and everyone knows and understands each other. It would never work on a large scale.
Agree👍
how do you define socialism working?
@@xbnxjxjxcncn9460 he’s talking about Communism not socialism those are two different things.
@@xbnxjxjxcncn9460 oh never mind I get what you’re saying
@@xbnxjxjxcncn9460 socialism, in theory, is is supposed to be the sharing of everything. Private property doesn’t exist, you work for your neighbor and he works for you. Everyone has a job that they’re supposed to do to sustain their home. So, everyone pitches in to help you build your home and you do the same. All wealth is shared. It DOES work, it’s working right now in small villages all around the world. Like in the show 100, people actually live like that. There was a vice documentary about “Anarchy place” or something, and that’s basically socialism working.
This works because it’s a small amount of people that voluntarily choose to live that way. Why wouldn’t it work on a large scale? Not everyone wants to live like this, sharing everything, and what happens when someone chooses to stray their own way? How do they deal with them? They kill them lol socialism would never work on a large scale.
Many American proponents of socialism (including Bernie Sanders) inaccurately cite the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) as examples of successful socialism. Those nations are not socialist. They are capitalist countries with free market economies which also have vast social security nets with many generous welfare programs that are supported by extremely high taxes. They are examples of *social democracy.*
so why doesn’t the us adopt those policies that nordic countries have?
@@caladam6735 Good question. The Nordic social democracies are as successful as they are because they can be. Their combined land area (the five sovereign states, not including Greenland or the Faroe Islands) is 509,526 square miles, with Sweden being the largest (173,860 sq mi). However, the United States' total area is 3,796,742 square miles. In other words, the United States' area is more than seven times larger than all of the Nordic countries put together. None of them are bigger than Texas (total area: 268,596.46 sq mi). If the entire United States were the size of an average Nordic country, it could also be a compact unitary state with one central governing body instead of a vast federal state where powers and responsibilities need to be shared between the national and local governments.
Additionally, their combined population is, according to recent estimates, 27,608,486 with Sweden being the most populated (10,402,070, according to 2020 estimates). The United Sates' population is approximately 331,893,745, which is more than twelve times larger than the Nordic countries' combined population. None of them have more people than Ohio (approx. 11,799,448 people). This is due in large part to the colder climate of Northern Europe which causes the Nordic countries to have some of the lowest population densities in the world. Large portions of their populations live close to their capital cities. Their social securities nets can provide for the needs of their citizens because five or ten million people is a more reasonable burden than over 300 million, which is insurmountable.
The demographics of people who live in the Nordic countries are also important. Although each of them have seen increases of immigration in recent years, they are very culturally, linguistically and ethnically homogeneous compared to the United States and a large amount of the immigration they experience occurs among themselves. Such homogeneity enables the Nordic societies to enjoy much greater cohesion and cooperation between classes and politicians than the United States. Their national legislatures are unicameral (meaning only one chamber) because their law-makers don't need as many checks and balances, since all of their consituents have more shared consensus. The United States Congress by contrast, is a bicameral legislature with two chambers (the House of Representatives and the Senate) which slowly pass legislation but fairly represent the highly diverse segments of American society.
In conclusion: The Nordic countries are doing so well because their Nordic Model is a variety of Social Democracy which was specifically tailored *for them* but it's not a one-size-fits-all system. Social democracy works best when it is implemented in smaller, less populated and less diverse societies such as the Nordic countries. If the United States were to adopt Social Democracy, as implemented in the Nordic Model, it would inevitably collapse because of the sheer size, the highly diverse nature of American society and the peculiar needs of all Americans. Not all nations are built the same and it's not fair to look at the United States through the lens of a Nordic social democracy. The United States is far from perfect but that doesn't mean the policies of Nordic countries would be perfect for Americans either.
I hope this answers your question, or at least provides some clarity.
@@caladam6735 because democracy is doomed to fail. Freedom provided by a constitutional representative republic is far superior to any other government that has been attempted. It’s not even close. It has brought more people out of poverty and provides no love for nation and puts the opportunity first.
@@89Awww If size were the issue as the United States is a federal government with vast expanse of sovereignty, then the social democratic policies of the nordic countries should be adopted at the individual state level particularly with healthcare.
@@memecliparchives2254 That depends on the state, it's population (size/demographics) and the constituents of it's legislators. People who live in New England seem more open minded to government healthcare (and other amenities) than most of the rest of Americans so they might eventually attempt (or even succeed at) socializing medicine. New England states are also somewhat similar to the Nordic countries in the sense that they are smaller, colder and less populated than states like Texas or Florida.
Americans as a whole also have a unique political culture with an entrepreneurial spirit without a feudal system to ingrain a rigid social structure. Americans are more likely to be individualistic than Scandinavians. In other words, Americans, and conservatives in particular, have a strong belief in classical liberalism and the idea that the government should play a limited role in society. Americans are less likely to believe that healthcare for the sick is a government responsibility than Scandinavians. Given that universal coverage inherently clashes with this belief in individualism and limited government, it's not so surprising that it has never been enacted in America, even at the state-level, despite being enacted elsewhere.
General system inefficiency, lengthy wait-times for patients and delays of medical entrepreneurship/innovation are often cited as arguments against government-run healthcare. Additionally, millions of Americans are already content with their private healthcare and probably wouldn't be pleased to have healthcare costs deducted out of their wages every month in the form of higher taxes.
It's also worth noting that the United States already has Medicare, Medicaid and (more recently) Obamacare and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
One of the biggest flaws that is apparent to me is that it all works on the assumption that nobody will be corrupt (the government and people)
And that is exactly what you said in the video lol
this is a stupid argument, why does a government need to be corrupt when it has everything?
also, there are always ways to get around that problem easily, seeing the current technology, i can see automatical food distributors or something like that
@@goldenage8902 "Why does a government need to be corrupt when it has everything?"
Well you could ask a different question. "Why ARE governments corrupt when they have everything?"
Corrupt governments are not just a work of fiction produced by conspiracy theorists. Government corruption is a real thing that is going on in a lot of countries today. (Espically the less developed countries)
When it comes to power and an individual, the individual will always want more power. It will never be enough.
Not sure how old/educated you are. But you should look up stalin and his gulags.
I admit that communism at first does sound like a good ideology. But when you break it down to the finer details. You can see the major flaws and how easy it would be for everyday people to exploit it.
@@MrFriendlyCsgoContent No need to explain to me what corruption is, my country is a 3rd world country that suffered corruption for the last 50 years. I experience it everyday, everywhere i go, it's a huge mess here.
Now you also don't have to tell me to look at stalin and the things he commited because as a communist, i have to admit that the things stalin did are unacceptable and horrible, but communism didn't do these things, it was stalin! Corruption isn't exclusive to communism at all and most post-USSR countries suffered a huge increase in corruption since the fall of the USSR.
When it comes to the problems of communism, i am looking forward to debunk them if you are willing to clarify what you mean by "finer details".
Stalin : No one can complain about inequality if I make everyone equally poor and miserable
Mao - No one can complain if I kill them
No, I think he would say, no one can complain if I silence them first.
You are right Stalin is equality
@@octa007 Mao the ultimate gamer with a 60,000,000/1 KD ratio
Well this is why during Stalin's rule there as great economic growth and literally every sphere of society improves and USSR became superpower. Obviously you build superpower but making everyone poor and miserable. Apparently before Stalin everyone was rich and prosperous.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Facts
And the road to heaven?
@@SirMorganD with good deeds
@@aldebenevmg it can't be, because good deeds are done with good intentions.
@@SirMorganD of course. So we shouldn't comprehend this expression literally
For me, one of the singles biggest problems with Communism is that it requires everyone involved to be completely morally good people. This is literally IMPOSSIBLE as all humans are imperfect and are/or have the potential to be selfish and greedy. And if just one person starts a trend of taking for themselves and not sharing with others, it'll only increase until we're right back into a state of capitalism, or in an extreme case, anarchy. And yes, democracy and capitalism are flawed since uneducated members of society can vote and the rich can increase their wealth tremendously whilst everyday people struggle to get by - as evident during COVID - but at least it's still possible for working class people to rise up and earn a better life through hard work and we can legally remove politicians through voting.
yeah our current system is super flawed, but unfortunately it's the best one that we have.
perfect is: commucapism
But I would argue, that if we didn't have a materialistic capatalist society, selfish, greediness and such wouldn't exist.
@@lilComm1e selfishness , greediness , ambition and the desire for freedom are all innate part of human nature , even toddlers and kids which is why no country will successfully manage to be fully communist without chaos and there’s nothing wrong with it existing a bit of selfishness is good and necessary no one is completely selfless that’s an illusion communists love to create , there is nothing wrong with people expecting fair materialistic rewards dependent on the work they do . As long as the concept of money exists , personal responsibility and simply human nature exists materialism and selfishness won’t cease to exist if that’s your problem. Human nature is flawed itself and every system may be flawed but capitalism is the best one . No one is ever entitled to anyone else’s labour for free . How does capitalism exactly make people “selfish “ and greedy “‘ why do you think that ? Do you think the concept of personal responsibility which lazy people hate is selfish ? The survival of the fittest theory applies to all species humans and other animals whatever is necessary for survival is what the animal will go after and compete for , greed and competition are mechanisms of survival seen in all animal species including humans . If money is used as a medium of exchange it is obviously required for survival and it will drive ambition and it will be what people go after and compete for . Moderate materialism isn’t necessarily a bad thing , It’s materialistic wealth that can often lead to happiness through ways that aren’t materialistic. For example the experience of spending time in another country( holiday and travelling ) can make someone happy but that wouldn’t be possible without the desire for money . Personal responsibility and the concept of keeping and owning what you deserve for yourself isn’t being selfish it’s called wanting to be treated fairly
No it does not require that, have you read Marx?
