Youtube seems to hate Part5... both on my account and other's that have uploaded it to their account. I have uploaded another copy with audio to my account, with sound so please go check it out.
Laws exist to protect people, it's that simple, there is no "transcendent" purpose. You're making it sound like there's some holy philosophical purpose behind laws. They exist for one reason- to protect (and therefore restrict) people.
CARPENTER, Luiz. F. is from whom I translated "right is amoral" from his book "Da Prescrição" 3. ed. 1958 , v.1. p. 287. Perhaps you want to know where I got it from.
Groups are more than simply many individuals together. A forest is a group of trees that holds a whole ecosistem, it is ashelter to many things other than the trees, things such as animals, other plants, even primitive human groups.
Many people have things that transcends each inividual, "Unity makes strenght" - Culture, or independece, those are more than individual rights, those are collective ones. (public) Education is not individual, its collective, and so is (public) health care.
And neither education nor health care are RIGHTS. They are PRIVILEGES.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that a group is only comprised of individuals who have rights? The group itself CANNOT have rights. It doesn't have responsibilities or a conscience and doesn't own anything- only the individuals in the group have these characteristics, and only they can have rights.
Do you defend HUMAN RIGHTS? Well comrade, minimum health standarts and quality education are in the declaration of huaman rights along with live, liberty and property. You have swallowed propaganda and learned to like it, but health care and education are rights too.
You prove yourself very dogmatic: "group itself CANNOT have rights", but i will answer it a very simple way: Doesn't a nation (group) have the right for indepedence?
I got it, you don't want to be called comrade, but yelling is not a very respectfull act, oh and by the way, in portuguese, "comrade" is actually CAMARADA, google translator I bet...
The "declaration of human rights" is a joke, written by people who have no concept what a right really is. Health care and education are not rights- no one is entitled to them because of their existence (unlike life, liberty and property ownership rights).
The "right" of independence is just an extension of the INDIVIDUAL right of self-defense. A nation cannot do what its people don't want it to (for long). The people grant the nation power- therefore, by definition, privileges (not rights)
Right is neither moral or imoral its is Amoral, rights are related to laws and the true definition of rights is what is assured by a law. Laws can be moral or imoral, thus rights are amoral, to claim they are transcendental things is naive because law is not a transcendental.
If a law allows slavery, then it is one's rights to buy and sell slaves. This actually existed one the USA of the "founding fathers".
Your "definition" of rights tells me that you, like the UN, have no clue what a right truly consists of.
A right CAN be related to law, but does not have to be. There is no law that says "I have the right to breathe air" but I do. It's an extension of the right to life (and, it could be argued, liberty as well). A right is defined by ownership of property (I keep having to repeat this to you), and natural rights (the ones that are inherent) are both inalienable (including by law) and intrinsic
If this is a right, then all animals have it, but you had said yourself that animals have no rights, thus this is not a right, but a natural feature animals share, not related to rights. But required to them.
A law assures us our right to life (including its conditions such as to breathe), and tries to forbid shackes (liberty is the inexistence of shackles) in some aspects, it is also the what assures property, despite the fact property is not natural.
Nice try, but your logic is faulty. Rights also imply responsibilities, and since animals have no responsibilities, they can have no rights.
Having the ability to do something doesn't make it a right. I have the ability to pull a trigger and kill someone, but that isn't a right that I possess.
Property IS natural to the extent that you and I own our bodies and minds! That's why I keep reminding you that property is not only material.
Laws may PROTECT rights but they do not GRANT rights.
Responsibilities, duties are the exact opposite to rights, and either way, there is no responsibilities associated with to breathe. Property also reduces one's responsibilities on its own way: Rich often have to work less than poor, they may recive stimulus or so what, there is no "natural responsibility" related to property.
Property refers to material things other than your body. You can't sell your life, you can't your freedom, you can't sell your mind.
No sir, they are not opposites at all -they are the "flip side of the same coin". Rights IMPLY responsibilities.
There are responsibilities with breathing- I have the right to breathe air, but I have the responsibility to not destroy the air for others as much as I can. I have the right to pursue a means of happiness, but the responsibility to not step on others in the process.
Property is anything I own, plain and simple, including my thoughts. How can property REDUCE responsibilities at all?
I agree. Education and health care are privledges. We agree on this.
So why do we HAVE to give people education and HAVE to give people health care as Socialist and Communist believe?
The entire last paragraph seems to agree with what I am saying, so I am not sure what to say to that.
Yes, people have rights. We have the right to speak, practice religion as we see fit, protect ourselves, the right to private property, the right to innocence until proven guilty... etc.
We don't. Communist and Socialist thought doesn't embrace the same concept of "rights" as individualists do in general, especially those who are educated on the concept of what a right really is.
Should I even argue this? Sure, why not... There are more than individual trees in a forest. No, there is not. A forest is made of trees. A forest is not comprised of a ecosystem, animals, or other plants.
you are talking about the functions and external participants in a forest, not the forest itself. We cannot cather a bunch of dogs, cats, plants, and primative human groups and call it a forest, can we?
A forest is also made of trees, but has actually things that compose it other than trees. Bushes, grass, etc. Actually, tree is not a very precise exemple of individual, because there are many different trees in the same forest.
You belive things are simple, possible to be expressed in a line, but nature is more complex man. Things cannot be stripped down to so easily.
Forests are biomes, far more than a simple group of equal trees.
Concepts that define a political theory MUST be able to be stripped to their bare essentials, which must be coherent, simple and easy to understand. I'm sure you've been asked to simplify Marxist theory into a few sentences, yes? Same concept here. It doesn't have to be all complicated and complex, and you're making it out to be more than it really it.
Viewed in the context of individualism vs. collectivism, which is the context that the author intends, the videos make perfect sense.
Transcends each individual? Check it out. Collectivism goes, "you are black, therefore you are an african american." Individualism says, "you are black, so what?"
I can CHOOSE to participate in a culture just like I can CHOOSE to participate in a group. Just because I am part of a group does not mean that I am a collectivist.
And what about puclib education and public health care? Again, so because I went to school with kids my age, I was a collectivist?
I find very funny that the "individualsist" define what collectivists think... You have called your theory the "true debate of our time", started developed and concluded it by yourselves!
I guess you don't seem to acept as a possiblity that I as a "collectivist" can disagree with what you claim "collectivists" agree.
Stalinists and Trotskists both disagree about a lot, and both are "collectivists".
But if you want to belive religiously in those teories, I guess I can do nothing.
Of course it's possible to disagree within a political spectrum and within a political theory. To say otherwise is absurd. But it is precisely our INDIVIDUAL differences which allow us to disagree in the first place!
It's not about religious belief, it is about rigorous examination of belief systems and political theories. The collectivist core value is equality of results, whereas the individualist counts equality under law and opportunity as the paramount values. Fundamental differences.
Any political spectrum that tries to simplifie politics in a line or plane is incomplete. To fully polarize politics is simply worng there is far more than "individualism and collectivism" how hard is it to accept that ideologies whitin those groups disagree on what should be done? A stupid maniqueist view is a consequence of this naive simplification.
If you saked me to make a political spectrum I'd have to use 5 or 6 criterias to represent it with some coherence, you try to make it with one!
Of course it's incomplete. Did anyone try to claim otherwise?!?
That doesn't make it "simply wrong", however, it only means it is not a complete model. The videos never claimed to be comprehensive views of politics- they are viewing political views from a simplistic spectrum of "individualism vs collectivism", and they do so quite well.
You are acting as if one needs to obtain a PhD to understand politics- it's simply untrue.
"The research of Mr. Edward G Griffin reveals how all viewpoints can be stripped down to 2 basic positions."
This sounds like a polarization to me, this sounds like a generalization to me, this seems to claim that there are ONLY 2 opposing ideologies...
This dichotomy is simply worng due its simplifications, but also due its very naive attempt on polarizing ideas and making generalization about gorups that disagree.
Stalin vs Trotsky, Marx vs Bakunin, "collectivsts" disagree on what to do!
Okay, let me give you a parallel- Marx' own viewpoints can be stripped down to a dichotomy as well- that of the wealthy and poor, or the bourgeois vs. proletariat, etc. In fact, Marx himself said this "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
Isn't this exactly what you're talking about? Generalization? It's done for simplification and easy understanding, that's all.
The disagreement may be on what to do, but the causes and basics are agreed upon.
By that I mean that while Trosky and Stalin may disagree on TACTICS, the STRATEGY is identical- overthrow those in charge, dictatorship of the proletariat, and eventually utopian communism is the result. The core values are also the same- workers are exploited, the state exists to benefit the wealthy and will be eventually abolished, the GROUP is more important than the INDIVIDUAL, rights are granted by the state which is all powerful (state in this instance is the "public"), etc.