“To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough." - Andrew Collier
Nice I've heard that one a bunch before
What about those who aren't in a capitalist society but still display egoism? Human nature can mean anything, for me it boils down to survival or a "perceived sense of survival". I know people who didn't give up the quota they were supposed to because they rightfully felt they needed to save some of it for future use.
No, humans are in fact selfish (those who aren't came extinct). So, the only way to build communism (which essentially involves common desire to care not only about themselves but others as well) is to grow people who realize relation between common good and personal one and (!) are able to work for common good effectively enough (which requires particular education). Then those selfish people will do good to themselves by doing good to the others (more to people with similar mindset).
That is in a nutshell.
@@JeffreyMarr these are the fantasy quote that make no sense. it is really human's nature to cough - People living in the cleanest countries on earth still cough. Likewise, the "best" people on earth still have those lazy and selfish moments.
And what about those who are in a capitalist society but don't display egoism?@@kay-uw5lt
Good video but I must disagree with you on a few things, firstly, Marxism does not describe a utopian society, Marx was against the idea and essentially believed that communism would solve only economic and class problems but not everything, secondly in a Communist Society the state is abolished as well as all forms of hierarchy; anarchy if you will. As well as that socialism doesn't require a heavily centralized state but rather the state apparatus is to be democratically and economically planned by the workers and general public, this is called the dictatorship of the proletariat where the majority of society control the state and economy. Stalin and Mao's ideas were interpretations of Marx but both heavily misunderstood Marx as at no point is a ruling party required in socialism. The incentive to work in communism is essentially, if you provide a service to the community that will benefit the community and prompt others to work to create a service so you can make more etc. etc. And for human nature, in reality human nature is that we are a tribal animal and we understand that benefiting each other will benefit ourselves and when you look at humans in a form absent of hierarchy, such as a hunter-gatherer tribe, you can see that our human nature is to help the tribe rather than gaining resources for ourselves, the reason hierarchies do exist is to satisfy peoples needs as technology and history advance so do our needs so we create economic, political and social systems to satisfy us and the principle of these systems make it so that someone will always be on top. However as history advances so will we and eventually economic systems will fall and rise and rise and fall; this is the trend of history of which Marx discussed. Hope this helped!
A few things
Writes an article
at least this guy research ab it.
Great stuff, very well put
@@Name1person lol
Holy shit, grow up you degenerate. All commies are bad. Socialism,marxism, call it what you like, it's ass
brother when he sees you open chips. "our chips"
Pov: you realized your in a communist country.
Lol yeah
Everyone eating off a bag of chips or sharing clothes.
Thats personal property, not private - different concepts.
@@hlivaralexa441 in practice not that different. You can always start using your house for example to make money.
I think communism has good intentions however in practice its heavily flawed however there are huge flaws with modern capitalism that need to be corrected.
Agree with everything you said
Yeah I mean even if we can't make the world perfect at least we can make it better.
yes every system is flawed, people are flawed too that's just nature. But capitalism (regulated) is the best system we got
@@sten260 Yeah it is but it could be more fair I mean look at the student debt problem and the education system they're linked with capitalism.
@@karlazeen well I think it depends how you look at it. One reason we have the student debt problem is because of the socialist policies that everybody should get a student loan. But that obviously didn't fix the actual problem, it just made another problem. They should have look into ways to make college free or make it free for students who have good grades and actually are interested in studying. rest can keep paying (I mean if you don't want to study then why even go to school)
Me: playing on my ps5
Everyone within a 5 mile radius: OUR ps5
did you just explained communism
and why it wont work?
There's a difference between private property and personal property. Ps5 is personal property. Nobody wants to take it from you
487 16-year-old girls are breaking their monitors rn
funny how ironic your user name sounds right now.
facts
twitter and other big tech corps really push the idea that communism is good and america is evil.. its so sad.
@@kylethompson5601 oh but america IS evil
Wait let me fix it. 487 “16 year old” “girls” are breaking their monitors
Instead of just going communism or take everyone’s money and redistribute it we should keep capitalism BUT give people more economic opportunity’s to help lift people out of poverty. Carefully edited communism might work in a SMALL group of people.
Agree. I think supplying society the basics is good. Healthcare, roads, transit, etc. Then frrom there everyone needs to make somethig of themselves
www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0517548232?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_mob_b_asin_image
Denmark baby
Communism and Socialism are both flawed and you want to know why? Because of human nature. The rich and corrupt still screw the poor over in either system.
@@JuwanBuchanan is it?
“To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough”
― Andrew Collier, Marx: A Beginner's Guide
Nice quote makes no sense tho.
@@peenoice5176 try to use your brain and connect the dots on what this means
oh yes the great Marx, as he said, reflecting upon the First Schleswig War in 1848, Karl Marx noted in 1853 that "by quarrelling amongst themselves, instead of confederating, Germans and Scandinavians, both of them belonging to the same great race, only prepare the way for their hereditary enemy, the Slav."
@@heartsofiron4ever Washington owned slaves yet he still had good ideas. this has nothing to do with what I said grow a brain
@@businessgoosep936 What good ideas did Washington have? F that guy.
I don’t know much about politics but I consider myself to have very good common sense . What you said is exactly what I argue with a person I know that moved to Cuba . I argued that “ in theory “ communism sounds like a humble and kind idea but that it doesn’t work because humans are inherently competitive; therefore , whoever is in power will look out for themselves and their families and always take a little ( or a lot ) more extra.
Yes we are in agreement there. It’s done with the best intentions but works out WAY worse than anything we have in practice. But people keep trying to retry it
Yes you're not capable of thinking outside of a capitalist mindset therefore communism doesn't work. Try bringing up the human nature argument to a real scholar not just random people on the street who know as little as you see how far that goes.
@@eduardotejerasosa8476 A "real scholar" such as you I'm guessing?
@@eduardotejerasosa8476 That is the single most arrogant thing I have heard and simultaneously the exact reason this ideology is inherently flawed and will never work.
@@iliketalkingaboutstuff3651 yes im arrogant because i point out ignorant arguments based on wrong assumptions
Communism just completely ignores human nature 🤷♂️
People should be happy they arent in a communist country. Yet there kids who believe its better?
I think that the ideal concept of Communism could work, just never ever with Humans; it's been demonstrated to always lead to corruption, leading to dictatorship, and leading to millions of deaths. Maybe if alien life exists, there's a form of life that are masters of such an idea, but it's certainly not fit for us.
@@thecircleoft.e.d2121 mostly becuase people who end up in power were born in a greedy or rich family. Or they had to do bad things to climb thebranks. Thats why you never really see communism working. I agree.
no capitalism does.
what do u think communism is?
“Those who CAN work more WILL” loved this one.
I loved where it said EVERYONE will work.
@@NSHM122 I love where in capitalism everyone DOES work. and most are still dirt poor. that might just be me though
@@DrSmileyFace18 Too many people are Spiritually broken and materialistic. Gotta have that newer car and thousand dollar phone every year. It's simple, live within your means or upgrade your technical skills/ education/ trade.
*personal freedom has left the chat*
This is just stupid tbh. There are maybe a few problems with communism but saying human nature is one of them is just stupid
I think this is probably one of the best made videos out there about Communism. A lot of videos just keep spreading misinformation and often try lead a narrative. This seemed like something quite unbiased and even the critical thinking part about the bakery and the firemen honestly seemed like a pretty good bit of critical thinking rather than just a way to spread propaganda. I really liked this explanation
Edit: he even replies to his comments. Alright, I'm definitely subbed now
Appreciate the compliment on the video bro 🤜🏽🤛🏻
“To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough”
― Andrew Collier, Marx: A Beginner's Guide
@@businessgoosep936 I get what your saying but don't you think it's greedy people who started capitalism in the first place? Greed is human nature it's just capitalism raises it by such a large degree. It can be lowered if we teach each other and our future kids correctly but I'd say that's a false equivalent.
@gangstarock2455 greed is human nature just as much as love or compassion. Capitalism often brings out the worst in people by focusing on the power of money, consumerism and competition, alienating them not only from one another but also from the meaning of life in general.
@@JeffreyMarr I disagree with your statement humans are inherently greedy. Have you ever seen a monkey trying to rescue a kitten stuck in mud? Just TH-cam it! There was no benefit to the monkey for saving the cat. And we are meant to be more evolved? This is why people volunteer so no it can work but people with lots power and resources need to be held accountable and kept in check by others, even govenments
Karl Marx believed that "human nature" is shaped by the condition of our lives, not the other way around; that we're obsessed with wealth and status because capitalism makes us this way. If that's true, the "political ideology vs. human nature" argument may be invalid. It's something to think about.
Bro took 5 fuckin minutes to say he's a selfish dickhead and 'but human nautre bro' so communism won't work. Bro literally went on about a communist government. what like a stateless government? Bruvver needs to reed some theory
but this misconception of human nautre is one of the main forces behind the crimes that socialist states did to their people: they thought that people can be shaped because they have no inherent drives, interests, talents, desires and nature but they do and they will fight you if you try to deny them their nature at some point or another as history has shown
FINALLY SOMETHING I CAN UNDERSTAND
We got you comrade
@@JeffreyMarr dont even dare use that connotation.