No, the Core vaules are not the same. Orthodox marxists defend the ownership over the means of production BY the workers, not by the state, they defend dictatorship of the proletarium, not the dictatorship of a party or of a man. Stalinists may claim they are defending communism, but they are not. You may simplifie things and make them look similar, but they are not. Collectvists don't agree on what they should do.
That's what I said- dictatorship of the proletariat. Did you read what I posted? You're trying to be distinct from other collectivists but the CORE values are identical. CORE VALUES, not tactics. Read again.
This is infraestructural ! A core distiction, not a mere tatic. The economical system each "collectivist" ideology defends is fundamentally different. Workers direct ownership vs state absolute ownership. This determines completely different super-structures.
Either way, the generalization this dichotomy presents also refers to autority, one thing nearly all collectivists disagree.
Man you are really reaching now. It's clear that either you don't understand what I'm saying, or you're desperately clutching at straws. Either way, I'm done trying to explain.
I will leave you with this quote: "The measure of a country can be determined by how many people are trying to enter and leave it."
How many people just can't wait to get into communist or socialist countries? Contrast that with how many people try to get into the US?
@paolung If China or Russia will change immigration law in the same manner like America, they also will be flooded with unqualified workers who try to enter their country.
This statement Marx wrote in the communist manifesto (which has around 30 pages) is a simplification (obviously), but what Marx means with it is that wherever and whenever there are classes, there shall be class struggles. This is a consequence of the very existence of classes.
Marx, studied the capitalist society he lived in, this society is composed by two classes, but politics are far more complex than a line.
Of course it it's not just a line, there are varying degrees and many factors in politics. You are not seeing the point I made, which is that even Marx himself could strip down views to a dichotomy. No one said it was a complete and comprehensive view of the world, just that it was valid.
Here is an exemple on why is this dichotomy is wrong: Fascists vs Communists: They disagree absolutelly on the core vaules and goals! Fascism don't want dictatorship of the proletarium, it is its opposite. Communism don't aims a party's dictatroship, etc.
Again, you're not seeing the same thing. The core values of facism are complete glorification and power of the state over individuals, aggressive militarism, and elitism. Sound familiar? Sounds like every communist country ever attempted.
No, the goals are not the same, not even in teory. Take a look at the communards, socialists of the commune de paris, had it anything to do with a powerfull and agressive state?
Besides, the distorcions that hapenned in the communist contries are NOT the goals of communism, here it is clear that collectivists disagree on goals. A classless society is certainly not a gooa of fascism neither of capitalism.
You think English Imperialism was individualism? That explains a lot. Why do you suppose we fought a revolution and kicked the Brits out? Because they were Collectivist, and we wanted to start an Individualist nation. Don't forget, America "was" a colony of the British. The Central Bank that now rules us is no differant than the same one who ruled us before the revolution. The Bank of England, the ultimate Collectivist manifestation. Until you learn this, you'll always be in dream land.
I'd like to make you aware about one FACT on capitalism (imperialism): During the brithish colonization of India, ONLY during the reign of Queen Victoria, 30-40 MILLION people died of hunger, and yet India exported food! This is the market generating profit DESPITE the mizery of thousands.
Don't blind yourself comrade, this are facts, THAT is capitalism (at least the real one).
So what if some parts of India exported food? Are you implying that those parts CAUSED the starvation of other parts of the country? As if because I choose to sell insurance to someone, it's my fault someone else dies because they don't have it? What kind of crazy argument is that?
No, it was not the expotation, but the gaps and unequality, the terrible differences between rich and poor, the poor distribution, the over concentration, etc.
But either way, 30-40 million died during the government of 1 british queen, NEVER regarded as a mass-murderer...
THIS is a simple and plain fact, millions died DUE colonization: before it there was no utopia, but with it things got worse for MANY people.
Let's see... there were 14 famines (killing millions) between 11th and 17th centuries. This is BEFORE colonization happened.
The reality is that Indian agriculture depends heavily on Indian climate and a favorable southwest summer monsoon is critical in securing water for irrigating Indian crops. Without this, there is famine in India.