This says a lot about capitalism supporters
This is actually incorrect before he gets 5 seconds in. Socialism is defined as workers' group ownership of the means of production, and communism falls under socialism and is basically socialism with the added caveat that there is no state.
we*
14 year olds: I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that
@VesanKellot luv ur pfp, keep reading theory my fellow commie catgirl/boy/nyanbinary
True
@@april-rf3pq what the fuck
@VesanKellot go back to tiktok with your weirdly dyed hair
Every communist on tiktok
You mentioned something at the end about aspects of socialism being used to keep capitalism in check. For a long time now, I have looked to the idea of not landing on a totally capitalist or totally socialist society but instead applying various aspects of both ideologies to keep each other in check. I don't know if there's a proper name for this type of system but I feel that moderation is a healthy thing and this idea reflects that (to me at least). I am not a political intellectual so I don't know for sure how plausible this is but it is an attractive idea to me. Anyway, just thought it was interesting to hear a bit of that idea in your video.
the political ideology you re reffering to my friend is social democracy or as we leftists call it capitalism with a human face. now i understand your opinion and i say this as a former
social democrat myself but given enough research you would probably radicalize yourself all the way or be left at comparable chinese state capitalism or bukharinism . The i just want to warn you about can be obeserved in the nordic countries where all concessions created through worker unions and necessity due to their proximity to the ussr are slowly being privatized again and robbed away from the people due to them feeling placated with what theyve achieved and laying down the "revolutionary spirit" and capitalisms tendency to monopolize and maximize profits a feat not achievable when spending so much on social programms and free healthcare/education. if you look closely lenin himself wasnt "truly socialist" as he allowed a small amounts of markets on local level as stated in the NEP although this was a decision made in order to help russia industrialise as marx said himself that capitlism is the best when it comes to generating whealth but this failed miserebly with most of the farmers hording their crops and making the prices rise to unpayable sums resulting in a huge famine
Most of the west is social democracy
You should look into third position philosophy.
That is America that you are describing. It’s not written in our system, but just look at the last decade or so. America will elect a Republican and then they will elect a Democrat, and then they’ll elect a publican, and then a Democrat and the pendulum swings back-and-forth, and then a sense making our society go from capitalist to socialist from capitalist to socialist every four years
What you're talking about is either social democracy or market socialism.
Also, there are other alternatives:
- corporatism
- distributivism
- participatory economics
I feel that it is my responsibility to myself and the people that I love, to get into shape and start preparing for the apocalypse because no system works. Technology is our distraction
Technology is being awful for us
@@JeffreyMarr as someone who has done some pretty thorough research on the subject, I really enjoyed your presentation. Bravo 👏
@@sustronaut166 Really appreciate that, tank you
I 100% agree, capitalism sucks tbf still way better than communism or socialism but as you said I also believe no system works. Or better said capitalism would work but only limited. The issue is that a country it goes full capitalist or full communist which is why socialism will always lead to communism. I think capitalism with some socialistic sides would be perfect imo. The rich are getting too rich and the poor too poor but with communism everyone is poor which is not viable
As I often say to my friends:
“Human Beings are greedy and flawed, Capitalism is the system that takes the most advantage out of those characteristics without everything going to shit”.
Are you Jesus? Why do you speak in behalf of all Human Beings?
@@dompit9535
I’m not speaking in behalf of all human beings,
I’m speaking in behalf of myself, saying my opinion about human nature, just like everyone says theirs.
Everyone has an idea of how human nature works.
Besides, by your logic, nobody can discuss about something like human nature, since talking about it would be “speaking in behalf of all human beings”.
@@gustavomarcondes3908 Ok. I just dont like excessive greed and egoism. I think thats primitive.
@@dompit9535 It is primitive, I never said it’s a good thing.
It’s just how we are. Sadly
@@gustavomarcondes3908 not "we"
Like how it includes human behavior and psychological insights.
Everything is all about human behavior at the end of the day :)
@@JeffreyMarr The problem is that human nature applies to communism the same way it applies to capitalism. Communism isn't about willingly working with other people, it's about democratically controlling the industry with the people. Your contribution to society is what you will get in return, and we can agree that in the world today, most are workers, and few are corporate owners.
Also he just kinda made up the list of human natures without any factual basis. Also: greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/does_sharing_come_naturally_to_kids/
-babies have a natural tendency to co-operate
-capitalists are somehow less moral than babies
-have you MET babies dude those dudes are fuckin crazy
Living under a capitalist system and saying ego and greed is basic human nature is as stupid as to live in a factory and say it is basic human nature to cough.
I dont I just lost the human nature argument they know how to combat that shit all day
Any system that depends on the morality of someone, it fails.
Good that communism isn't based on morality.
Well, human nature is more complex than simply being competitive. Humans are both competitive and cooperative. And yes, people can care for more than 100 individuals. We can only maintain about 100 close relationships but we can definitely care for more than one person.
exactly. why else would humanitarian charities get money from so many people?
I think you're watching too much of Chomsky. The point is, human nature is bad, ON BALANCE.
You can care about more than 100 people on a conceptual level. However, you cannot truly feel for them in the same way as you do those close to you. Think of it this way. Two people are going to die today. One is a brilliant young scientist who could have pushed forward human advancement to unknowable levels if not for the fact he is about to die. However, you've never met the person and have only heard of him by reading a few articles on the internet. The other is your elderly parent or grandparent with whom you have a close relationship but who is retired and not really contributing anything to society at this point. Which loss is going to devastate you more? While on an intellectual level you know that the loss of the scientist is more important than the loss of your parent or grandparent, you are far more devastated by the loss of the parent/grandparent. This is known as the "monkeysphere". Because the parent/grandparent is in your monkeysphere you feel the loss far more profoundly than the loss of the important person you never met. Communism can work in groups that are no bigger than your monkeysphere because you actually care about the people depending on you to be a decent person. Once you get outside of that group, though, you only care about people on a conceptual level. As a result, it is far easier for you to screw over these unknown people.
@@chiefs300 exactly what they mean when they say that communism is incompatible with human nature as a political system for nation states.
id rather die than do that
Millennials are like, the countries that tried communism and failed just didn’t do real communism!!
HOLY FUCK THATS EXACTLY WHAT MY GIRLFRIEND SAID AND IM TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS
@Capitalist they tried to get into communism but failed because it’s a fantasy utopia. It doesn’t work
@Capitalist communism fails to work on a basic level. How do you get people to work the high risk jobs if they will be paid the same as those who don’t work deadly jobs? You have to give them an incentive.
I respect everyone’s opinions please stop debating who’s opinion is correct it’s just an opinion do to the past statements and respect I will not be giving an opinion also please don’t talk about things that you don’t fully understand
@@asparagu5139 do your examples of communism have a national bank and print money?
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. How do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
- Ronald Reagan
Divya Vyas love this
the secret evil undertones of people not having to be exploited and overworked to survive
Reagan believed in trickle down economics, something ten times larpier and dystopic than communism ever could be
@@eoin8450 what do you think trickle down economics means? Honest question. Want to flesh out your position amd fully understand it.
@@FormerPessitheRobberfan i just think at least abolishing private property has some merit, unlike trickle down economics theory, which was used by Thatcher and Reagan where they thought cutting taxes for corporations and the rich would end up in higher employment for working and middle class. Which it didn't, what does work though is bottom-up where you cut taxes for the working and middle class. This has usually boosted the economy
Another thing is competition which drives innovation and growth. If everyone is receiving same thing regardless of your output then no one would improve. This also tends to improve products and services.
This video does a piss poor job at explaining what communism is.
I don’t think that’s neccesarily true - humans get *bored*.
When humans are bored, we look for something new to do. We innovate. From the wheel, to the house, it’s all been made out of a) neccesity and b) boredom.
We want life easier, so we find issues and fix them. Not everyone, of course, but many people! I’d work so hard on fixing issues if I wasn’t burnt out from school! (something that trains me for capitalism. We need to fix the school system.)
i enjoy learning. I want to find ways to make life easier for people! But I cant, because the resources are paywalled and I have to study things because if I fail enough tests Ill ruin my lif. Its no fun when you have to learn something because youll be punished for it. The school system kills many peoples drive to learn and create, too, which is a direct product of it being made for capitalisms interests.
I know theres many out there - many that, if they just had the energy and money, would do so so so much for the world.
But we don’t. Tell me, what innovation is there in everyday life? Is it that cities are built for cars, not people? That politicians want more oil rigs built? Is it that so many people lack rights, or is it perhaps the homeless population?
We all want to be good, do what we do well. But we as people can’t explore our options if were working 9 to 5 to barely make a living.
ALSO, the issue is the innovation of companies often is not “how do we make our product better than our competitors?” But “how do we make this LOOK better while its cheaper for us to make?”
I really liked how you explained this without discrediting Marxism outright. I was looking for something that explains Marxist solutions without bias and I think you delivered that well. The critique to Capitalism by Marx is quite good in my opinion and calls for good socialist policy, however the solutions like you pointed out are not feasible in my opinion. First of all like you pointed out, one-upping others is inherit in people but I believe you also left out that the distribution of talent, skill and intellect is different. By that law of nature, no matter what form of society you have, you'll always have people that do better than others. A smarter, more skilled individual will always get the upper hand over the less fortunate somehow: if it is not wealth, it will be influence, likeability, ... thus creating again a divided society with classes (something that Marx wanted to put a stop to).
Yes, hierarchies are inherent in everything, whether we are focused on money or not, they will form. Animals even have hierarchies.
@@JeffreyMarr Marx never rejected hierarchies.
Marx knew that people are different and that some will be more capable.
He never wanted to make everyone equal in every regard, he wanted so that everyone has the same opportunity which is impossible with intergenerational accumulation of wealth.
@@nilsmadej9091 accumulation hardly happens must millionaire today are self made
@@poptraxx418 I have no idea where you got that idea from. Elon Musk, Bezos, Gates and many more had huge investments from their families.
Although it is hard for them to be milionairs do in that regard you're right, most of them have much more, but the accumulation is still real.
I live in a post-socialist country. I myself was lucky enough to not have to live through those years, but my parents still remember what it was like. How nothing ever worked and no one would do their job properly. How everyone was mean and rude. How you couldn't expect the doctors, postmen, public workers to do anything for you without a bribe. How you had to wait a year to get a car you already paid for. And if you wanted to talk politics, you had to do it under the blankets or next to a running faucet because your best friend could turn you in if he overheard. And the two most famous proverbs of that time were "Don't put out the fire that isn't burning you" basically don't help others or you might get burned, and "He who doesn't steal, steals from his family" basically if you don't steal you're stupid because everyone else is doing it.