The famines that happened under British colonization/rule were a combination of drought/weather and some bad British policies, this is true.However, if you do
(cont) ... your research you will see that the British did try to stop the famines and became successfully better at dealing with them- not as a result of communism or marxist philosophy, either.
This is in stark contrast to the policies of Mao and Stalin and even Kim Jong Il who allowed millions to starve purposefully while keeping the grain locked away for political reasons!
I did not defend any of those red-fascists, either way, the english profited a lot form the inequality they amplified in India. Regardless of what they were defending they were not socialists, but imperialists, imperialism socialism stands against since its beging.
The modern impires caused and amplified previous existent problems in the whole world, supported dictatorships or took political power, would even cause the World wars! This is the real capitalism, then and now!
That doesn't make any sense. Capitalist nations have given more and helped more than any other countries that have ever existed, because they create wealth and voluntarily give it to others. Sure, there are some "bad apples" out there. So what? It wasn't because of capitalism that the inequality was amplified.
Poor (capitalist) countries lose over 2 billion a day to rich (capitalist) ones due unfair trade agreements, many created by WTO (capitalist) itself, 14 times more than they recieve in aid.
Isn't capitalism so humane?
I live in a capialist country and it sucks! You only know your nuttshel and the propaganda you have been told your whole life.
In any country that has ever even attempted a communist way of life, you wouldn't even be able to complain about how much anything sucks. Your ability to post on Youtube here has been brought to you by the dreaded capitalism.
So, your argument is that capitalism is unfair because countries signed voluntary agreements that may not necessarily be in their favor? How is this related to capitalism again? And what's unfair about voluntary agreements?
"So, your argument is that capitalism is unfair because countries signed voluntary agreements that may not necessarily be in their favor? How is this related to capitalism again? And what's unfair about voluntary agreements?" QFT!
Im aware Stlin and Hitler had nothing to do with your Utopia. But thats the problem isnt it? WIthout proper safeguards to stave off such men, your dream land will always be taken over, reshaped, and unleashed by such men. It is a weak system. That is why its best example in history lasted sixty days before being dismantled.
Actually, while being simplistic, it does a pretty good job of exposing the underlying concepts and ideologies between the contrasts of individualism and collectivism.
Where has collectivism actually IMPROVED the lives of citizens over along period of time? It's responsible for over a hundred million deaths, more than all wars combined! How has it HELPED any society in the long run?
Strikes are not necessarily communist-aligned- the Solidarity strike in Poland was AGAINST communism and won.
Strikes are made up of individuals, that's what you're not seeing. In fact, solidarity between those INDIVIDUALS is PARAMOUNT to a strike being effective. If even a few individuals defect, the strike can easily dissolve. People (individuals) have to CHOOSE to work together, or the "group" (again, comprised of INDIVIDUALS) has no effect.
Not necessarily, but MANY were (also by socialists, anarchists, and other "collectivists") and this is collectivism bringing a good standart of living to people.
Strikes are made by groups, if one single person makes a strike, he is fired. Groups are more than simply many individuals, "unity makes strenght", toguether they have things individuals don't have.
The strikes were made by the working class, for the working class. People gained rights not only for them but for us as well.
Groups are an abstract concept of many individuals. The individuals choose to work together in a group, or the group does not function at all. The perceived strength in a group is merely the result of many individuals choosing to work in harmony towards common goals.
The difference here is that in collectivism, the concept is that the group OUTWEIGHS the individual. In collectivist thought, individuals can be sacrificed against their will to benefit the group. Strikes don't work in this way!
No, it's a generalization that is completely correct. When you strip individuals of (exercising) their rights by stripping them of their property, it ALWAYS leads to sacrificing individuals for "groups". Always has, always will. Look at history.
This applies to ANY political system, by the way, not just communism or a republic or democracy. That's why a republic is important because it strives to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. When individuals are protected the group is never paramount.
"FYI, the 1st to defend equal rights to women were socialists, communists and anarchists, ALL "collectivists". "
IF this is true, which I don't know, it doesn't prove anything. It's like saying "the first people to defend the right to freedom of the press and speech were classical liberals"
So what? Doesn't prove anything except the statement made.
It demonstrates that the dichotomy is neither absolute nor correct. WE simply cannot strip down politics to a line, it is FAR more complex and any attempt to simplifie it is a naive attempt. Anarchists and Stalinists are both collectivist, but are nearly opposing! Fascism and Trotskism would both be called such as well, but are opposing ideas!