Very interesting take on it. Thank you for sharing. What country are you from?
@@JeffreyMarr The Czech Republic, formerly Czechoslovakia.
If you're interested in this part of my country's history, check out: www.private-prague-guide.com/article/communism-in-czechoslovakia/
That’s not just socialism tho. How you described it sounds like a mainly an authoritarian government trying to get the working class to work for their profit while the working class saw no return. ...... capitalism but with more ✨punishments ✨
@@shyarosecooper939 Yes, that's what Communism looks like every single time it's been attempted... But people still seem intent on trying because it's going to be different this time
I'm interested in the Escort scene out there how is it?
For some reason people associate the communist manifesto with “reading Marx”, but the communist manifesto actually has little to do with Marx, his works and Marxism in general. The communist manifesto is an 80 page pamphlet of ideas that were heavily circulated in the communist leagues leading up to the revolutions of 1848. It was a loose set of demands by this group, the rejection of which lead to some democratic rebellions in Europe. It also has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism or historical materialism.
Marx’s work, to those who have actually read it, is summed up best in capital vol 1, 2 and 3. If you have not read capital, you haven’t read Marx, and I think that is why the media tries to hard to associate the manifesto with Marx. Claiming you have read Marx by reading the manifesto is like claiming you’ve read Spider-Man by reading an army STD pamphlet created by Stan Lee in the 40s
Oof in a page copy pasted to the ASCII art of a clown out of 10
Not readin allat🙏🙏💯💯
Great video, thanks. Really well explained and I concur! Haha
Appreciate it!
ah the 200 year old "human nature" strawman
Finally, an actual critic of Communism and not just "BuT mUH 100 gOrRiLliOn dEAD" good job
Bence Barna thank you
But he didn't even correctly define communism or socialism in the video's opening
And you do know the "human nature bluhh" argument is just as done to death right? If you looked at a feudal society you'd think human skin was made of metal and human nature was to go conquer the holy land.
It's still important to acknowledge those millions of dead, though.
@@johnhatchel1372 It's also important to acknowledge the 1.6 billion killed by capitalistic and imperialistic nations, and to remember that the actual number is somewhere in the window of 8.5 million for the soviet union.
@Pro Shooter why specifically 1970? The USSR existed longer than just 1970.
The U.S. killed approximately 150,000,000 people with the african slave trade and 114,000,000 with native american genocide. That's a lot. But it wasn't during the cold war, so you might try arguing that their lives don't count. So let's go to the cold war.
10,000,000 koreans died in the korean war, 10,000,000 vietnamese died in the vietnam war (including many innocents due to unrestricted napalm bombing as I'm sure you're aware), 1,200,000 people died due to their backing of general suharto [an anticommunist dictator], and 3,095 more due to the U.S. coup that allowed Augusto Pinochet to take power over the democratically elected leader that had been in place before (including thousands more injured and tortured.)
The amount of deaths the U.S. caused during the cold war in the name of preserving capitalism is greater than the amount that anyone claims the USSR had, even the most blatantly false figure of 20 million falls short, and the actual figure of 8.5 million is nowhere in the neighborhood of the amount of innocent civilians the U.S. killed. And evidently they were also willing to kill hundreds of millions to line the pockets of southern plantation owners. It literally took Karl fucking Marx becoming close friends with abraham lincoln to convince the guy to abolish slavery.
So I believe that like how 20 years ago young adults loved anarchy, its now communism, and soon enough its gonna be something else. The point is, like you said, communism just doesn't work. Its so easy for it to go corrupt, and because the government becomes so STRONG, it then creates bloodshed, like Soviet Russia. The fact you have to rely on the good nature of people just doesn't work, like you explained.
I think most people, once they start working a real job, realize that communism is just a bad idea. There are two sides of why it wouldn't work. The first is that if you work the same job every day, but get the same rations, it just becomes a depressing society. In this case there is nothing to look forward too, its all the same. Because there is no competition, and people don't have a goal to get their food through quickly, or maybe at all, I feel suicides would rise dramatically. Another thing is that like you said, the more you make for your family by the amount you sell, makes competition, increasing the efficiency of the product.
So by the nature of human phycology working the same thing every day and achieving the same goal would just frikin mess people up, leading to more people not hitting requirements, more depression, and finally, brute force being used like Soviet Russia. Then fear. Then revolution.
There are ways to make capitalism better, helping those in terrible poverty. But no system is perfect, and this is an example of a objectively flawed system. The only way this theoretically "works" is if the government isn't corrupt, and the population is happy with no future set fourth in a perfect society.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Great points
i like things about this comment that communism is STATELESS and yet u go on and on about how the government would be corrupt this is insane to me like just wow my guy and the other is once u get a real job u would forget this "bs" if there was one thing that got me thinking about marxism and how capitalism is unfair is me working while I'm in college how unfair and cruel it is be4 i even knew what capitalism and what Karl Marx had to say about it
in the end I think people like u are alright but misguided and maybe if u would listen to Marxist and Communists u would change ur mind
@@JeffreyMarr The main category of people who like communism are teenagers-young adults, typically 14-30's. I think its obvious why teenagers do, because they have no idea what working is like, similar to college students, who are the main supporters of the idea. Then young adults also still like the idea, even if they are working, mostly because often times newly working people have a low income, so they like the idea of being able to not worry about money and just be able to draw and binge netflix. The point where people start to dislike it is around 30's I would say when they maybe get married or start getting higher income and realize its not such a good idea. Oh yeah, loved the video!
@@yahyahasan2004 well it promises to be stateless but there is fact that there needs to be a transition era where govenrment needs to take charge to be able to change into a communist country. And there are a lot of problems about it for instanca people in power wouldnt want to give up their power
@@keremalp4627 u seem to not understand how the transition work the state will give up its ownership for the means of production and convert it into workers and then the state will no longer be needed if that doesn't happen that means its not a dictatorship of the proletariat and its not going forward for communism society
And thus another revolution is needed
*"There is always some thing to envy. a smile, the friendship, something you don't have to appropriate. There will always be rich and poor."* - Enemy at the Gates Like narcissism, communism is based on envy
No. It's based on justice. If you'd just stop robbing is, scumbag, you wouldn't need to spend all the taxes WORKERS paid to defend yourselves from us.
How did Rome fall, putz? 🤔
That was the perfect start to any video ever
Simple. Everyone cannot be equal in every aspect. Everybody has different talents and the demands for each talent are different. This does not have to do anything with greed. When the government controls which talents people can have what talents are needed, the society would definitely fail no matter what unless the leader is God, which is not possible.
some people in the comments are looking to use an AI to act as the God which can control the society lol
@@JeffreyMarr Ai can never posses human thinking (conciousness)
it can make life efficient , but not perfect.
This is literally Marxist theory
To each according to their need, from each according to their ability.
It acknowledges our differences and simply seeks to create a level playing field where everyone would have the same opportunity. The way our societies are structured does not reward hard work and talent. It rewards being lucky enough to be born into a richer country/richer family. There are outliers, and sports might be the most meritocratic field at the moment. But those are exceptions, not rules.
@@yehbe Im all for creating a more level field, however I disagree that our society doesn't reward talent and hard work ofc there is an added advantage if you are born into a richer family, but anyone can become rich or atleast improve their economic status through hard work
@@lonewolf-pz9ov That's just demonstrably not true. Our productivity has immensely increased over the years. Yet wages have remained stagnant.
Our buying power has decreased to the point people are getting scammed left and right with shitcoins because they want a taste of riches.
Maybe this was true around 30-40 years ago. When we used to have stronger labor unions and social safety nets.
Ironically, the places with more socialisation have more economic mobility. Countries like Denmark, Finland and Sweden (while they're mostly social democracies) have the most billionaires per capita.
I think it's been tried enough at the cost of millions of lives
seth mcsnotter I agree, time to shelve it haha
How about when capitalist states stop the over the top harassment when it comes to socialist states, maybe just, maybe, socialism could develop in a not so mutated way that it turns into a police state due to external pressure.
Because nothing scares capitalists more than workers taking control of what they produce rather than social parasites.
Ahh we are talking about communism
@@sethmcsnotter7872 btw its not a million its more like 200 Billion!!! Yes cuz im a dillweed who believes that socialism causes faaaminees and not circumstances.
A very balanced and unideological video. Excellent work
I appreciate that, thank you
1.3k Neanderthals disliked this video for no reason
the reason is cause they dumb
@@JeffreyMarr honestly dude keep up the great work and don’t let these clowns that have never lived in communism say thats it’s “the way”. Innocent people in China are literally being out in death camps, while college students say the United States is fascist? Makes no sense to me.
@@OFFONE Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times.
As it goes, ad infinitum
@@JeffreyMarr im surprised to not see pro communism comment yet
@@14thbkrctsecks oh there are plenty people writing novels in here pro communism. Just scroll a little bit
My parents have lived in it. It was awful and they say that the best day of theyre lives is when our country got out of Soviet Union. Comunism sounds good but the presidents will never be honest while in comunism
>presidents
>communism
it sounds awful in theory and is awful in practice. stealing from people is always wrong, no matter what. glad your parents got out of it
DIO are you talking about capitalism
@@nyarthecat8195 communism
DIO awful in theory and practice, stealing from people, sounds like capitalism to me
I don’t want to be a doctor if I make the same amount of money as a plumber
this is what's been running in my mind. if you are earning the same with everyone, why would you work on a harder job?
@@armand9120 this will only work if the country is self sufficient enough to supply the demand of its citizens, or if every country is also communist. it's kind of a dream that is too good to be true
@@armand9120 After the a while the doctors will get annoyed a revolt and the cycle restarts
Then go be a plumber... we need doctors who really wanna save lives.