You listen to this man's teory as many listen to the priest's words about the Holy Bible...
Man, generalizations are nearly always wrong. Marx would be called a "collectivist" and yet defends individual rights, "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".
Your faith on one's ideas blind you, this dichotomy is Ed. Griffin's, it is not a eternal or absolute truth as you seem to belive.
PeacefulKancer, I have here a quote from the communist manifesto that question this ridiculous dicotomy (individualism vs collectivism) who many blindly belive. I find funny one person would alone start develop and conclude the "true debate of our time".
"In place of the old bourgois society (...) there shall be an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"
This is communism (collectivist) and respect individual rights!
All forms of collectivism require a strong central planning organization to keep things "fair." They are in charge of distrubting wealth, food, goods & services. It is too much power for one group to have, and will always become corrupt, no matter how much you use "All Caps" to scream your denial about your totalitarianistic system of oppressive government.
Governments are power hungry. They eat liberty. And when the liberty runs out, they will eat people to survive.
All Americas have equal rights... our reps are elected and "removable" by the people... as they are about to find out. Yet we still had corrpution sneak back in, in the form of a central bank. Collectivism. The slavery and sexism you are refering to were by-products of the middle ages and the British colonial empire which it took time to be rid of. The US Constitution, before being stolen by the collectivists... put in place the tools for equality and the protection of individual rights.
Only in an Oligarchy can individual rights be stolen. destruction of the dollar forces people to rely on the gov because they cannot afford the neccesities of life any longer, and are forced to pool money and get insurance.. which neccesitates the gov to legislate behavior for group fairness. That leads to oppressive government.
Each time Marxism has been tried, the lack of safe-guards against corruption has led to mass graves and delightful personalities like Stalin and Hitler.
"Each time Marxism has been tried, the lack of safe-guards against corruption has led to mass graves and delightful personalities like Stalin and Hitler."
Comrade, Hitler was OPENLY anti-marxist and anti-communist ! The "national socialism" has only 1 socialist carracteristic: its name and speech !
About Stalin, take a look at Marx on Communism from "Marx in Soho" play, actually take a look on all videos from the play.
Today perhaps... equal rigths? Do you know the USA of the founding fathers? The one with slavery? That in which women had no rights (until the 1st world war)? That in which there was reacial segregation and legal racism (until Martin Luter King) ?
You blind yourself on your belifs! Much of those weren't consequece of governments and actually LAWS (made by governments) were needed to end them (there are some places in which they have not).
You must be referring to the same USA that grew in wealth and prosperity faster than any other nation in history and now helps and aids more other countries than any other nation that has ever existed. The same USA that eventually abolished slavery and recognized women's and minority rights (yes, we didn't have them in the 18th/19th century, but no one else did either!)
No one claims the USA is flawless with no mistakes. We just didn't kill 100 million for "progress" like communism did.
The Commune de Paris was surelly socialist, collectivist and is one of the least autoritarian "goverments" ever existed.
The problem with the poor fools that belive this near maniqueist dicotomy is, besides the manipulation of definitions, that they use words such as ALL, NONE, ONLY, etc. Having a very poor understanding on politics once they evauluate things based on 1 single criteria. They still claim it is "the true debate of our time" which they started, developed and concluded alone!
Communism CANNOT respect individual rights by definition! Rights derive from property ownership. The question of rights can always be resolved by asking, "who owns it?"
If it is MY house, I decide who can be there. Why? Because it's MY house. I have the right. If it's MY body, I decide what to do with it, it's MINE.
Communism wants to abolish ownership of private property. Without property, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. That's why communism CANNOT respect individual rights- government owns everything!
Rights are NOT property, your freedom is not a commodity tobe both and sold in the market, neither is your life, nor your rights to health care, free education (HUMAN RIGHTS), etc..
Property is property, ok, but is not required to have other rights! The poorest, having nothing but his hunger to satisfie, can be free. Animals are free and have no property (their law is the strongest law).
You misuderstand rights comrade, even without property rights there may be other rights.
Secondly, you're the one misunderstanding the concept of rights here- rights are inextricably linked to property, and are intrinsic.
The "poorest", in your example, of course has rights. The rights to his own life, liberty, and property, like everyone He does NOT have the "right" to other people's life, liberty or property! I don't have a "right" to YOUR food, it's YOURS. I don't have a right to YOUR health care or educational services, they are YOURS
Ok, not rights to animals, but they are free wihtout property AND the human being is an animal.