@@Jejdjejbfjf you will run out of doctors if you only count those that actually wanna save lives even if they have to go through years of schooling, work stressful hours and they don't even get paid for it
“Is it not better to overcome one’s evil nature by great effort?” - Paarthurnax
Nothing works if corruption rises first.
Thanks for your insight I think you are right. As long as we are limited in the amount of meaningful relationships we can create with people in our lifetime, there is somehow an instinctual urge in human nature to prefer to allow the wealth or opportunities you have accumulated throughout your life to be distributed to the people you choose to give that wealth to. Hence the idea of a will, to bequeath land or valuables to people you think it could benefit because you know those people intimately therefore the wealth you leave behind is your choice. To allow a government the right to decide these things makes the importance of how you feel about your lifes ambition and what successes you have accumulated materially...entirely vanish since you are denied the very basic right to your own autonomy in order to leave it to whom you choose to leave these things to. I also believe you are right, as long as there is equal opportunities to distribute wealth, then there is equal opportunities for individuals who distribute that wealth to use taxation as a means of fueling their own personal wealth as an abuse of power (Putin did this by intentionally running the sochi construction efforts over budget in order to launder money)... and still despite this obvious cronyism and abuse of power he believes he is the best thing for the Russian people and it turns into nothing but a false democracy (called a plutocracy where two leaders ping pong back and forth between president and prime minister) and when there is someone who challenges this false governance , they are imprisoned or jailed and the populace is suddenly afraid to voice their opinion because the very idea of equality was ruined by one mans ego and attach his sense of self worth to how much power he can grasp whether that be wealth or titles..which you mentioned in this video. In the end this can make someone absolutely deplorable, but as long as they are in a position of power and there are no actual freedoms in that country due to an abuse of power from the very incompatibility of the political ideology. That person who holds the power from abusing the system in order to satisfy the primal urge to "build resources, seek opportunities, find a mate or simply be the best we can be" typically translates as the ability to have your will triumph over the will of others.. Since this is a survival paranoia, which has been instinctual...the monetary benefits involved by abusing communist philosophy always results in the eventual manipulation of others in order to increase an mans wealth and status to affirm his primal position in the world.. Which in turn does not make this system much different from capitalism. Except in capitalism, everyone has the right to make their own wealth if they so choose, or voice an opinion without the fear of being unlawfully persecuted.
Thanks for the insights Carl, I didn't know that Putin was laundering money from Sochi. You should check out a series on Audible called Prisoner of Power. It talks about how Putin fucked up by not having an equal so when he dies or retires, the country may be in shambles because a lot of the politics holding the country are based on loyalty to him and his loyalty to select people.
Another thing that I was thinking about the other day is the importance of money in general. I bought a course online and immediately finished it because it was a lot of money. Because I had sacrificed something to get that course. If I had gotten it for free, I wouldn't value it. If money isn't important, then no one has ANY reason to do anything. And the greater good doesn't work in a country of millions of people because no one really cares about the well-being of someone who is so far removed from them that you will never hear of them or see them in all your life. It's hard to be okay with them getting part of your money and resources when you die lol
@@JeffreyMarr Money is also a good qualifier of some things. Lets say you thought that course you purchased...in fact... wasnt worth the money and after purchasing, you demanded a refund. Does that mean you have a right to that money back? You esentially tried the product but if it didnt meet your expectations, you can argue the quality of the content does not equal the money asked for it. Currency is a way of justifying the value of something in the marketplace, or demanding better quality for the money spent on something. For example, if the course you wanted to learn was available by many other resources that all compete for your hard earned cash, you now have negotiating power and can ask the creator to give you fair price for a product. Or you can outright refuse to buy that product. (for example I refuse to throw $1200 down on an iphone because there is no competition as theres only one app store, and the OS is designed to update ad nauseum until your own device is obsoleted very quickly and your apps are no longer compatible due to forced upgrades.) Money can be used as a qualifier by the consumer, not just by the producer. If all producers produce the same product at the same cost, then you are now looking for the most superior product at that cost, or a comparable product at a reduced cost... and a free market allows you to have this bargaining power...whereas a socialist country does not since state ownership does not create competiton for a level playing field....since as your say bureaucracy does not focus on efficiency if they are the sole producer of something and effectively a monopoly by default. Whereas, I can always reject microsoft windows and use linux even if they have 95% of the desktop operating systems on PCs I dont HAVE to use it, Im not being forced and have the right to make my own decisions without enforced regulation. This is what MAKES a free country free to begin with, and why Russia is NOT free, China though very wealthy is NOT free.. And America despite being corrupted by lobbyist is still considered FREE even if you dont agree with their lack of basis human rights such as universal healthcare.
@@carlnikolov Well said, can't argue with the market deciding the value. There's some things going on with my business where we need to make pivots. Because we're looking at what people are buying, what they say on sales calls, and what they are looking for. and it's really helping the business to flesh out what it sells and how to get top value because it's becoming more and more specialized. Which would not happen if therre wasn't competition, and there were people in the company who were just showing up for a paycheck like many do in government. Competition and the market is deciding what my business is becoming, and i'm grateful because it allows us to provide a more useful and progressively more valuable service
If i want to throw my money in a fire after i die I have the right to do so and if we ever become communist first thing i do is burn everything I own
Idk what made me think how watching this will help me get out of my student debt, but I learned a lot from this. Thanks!
Gotta crash the system to get rid of debt
Communism would free you but you listen to some lazy dumbass instead who doesn't know anything.
@@eduardotejerasosa8476 ffs what are you? A tankie?
@@ohwell6422 Whats a tankie?
@@eduardotejerasosa8476 So you're not a soviet apologist then. My mistake.
I love that there's an Amazon ad on this video
And I Love the Intro "welcome to our tube " lmao😂🙂
At this point everything is doomed to fail
lmao can't disagree there
Lmao
The government knows how to juggle a few things, but the more you add. The more difficult it becomes.
Excellent video and well said.
Can you pls provide the sources of your (I guess your own) definition of communism and socialism?
Yes, I read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels
I like this video, it isnt too aggressive against communist ideology and provides a well thought out explanation to why communism falls short of its ideals. Although there are some things which I disagree with in the video.
Lol, I could hear the USMC hymn being played in the backround 😂
From the halls of montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli!
Let me save you time, why it fails: Capitalism always makes sure to hurt it.
While I’m not a communist or socialist, this seemed to be a pretty good short and informative explanation. My hats off to you sir! 👏
Thank you !
@@JeffreyMarr You’re welcome!
It’s not a good explanation
@@bskee001 This is like learning everything you know about the French from an Englishman.
Here is a list of communist/socialist countries that have been successful..
The list: .....
Blessed
@@JeffreyMarr All of them have also been threatened by the U.S XD.
How do you feel about Communism? Can it ever work?
There's a Communist group that cropped up in my city and they went down the street smashing small businesses windows. I didn't know that Communism still existed openly in the west, but apparently it does.
Communists are lying, thieving, murdering POS - no different than your local gangster.
Communism is not a political ideology, it's a socioeconomic orientation that requires.....requires no state or class. That's all it is, that's all it ever was and it's never existed in a surplus producing society. It's not... IT'S NOT an ideology. Marxism is an ideology, Communism is just any society that has no central government or class heirarchy.
It's dosent go against human nature as in the greed for things or power has been born of a world where to be better you need to have more power or more possessions. If as a society it was seen that the more you help others or harder you work to help everyone else was perceived as being better it's could easy function.
@@willtubman6674 I disagree with you in that I don't believe it comes down to just greed, but mostly just trust. If society gets bigger and there's less connection between people, there's less trust and therefore people wanting to take care of others who they don't know.
Although I do agree that if you get social rewards for being a hard worker that may be beneficial, but then that still is more power. You're going to get higher in the social hierarchy by being more useful.
@@JeffreyMarr Q: Who are the proletarians?
A: The people who didn't run out of bullets.
5:26 Perfectly summed it up right there!
Hi Jeffrey, thank you for this short video. I am sorry that I have very little understanding about political ideologies, so my comments may come across as very naiive.
However, I have been thinking again this morning about something I would like to do, when I am in a position to do it, and I don't know how to label it : would what I'm about to describe, be labelled as a fusion of capitalism, socialism and communism, or have I simply not got the point at all?
I used to rent out two bedrooms in my three-bedroom house (I lived in the third bedroom, as live-in landlady) and progressively I came to realise that people do all sorts of strange things, not all of them desirable, so I came up with an idea to help guide people to better behaviour, through monetary mechanisms.
My idea is to offer either just rooms, or whole properties, to let, with the terms of the rental contract being:
The starting rent is the market rent, and a person can, if they choose, just rent at that price.
However, if the rentee also keeps the house and garden tidy and clean every day, they get a 5% reduction in their rent.
If the rentee pays their rent on time, they get a further 5% reduction in their rent.
If the rentee picks up litter locally and improves their environment, they get a further 5% reduction in their rent.
If the rentee has anger management issues or drug/alcohol issues, they get a 5% reduction in their rent if they attend rectifying classes, and a further 5% reduction in their rent if they achieve absence of the problem (as advised by the person conducting the rectifying class).
If the rentee manages to have good relationships with their neighbours, they get another 5% reduction in their rent.
If the rentee is already, or switches to, animal-friendly diet (i.e. no causing animals to be murdered in order to have temporary tastebud pleasure), they get another 5% reduction in their rent.
If the rentee wants to, and is capable of doing it to a professional standard (would need to be independently checked on each occasion, for insurance purposes), they could undertake repairs and/or decorating themselves, and gain another 5% reduction in rent.
If the rentee wanted to, and was capable of so doing, they could contribute to their society by volunteering in any number of ways, and that would secure for them an additional 5% reduction in rent.
The last 5% possible reduction in rent, I would leave unspecified in advance, and together the rentee and I could work out what terms might be specific to them, that would help them in some way, and thus give them a final 5% reduction in their rent.
Of course, I would need to make sure that, when I buy the property, my costs are not greater than the minimum rent I could receive under such a scheme, and also maybe the reductions (and increases, if they don't stick to a particular requirement) would have to be notified 3 months in advance, to allow the rentee the opportunity to budget accordingly.
But I see this as a way that, if I manage the purchasing finances carefully, I could acquire a small profit from being the property investor and landlady (the capitalism part), yet at the same time help to alleviate the burden of wasted rent money for rentees, by giving them financial incentives to be a better citizen, so that the nicest citizens could be paying the least rent, thus giving them a chance to manage their lives with (hopefully) less stress and more self-actualisation, leading to a more harmonious society (the socialism or communism part, I'm not sure if my idea qualifies for either, but my instinct is that it does).
What would be your take on this idea, please?
I thought similar thoughts on that and would do something similar.
If I was a landlord I would give people if say there were 4 there and I got good enough money and there was good behavior from them all then I could rotate who gets part of the year free rent ranging from a month to say half the year while the others got some percentage off during that time and rotate them. During physical disasters we could give all of them half required than normal and agree to regain that later or forgive the other half under some condition later using your model. Maybe even pass the landlord ship around giving trusted attendees that have shown their trustedness for some 10 years or so to gain benefits from being a partial owner for short bursts of time coordinated carefully of course. Also one can include pay as needed where in turn the tendenents can pay just for the Bill's that come up and nothing more.
Look I'm not an expert in arguments but socialism shares profits which is some of what's happening. Capitalism is what already around but from feudal base here. However there is a push for communism as well going on here, in short for classless, moneyless, and stateless. I'll let others criticize me as needed but in my opinion your doing a good thing. I hope my ideas/applications help you here.
He did not just do the human nature meme-
Oh he did lmao😪
lol he liked your comment because hes a fucking idiot
@@Marxman1917 !!!
@@Marxman1917 Prove him wrong.
What is that?
I think that if you build social and economic institutions that can all benefit the individual and their loved ones, and that institution can be organized to transform individual action into collective benefit, then it is not against human nature and communism is possible
Thanks for making the distinguish between Communism and Socialism.
In an alternative reality, communism sounds noble enough.. however there’s something called humans.. we tends to mess things up, especially something that is highly exploitable.. besides.. personally I don’t believe in any kind of Utopia, I believe responding to reality contra an idealistic philosophy - shaping society on what is working, while slowly dissemble what isn’t working. Guess what that core political principle sounds like =p!
I appreciate that this wasn't an incoherent strawman, like most 'critiques' of communism are.
I would add that Marxism is not the only brand of communism - the anarchist variant does not intend on centralization, and after the rise and fall of the Paris Commune, Marx himself changed his mind about centralization. Regardless, your criticism of centralization is rather on point.
When it comes to the 'greed' and 'hierarchy' thing, it seems to have been taken into account. If one does not wish to provide something for you, you are fully able to provide that thing for yourself, seeing as the means of production are owned by the whole community, including yourself.
I also don't believe that competitivity is an aspect of human nature, though this is rather redundant as people can still provide for themselves. It is more an emergent factor of being within a mode of production founded on competition and greed. Under a different mode of production, one built on mutual aid, the more generous person is more likely to have people return the favour. Humans are, after all, a social species which effectively functioned on gift economies for millennia. One would be incentivized to provide as much as possible, not because they must, but to improve their social relations with others, thus allowing them to receive things in return with equal generosity. Regardless, generosity is not important, as one can still provide themselves with everything they need - being generous would only make things easier and give you time to focus on what you like doing rather than meeting your basic needs.
All in all, this was a very good video and an honest critique.
No, I’s rather not give away personal freedoms for job security
Heck you even give up job freedoms cause you can't make your way up in the same ways
This was in my recommended, so it's basically my duty to comment on how reductive an examination of socialism this is. What is commonly called Communism (or scientific/Marxist socialism) is a theory of sociological development that beliefs in dialectical materialism (that the resources and technology a society has determines it's development and progression toward a better life for its people beginning with primitive tribal societies, to slave societies to feudal to capitalist and eventually socialist and communist modes of production), class struggle (two blocs of diametrically opposed groups the owning class or bourgeois and the laboring class that has nothing to sell but their labor, the proletarians), and the cooperative worker ownership of the means of production (which can mean a multitude of things to state management through bureaucracies or through democratically elected representatives that are discouraged from careerism, what have you).
In the basic essentials of what a communist society would look like (the stage of society, not the ideology) would be constituted by are a lack of a state (there is still a governing body, but it cannot enforce anything including a standing military or police force- the people that live in an area manage their own affairs and are encouraged by their neighbors to not be a dick) a lack of "money" (the value of a commodity is determined by the materials as well as the amount of work put into it by a laborer, and the value made by the person would be received not in the form of a circulating currency but a credit voucher that can be exchanged for luxury goods like tvs or nice furniture), and a lack of classes (because there are no property classes, and no proletarians, it's just people who wish to pursue something or work as something that interests them, they just do it).
What is holding up this stage of anarchy is not some sort of rejection of egoist principles or beliefs about human nature (all of those arguments are unjustifiable claims that cannot constitute all of human society because we're all so varied, even between contexts, and generalizing to that degree opens room for claiming that people are different either because of their cultures, or even troubling because of their races and brains and so on), but a change of material circumstances.
Capitalism has created SO MUCH than any previous system and has become so dominant that Francis Fukuyama claimed that liberal democratic societies run with capitalist economies were the highest form of civilization (heavy paraphrasing of "The End of History").
However, it is riddled with unfixable problems that Marxists call "contradictions." An example would be an owner of a company's job is to make as much money for himself as possible. He will buy machinery to increase productivity of his plant at the cost of losing workers because less people are needed. These workers without much work to do will run out of money and will not be able to afford the things that the plant is selling. With a lack of purchases, the owner is starting to lose profits. This is just one contradiction out of many.
The only means that the problems of capital could truly be resolved so that poverty and hunger are eradicated (as well as issues of gender and race, if you get a chance to read Angela Davis), a revolution toppling corporations and the capitalist bought state must be overthrown and substituted by a worker's democracy and ruler ship over the propertied class. This is the dictatorship (rulership over)
of the proletariat that all you liberals are so fearful of. It isn't a single guy like a Stalin or a Mao, or even a Tito for all you chetniks out there, but a congress of representatives that are accountable to their constituents and should all opposing capitalist influence be eradicated, uncorruptable because of basic needs getting met and a lack of circulating currency preventing a corporate consolidation of resources.
If you are at all curious about more ideas I've just hinted at I encourage you to check out marxists.org for a bunch of htmls of literature, and seek out some youtubers such as Danov and Azurescapegoat and Hakim. I also implore you to check out this very dated website slp.org for the speeches of Daniel De Leon, my favorite political thinker and an American from 100 years ago that fought for the same freedom Communists today fight for in the US. "Socialist Reconstruction of Society" is my vision for this country, so don't straw man me with your famines and totalitarian nonsense.
How would such system prevents abuse of power by the representatives or bureaucrats? It has been shown that power corrupts, by countless examples.
EDIT: Abuse of power doesn't necessarily mean corruption, rather I am talking about possibility of the congress turning into a megalomaniac mess.
Oh yea, wouldn't such system rely on *worldwide* revolution, rather than national? That would mean that you'd need to spread the revolution across the globe, lest the revolution fails because of one failed revolution. If that's the case, then good luck with that herculean task.
So stateless but governed. And cashless but 'value' is asigned to work and vouchers are given out for 'luxury' goods. Yeah and thats why it would never work. You basically just repeated the content of the video in a less succinct way
Thanks this was helpful. We exchange information so we understand a non biased perspective from both sides 👍
@@ms-terious a state is defined in communist ideology as an entity which rules over an area, has a monopoly on the righteous use of violence, and that has a top-down organizational structure. Thus, governing assemblies with horizontal structures in which everyone can take part (democracy) would be stateless, but maintain structure.
Also the whole voucher thing is mostly a thing for some specific structures, like mutualism.
If their system really is as failed as America says it is, then I have one demand.
Stop trying to FORCE it to fail. Lift your sanctions on Cuba and LET it fail. If it really is failed, then stand back and LET it fail.
It already has failed enough on its own. And if your system is so easily sabotaged by another country it’s probably shit anyway.
@@kye4216Stupid take. If one system is built around militarisation and rapid growth, it is perfectly able to defeat another which is built around the liberation and freedom of the masses, maybe even at the cost of military might and economic growth. That doesn’t make the former better, it’s just less fragile.
@@kye4216 I'm not saying it isn't 'failed,' I'm just demanding to see an experiment done. I don't know if it'll succeed or not. But I KNOW that no system can succeed if the entire world is attacking you and trying to crush you.
"Those who don't work shall not eat."
-Vladimir Lenin
this is what happens when you dont know why lenin said that and also dont know that he was also quoting part of the bible. It really had nothing to do with work but yeah go off.
@@ibara8824 oh look, another angry 14 year old girl
@@nahtatroll Im probably older than you.
@@ibara8824 ooooh i just got owned!
@@nahtatroll so true!
Very informative video my man!
Thanks!
no
Now that’s a spicy take right take partner.
🌶
It seems to me that we should use the most productive economic model there is, then we can discuss and argue how it's output is distributed. No point arguing about distribution if there is little to distribute!
2:52 this is where the fun begins
Another important point is that in a communist economy, there is no incentive to work harder other than "oh gee I can't wait to help the world today". In capitalism, if you work harder and smarter, you'll get more reward. It also means that's (ideally) the most competant people are the most successful. And so we reward them so they continue to be successful and benefit eveyone.