Rights are not related necessairly to property, you can understand it this way, but "rights is amoral" niether moral or imoral, people agree about what rights people will have.
Freedom is not a commodity ! Neither is your life ! You can't sell your freedom for someone in jail (anthietic), neither can you sell your life to someone dieing (biologically impossible).
You are correct about rights being intrinsic- true rights cannot be taken away from anyone. They can be voluntarily restricted, or prevented from being exercised.
However, rights ARE linked to property. You are restricting your thinking to material things only- I'm referring to ALL ownership (including owning your own body/mind etc). In this manner, any question of rights can be resolved by asking "who owns the property in question?"
You CAN sell (your) freedom, this is a contract by which
I can sell my freedom? A rich person is in jail and then I sell him my freedom, so I take his place and he will go free? Or I sell my freedom to a person and become his slave? You can't sell it, under any ethical sistem.
Freedom is inexistence if shackles, you can't sell an inexistence, you can only take shackles. The point is how to remove them? Are they phisical ones, they may well be ideological ones.
You took those shackles and belive you are free! Remember the Plato's cave comrade.
@MS: I think you are the one living in Plato's cave.
You are the one who watches the government dance around behind you promising you this and that and believing it all. You ignore human psychology and believe in a human utopia.
With that said, you are the one that cannot see the problems that government creates. You are blind to this because you are the one that is shackled in the cave.
I don't know about others here, but I don't appreciate being called "comrade." I am not a Communist.
For sure both we are in our different caves comrade, but you think you're not.
I don't belive the government, the polititians, for me the people should take absolute control of the government and form a commune, like the one in PAris 1871. I don't belive yours and mine bourgois government, don't worry.
I guess I am not as shackled as you because I KNOW I am shackled while you belive to be free in many aspects your simply not.
One last... the only reason that the commune de Paris did not abuse power was because it didn't have time to do so. It generally takes more than 60 days for the special interests to begin digging their claws in. If you are delusional enough to think it would have remained corruption free, I urge you to look at American Labor Unions. These are some of the most corrupt institutions on earth, and resemble what the French did in many ways.
The commune's ELLECTED members were not permanent and were REMOVABLE by the people. There WEOMEN HAD EQUAL RIGHTS! In your illusion about individualism and capitalism, there simply was NOT! Women would have rights after the 1st world war, and racial segregation would end even later..
THIS IS NOT A FAIR SYSTEM, NEITHER IS IT A DEMOCRACY NOR A REPUBLIC!
OVER 50% OF THE PEOPLE HAD NO RIGHTS!
Comrade, socialism would defend the rights you claim it stands against. We have rghts despite capitalism
@MS: You need to calm down and realize that Socialism and Communism do not work. As Magwan77 said, it didn't even have time to abuse power or corrupt, so quit spouting your bologna.
Ill point out again, America is no longer individualist. This died with the Federal Reserve Act, which cemented the collectivists' stranglehold on America.
I encourage you to watch part 3 of Zeitgeist the movie if you do not believe me. It is a good introduction to the death of individualism in America. This system is not being practiced anywhere in the world today, which is why we have stagnated and grown poorer and less stable world wide.
The commune de Paris lasted only two monthes. While it had some individualist ideas, the welfair and wealth redistribution would have bankrupted it eventually. You cannot cling to a system that couldn't even go three monthes as an example of the sucess of Marxism.
The poor in an individualistic society "do" choose to be poor. Here, if they wish to improve their lives, they simply need to work harder, smarter, or longer in order to rise above. Poverty is their own fault if they do not.
Under siege ANY system bankrupts, and the commune, even under siege achieved things no "individualist" society had even achieved. Things such as equal rights to women and to foreigners, or "diferent races". This the USA so called "land of the free" had not SINCE its very begining!
No, the commune is not an exemple of the success of marxism, but of success of socialism. Marxism was yet being developed back then, Marx was influenciated by it.
OK MarxistStudant, I am getting lost in your broken English.
This is what I want you to do. I want you to tell me how an ideal [Marxist] society would work. Who would do what? What government would look like, if any? Etc.
I am sorry I don't know your language that well, but I guess you don't know mine either, so lets go on.