So if you arent lucky and not being born „smart“ or in a rich country, is it fair that you are getting abused by the system? Communism isnt a good way to treat that problem, but this isnt an Argument i wozld support.
@@robinborner1424 no one is born smart unless you have mutations in your dna. You can be successful by living a happy life that's the point in capitalism. Pay your taxes make the government happy and have money to buy things you like thus making companys happy.
Hiho Boii but im talking about the people in 3rd world countries for example, who arent born in a capitalistic state. Their evolution and own wealth are being abused by „mostly“ rich people which makes their live already chosen just by this way to increase their wealth.
@@robinborner1424 ok I was just agreeing with you. Apologies for the wording
Hiho Boii with „born smart“ i ment that people have a different iq, have it easier smell, hear or see something or its easier for them to send information to muscles to do, what they want. There are many examples but im not capable of because english isnt my native language, but you can look it up.
And heres where another problem comes into play: If you are for example born with a habit that makes it harder or impossible to learn good in school, then you are forced to do work that is more body strength related and you get paid less for that work. Is this person now responsible for it? No, but he/she/etc. is getting assistance from the system like for example therapy. Thats good and all but its also in nearly every case where it worked not better than to have a 600 € job. Is that fair? Even though such a person worked (probably) harder?
I dont think that for example communism is a better way to treat these problems but what you said, isnt a good point of capitalism.
I think i finals know why ever since i first learned about communism, i fell in love with it- Everyone is equal. I'm from unfortunate circumstances due to troubling events i was born into and yeah it deals with money so yeah i love the concept of communism. But i think i now know why it cannot be implemented.
Interesting that I’m getting an ad for the German Government on this video lmao
Great commentary
Thank you!
I just had a constructive argument about Communism vs Capitalism. Him being a Pro Communism says a lot of good things about Communism, but all he said can only exist in a Fantasy Disney World and not very realistic. Like you would have to smoke an MJ to believe everything will work out just fine in Communism. Human desires cannot be satisfy. Always wanting more.
Very mature of him to realize. Communism came about from the right place. Wanting to help everyone. It just didnt' turn out very good in practice.
@@JeffreyMarr I’ve would actually disagree with that
@@JeffreyMarr it failed cuz humans are. Fckxkak
I'm sorry but capitalist society today is definitely not dreamy ideal capitalist society we were promised
@@jebcar9618 I’m sorry if you miserably failed living in a capitalist world. Try to move in Communist China or North Korea and bring all the wumao with you. I’m sure CPC will fulfill your dream. 🤣🤣🤣
I'm impressed, this video is very reasonable and doesn't strawman the ideology, instead it actually presents it in it's actuality, I appreciate it.
I as a communist myself disagree with the conclusion because in my mind human nature is adjustable so people can adjust their behavior to the system. Also communism doesn't exclude competition, only the exploitation of others in that competition.
But all in all I'd consider it a fair assessment. Good job
Appreciate the comment, hope you have a great holiday !
@@JeffreyMarr Half the stuff in your video is correct, the other half is completely wrong.
Your mistakes:
. Assuming that every version of communism advocates for a strong centralised state: Luxumbergism, Anarcho communism, Anarcho Syndicalism, Mutualism, Anarcho Collectivism, council communism and Egoism all advicate for highly decentralised systems of government, sometimes even advocating for the abolision of the state (a centralised and heirachical power with the monopoly on the legal usage of violence).
. Secondly you came over with the assertion that humans are naturally greedy and selfish which is not a position that modern day Anthropologists, paleotolagists, archeologists and more have. Evidence shows that human nature is that human behaviour is more down to society's nurture than to a greedy nature.
Lastly I want you to know that I agree with you on having a centralised institution controlling production is a terrible idea. You also stated that a Baker controlling his own work would make things more efficient, ironically you have just advocated for the directly democratic ownership of the means of production for the workers. Hope you have a great week.
@@JeffreyMarr Here is a video challenging you on your assertions on human nature: th-cam.com/video/e27RVFxNOcc/w-d-xo.html
. Why the soviet union and friends failed:
th-cam.com/video/uwU3STgBknQ/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ycZYRSpSIPw/w-d-xo.html
. What to do differently:
th-cam.com/video/KU_Ppjol0Tc/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/RpKEaHbeV_8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/USjI-ttKrPw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/vN9IkzLpFbU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/gV6CZOlVUrc/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/4Rc0N9g3N64/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/-GcrTLMvHL0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/dnBw-X_kpwM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/7NXQSj7uK-g/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/JZbVKpuVM2o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/JwX79PFg0EU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/A_d04YenQzY/w-d-xo.html
@@JeffreyMarr Don't worry, only the first two videos i sent you are long: the rest are much shorter at around 8-14 minutes each.
the smaller the society is, the better communism works, but the larger the society, communism will work worse
Agree
I live in Scandinavia and we have more sosialistic system than f.ex. USA and UK. The people are more happy, you can live well on minimum wages, we don't have billionares, education is free for everyone (you get payed for being in universities), healthcare is free and high class, and everyone is treated as equals. The solution is to change capitalism in the diraction of socialism and let it work together. The US could learn so much from us.
What a joke
I live in Norway and there are some very rich people here so this is some bs
NCR Trooper Yeah one of the most I think Switzerland is more expensive tbh
Sweden and Norway have many MORE billionaires per capita than the US - Norway has 56% more (2.8 vs. 1.8 per million) and Sweden has 81% more (3.25 vs. 1.8 per million) So your statement is false..
The dislikes are from the people on Instagram who have "Marxist-leninist" in their bio and their profile picture is of Che Guevara
Oof, ofc without knowing what crimes che commited
@@johnchatzisavvas8627 oh yea, to them he is all good no bad
@@dripspartan4821 Well most of them dont even know they just wear a trendy symbol to show that they are so rebellious and quirky and different
@@dripspartan4821 cry about it
@@johnchatzisavvas8627 yea but they still push for a system that has killed millions and literally never worked
How about clans? Do you think that will work? Like everyone are in clans and there are the representatives of a clan, like 100-150 followers to one leader, and it so that they are just slightly less powerful than the distributor of stuff, the clans can check out on the government and the government can send out people to check if clans are not lying about the amount of people they have. Could that seize the corruption to the minimal level?
In my opinion this could be a way this would work, but it's problematic. In terms of things working in Communism, you would have to have trust within that community. Which would mean they would need to have very similar sets of values. So differences in religion for example, would make it so that there's less trust among people.
And then it also gets messy because what happens if you convert to a different religion, or what happens if you're trading with another clan and one of the people of one group falls in love with someone from another group? What happens when there are numerous generations in one group? Do you have to start kicking out grandma and grandpa to make room for new members of the clan?
Does having a child mean that someone else will be removed?
It's possible that it can work in small groups, as I said in the video but SO MANY things have to go right for it to be doable. So many things need to be managed, and you constantly need people watching the community and keeping things in line. Imo if you have something that requires so much work to maintain, that means we aren't supposed to be doing it.
Like being in a relationship that only works if you stick to one type of conversation and you never deal with difficult things. It's not a healthy relationship. if it can become undone at the slightest things going wrong, it's not got a strong foundation in reality.
This would be the most problematic thing for big countries like china and india. Imagine having 1,000,000,000÷100=10,000,000 clans. Just by naming which clan is which is problematic. Humans won't also be able to easily advance due to the division, and advancements is what humans have always thrived for so, no.
Clans can't also just work with each other to build a rocket ship or something big because it would then be thousands of people working for one leader which just resets the whole point of having clans.
Summary: advancing is hard when done small scale and achieving great success is what humans want but they need to cooperate or build a large working society to do it which beats the whole purpose of having small divisions.
I love how you're still reading comments
The debate continues daily
0:11
Hmmm looks familiar
Family reunion
th-cam.com/video/xMGcBgjl4-c/w-d-xo.html
MR. panich ah yes a man of our culture
Why is the marine Corps Hymn in the background lol
I prefer The Internationale.
It's true that we have an innate instinct for one-upmanship; to be exceptional, better than our neighbors, etc. But it is equally true that we care about our fellow humans and our community. The mere fact that charity exists, or even that some people like the idea communism in the first place is proof of this. Some amount of greed is built-in to us, but so is some amount of good will.
We also know that classless societies CAN exist because they HAVE existed. Look to pre-industrial cultures and you will find many societies based on co-operation and egalitarianism.
I don't know if communism is necessarily the answer to our problems, but I do know that somehow we have to find a way to reconcile our selfish nature with our selfless nature.
To work hard and support someone else sounds fair at makes sense, if one breaks his leg should he just lie there and don’t get help? Or can u help him to sooner be helped when u are in need of it?
So first off, it’s kinda refreshing to see someone who disagrees with communism actually represent Communism mostly correctly.
This happens so rarely that I joke and say that “anyone who actually understands communism, is probably a communist”.
With that said, I had some thoughts about the video I figured I’d share in the name of discourse and what not so here we go.
1. I kind of agree that leaving things centralized and controlled by the processes of Beauracracy is inefficient, which is why I consider myself a Market Socialist. In the transition phase, their could and still be room for markets to thrive, the business would just be owned by the workers (like in a Worker Coop). Although eventually Communism/Anarchism would be the goal, we’d need to totally rethink how we distribute goods among equitable lines, without recreating unjust hierarchies.
2. The ending claim of Communism contradicting human nature is kinda the only part of the video that feels especially reductive. Selfishness, greed and competition are all apart of human nature sure but can we really say any less of compassion, kindness and generosity? Have those not been demonstrated in equal measure?
And even if they haven’t, and only selfishness is human nature...so what? What is Natural isn’t by definition what is good or correct for society.
Fighting against nature could make the struggle for such a world harder sure, but not necessarily impossible and certainly not undesireable.
The “Natural” response to a plague is for everyone without a natural immunity to die. It’s an awful lot harder to develop cures/vaccines then it to just let everyone die, and if the disease is bad enough maybe it’s even impossible.
Does that mean it’s better to just let everyone die?
Anyway, randomly figured I’d engage.
Have a lovely day dear.... whoever ends up reading this.
Some fair ideas. The hierarchy thing is interesting because like yeah they do get out of control, but then hierarchies are naturally occurring in everything. And they usually become hierarchies due to competence. IE if you’re the best carpenter and also friendly then you’ll be at the top of the hierarchy. So some work needs to be done but we can’t just eliminate them because we naturally sort ourselves into hierarchy.
Same thing with the human nature argument. Everyone really hates that one. But yes compassion and brotherhood are common in human nature, it’s just that as population is increased trust is reduced, and compassion reduces. Just like how you (I’m sure) don’t really put too much mental thought into the poor children lying in the street starving to death in Mumbai, it’s still happening. It’s not that you’re not compassionate, it’s just so far removed from your current reality that it has no bearing on your current life. If you saw it in person you would care, but there are too many immediate issues to worry about for you and your direct circle of friends and acquaintances
Haha, don't take it personally in that context, but I really wonder how rich you are and whether you help the poor with the wealth you have now. Just think about it, no need to answer me.
I remember the joke going
Those who deeply understand communism and human nature don't want it
a well done and solid critique sir, as we all know, socialism is when the government does stuff
Tank you
Actually that’s false socialism isn’t when the government does stuff that’s just a meme
But then the government rules everything and you don't own anything
@@alexandergapour1253 that’s state capitalism mixed with a little bit of communism
@@luhh_salo So that means capitalism still work
Many, many people do care deeply about the millions of people we don't know.
So, I don't think selfishness in human nature is what's stopping something like communism from developing.
I just think distributing goods and services fairly or equally is much more complicated than it looks in our imagination.
But, we might figure it out eventually.
Hey man, interesting video!
I'm someone who's read a fair bit of Marxist theory, so I wanted to comment on the topic while adding some information that people often don't learn. Communism, or perhaps "communism in practice", is understandably associated with a long legacy of authoritarianism. This is for good reason, because the list of countries that identify themselves as socialist is full of repressive and undemocratic regimes. The USSR, PRC, DPRK, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and so on are or were highly totalitarian and committed many horrific human rights abuses. For this reason, a lot of people assume that the theorists of socialism advocated for an authoritarian state as well, but this is not true. Trotsky for instance is quoted as saying, "Socialism needs democracy like the body needs oxygen." Democracy in what sense? Lenin wrote about some characteristics that a socialist state ought to have, such as the right of the citizens to recall an official at any time, the wages of officials to be no greater than an average worker's wages, and the lack of a national army separate from the armed population itself. No state has ever really possessed these traits in practice, but this is nonetheless the model that communists tend to advocate for
If you ask a communist why these states kept failing to actually implement the prescriptions their own theorists called for, a common response is that, as you said in the video, capitalism hadn't had time to reach its final form in the countries that underwent these revolutions. Prior to their revolutions, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, and such were all largely pre-industrial backwaters without large-scale production. Many of them were still feudal by the time the revolution happened. Furthermore, all the countries that went socialist had to deal with attempts by other nations to return them to capitalism, which often led to coup attempts, espionage, sabotage, and sometimes invasions. Whether the government repression or the intervention by foreign powers came first is sometimes a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario, but it certainly is much easier for someone like Stalin to justify his totalitarian policies if there genuinely are American spies within the nation trying to bring it down (not that the USSR didn't do the exact same thing to the US, mind.) Am I saying that communism could have succeeded if it happened in a properly industrialized country, or didn't have to worry about other countries trying to prevent it from succeeding? No, I have no idea. But communists generally seem to think so, which is why you'll often hear them argue that any successful revolution must be international rather than constrained to any particular country, or bring up the common point that Lenin had hoped that the revolution in Germany would succeed and also believed attempting to establish communism in Russia alone was doomed to failure
It is certainly true that any sort of corruption in the state utterly prevents the interests of workers from being served. I imagine this is why the theorists I mentioned stressed so hard that all officials need to be recallable at any time by popular vote, to prevent them from being able to abuse their power. Honestly, this is something I kind of wish we had just in general, even without socialism. We certainly shouldn't need to rely on other politicians to vote to impeach a politician in order to remove them from office prematurely
As for the point about the human drive to climb hierarchies and to be motivated to work in order to advance and earn better wages, perhaps you are correct that these psychological tendencies do render communism (in the sense it's used in the video, as a moneyless society where everyone gives according to their ability and takes according to their need) impossible. Nonetheless, as you sort of touched on, socialism as defined in the video would not necessarily require that workplaces be devoid of all hierarchy altogether or that all staff receive the same wage (all workers owning a business wouldn't necessarily imply that they all _run_ the business). It would be interesting to see if such a system could work, in an actually democratic framework for once. Lord knows that something needs to change, workplaces are basically devoid of upward mobility anyway nowadays and that's while we're still living under capitalism!
The reason why socialism is inherently autocratic is because you cannot have centralized production and operation as a result of democratic and public efforts, that is oxymoronic and would immediately lead to dissolution of centralism. Centralism is inherently an enforcer as it would not exist otherwise. The state requires power on all fronts. However, even if this fiction as per Marx were a reality, it would not mend the lack of a natural self regulating market any functioning society requires. Corruption is not the issue, lack of supply and demand is. Even a perfect human cannot regulate these forces, which is why we rely on the laws of balance through currency.
@@DrakesdenChannel Why not? What do you mean by "centralism" in this context? It was my understanding that Marx used centralism merely in contrast to federalism, and countries that are democracies but not federations currently exist right now. Why would that be impossible?
@@treyforest2466 Centralism is centralized power of administration, production and regulation, opposite to decentralization.
I mean communism did work in unindustrialized country, did USSR the CCP Vietnam. While the USSR collapsed it isn't because of communism, china is still doing great today even tho it dropped communism and Vietnam had one of the best answer against covid while being pretty poor. And Cuba is doing amazing for its situation and people there heavily support the regim. So yes communism can work.
@@DrakesdenChannel Chile was socialist, on the way of communism and democratic what about that one? Also communist generaly support decentralised system for light industries because it is able to answer way more efficiently to the need of the people.
Video :why is communism doomed to fail
*Sad stalin noises*
the Video should be What is Capitalsm And Why its Doomed to fail
@@superfranek62 idk man America is one of the best countries in the world
@@superfranek62 ok then give a better country lmao
@@superfranek62 How old are you 14???
@@superfranek62 Why do you approve Communism?
Great breakdown as usual. Couldn’t agree more with your assessment. I do think that it’s important to note (which you basically did by mentioning police and fire fighting forces) that capitalism in it’s purest form, unchecked by some socialist balances, also wouldn’t work. The key is in the balance.
Will Tischler perfectly balanced. As all things should be
In this video, we:
-incorrectly defined communism
-incorrectly defined socialism
-forgot about anarchism
-made up a list of "human natures" backed up by absolutely no evidence
greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/does_sharing_come_naturally_to_kids/
Humans are altruistic unless they feel like people want to steal their shit. Competition begets competition, cooperation begets cooperation.
@Walter McClain in this comment, you:
-contributed nothing
-were rude
Please don't do that.
I'm not a communist and I don't think it is implementable but there are some errors to highlight from the video that I think it's important to clarify.
1) Communism, at least in Marxist theory, never seeks to eliminate monetary systems or the concept of the market, although it does not believe in the free market.
2) the video talks about eliminating private property and shows it as a house, It is important to clarify that no implemented Marxist theory seeks to eliminate private property itself, what is sought is that the production assets are in the hands of the workers, you can have your house, car and appliances, which you cannot own is large land masses, factories, mines, etc.
3) to say that socialism has been implemented is also highly debatable. Although Marx speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he does not refer to a dictatorship in itself as we know it, but, since there are still means of domination, because the capitalist structure has not yet been destroyed at the economic level, it is inevitably a dictatorship. The implemented "socialist" regimes were indeed dictatorships in the classical sense of the word and therefore were not exactly proletarian.
4) Reducing communism's failure to succeed to human nature is, to say the least, highly questionable. It is true that the human being is selfish by nature but not in the sense of accumulating wealth or power but in the sense that he will do everything in his power to stay alive. That can include killing, stealing or oppressing others but in most cases, since we have existed we know that the best way to ensure our survival is cooperation, so, as long as it suits us, we will seek to be part of some society. And this is not communist theory, it is the founding basis of any civilization, from the smallest tribe to the largest empire, no one survives without cooperating. It is also true that human beings have a limit of people we can love and form deep bonds with, but it is no less true that we are capable of empathizing with people we do not know, helping others in need and even sacrificing our personal well-being for them. The feeling of competitiveness that is presented here as egoism is actually fairly recent in the history of humanity, at least at the levels to which we are accustomed today. Although competitiveness has always existed, the magnification of it in all aspects of daily life with the sole objective of having more material wealth is a particular characteristic of capitalist societies and as such can be modified.
i agree with everything said here, i am going to assume the person who made this video made little research and copied other existing video's ideas
@HmmmLOL You don't have to be something to defend it
Humans are not inherently greedy. Many times, it has been proven that humans can and will help someone else out that they don’t even know, even if that action is not extremely dangerous. (for example, saving people by stopping an active shooter.) animals also show compassion for others of their species, and even outside their species sometimes. So to day that humans are inherently greedy is untrue. The main reason why we are here in the first place is due to misunderstanding. Misunderstanding lead to fear, fear to hate, until now.
Sadly most people are greedy and there are only few who tend to be kind and helpful.
Communism creates bad times.
Bad times creates capitalism.
Capitalism creates good times.
Good times creates communism.
And here we are
Yes when society becomes overly spoiled and lazy such as ours today.