For Marx, the people should have control of the government, by taking part on it. They should decide collectivelly the laws, rules, education, health care, etc.
All being part of the government, the rulling class (always a minority) would lose gradually the power it has over the others. A classless society would be approaching.
So, in effect one does not get to choose what they do with their life and instead has to be employed in whatever careers best suits their abilities or talents? Sounds like fun. Sorry, I'll take freedom instead, thank you though.
People have many skills and abilities, therefore could chose among various jobs, the important is that all his work's results goes either to himself (according to his needs) and to the common good of the society (according to his abilities).
People would be free, why not? Marxist communism hasn't even a government to supress freedom.
PS: The soviet union claimed to be marxist and communist, but following marx definitions, weren't even socialists.
What if since I'm "selfish" I refuse to let the fruits of my labor be taken from me and given to those who did not earn them?What if I leave the country for somewhere else where I know I have the ability to take care of myself without the help of others? What if all of those with "ability" do the same thing? Call it a "strike".
1st: In capitalism this already happens to you comrade, it is called "surplus-vaule".
2nd: Communism would be as global as capitalism is today.
3rd: In all societies people live toguether. You may no need others to earn your money, but alone (in a jungle) you'd starve.
4th: Those with ability would have their wages increased and much more quality publi benefits such as education, health, security, etc. They have a world to win and nothing to lose. They would do the revolution.
What will all of "those with need" do when "those with ability" are no longer available to be sacrificed for "the greater good"? Would you rather have a minority of "have-nots" or a whole country of "have-nothings"? Who is John Galt?
Comrade, I guess you didn't get the idea. All of us have needs and all of us have abilities (Blind people have greater needs than regular ones, we all have nececity for culture, literacy, food, health, etc). All of us need life (even in order to use our abilities) and for Marx "death penality cannot be justified in any place".
None would be killed for the greater good (after the stablishment of the new society) you would have a world without "have-nots" and "have-nothings".
Collectivism fails because power corrupts. Marxism centralizes power, giving too much to one group. The beuracrat. The Government. Tyranny follows. Only in centralized power is a dictator like Stalin possible.. Inevitable.
Power spread thin, as in individualism, is the only defense against totalitariansim.
The rare failures of individualism are measured in brief economic downturns.
The inevitable failures of collectivism are measured in mass graves & death of progress.
Collectivism... take a look at Marx form his manifesto:
"In place of the old bourgois society (...) there shall have an association in with the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"
Is it autoritarian? What about this:
"Death penality cannot be justified in ANY society calling people similar"
You misunderstand marxism and stalinism.
Individualists have made terrors hard to be possibly tolerated. (cont.)
In Latin America, the USA has made interventions nearly since its independence, instaling dictatorships, puppet govt, defending "national intersses", etc.
If you want a good exemple of socialism, take a look at the commune de paris, you'll find how the capitalists (individualists) displayed much tolerance there.
Besides, this whole dichotomy is false. You can't just line up doctrines, and call good guys and bad guys. Proff: "collectivist" Bakunin and Marx.
The USA is not individualist, nor has it been since the Federal Rerserve usurped our nation and ruined the founder's visions with their banker elite Oligarcy. The main problem here is that people like you misunderstand what individualism is. What capitalism is. If you watched the video above and apply it to the current ruling classes the world over, you'll find that Individualism does not exist any longer. What we have now is the result of centralized power and collectivism.
Marxism is a pipe dream that cannot now or ever function because it attempts to change human nature into something it is not. If you take away people's ambition to improve their own lives by regulating their lives for them at the behest of the all-knowing legislator, all you will do is convince people to work only hard enough to avoid trouble. Only ambition and the ability to change your stars will drive people to innovate, progress and improve the world around them. A dream worth regaining.
Name one nation to adopt Marxis communism that didn't degenerate into a totalitarian Orwellion nightmare. How easy it is abuse power in such a system.
There will always be rich and poor because people are not equal. Some are smarter, some are wiser, some are ambitious, some are not.
People will always want to achieve more.
In an individualist society, a person is as rich or poor as he chooses to be. He or she has equal oppertunity to succeed. That is as close to equality as can be.
The commune de Paris follwed many aspects of Marxism, and did not abused power. They had a socialism that was more democratic than ANY other system in history AND had a "republic" once (for the 1st time in history) there was an ellected government in witch women had equal rights!!!
"a person is as rich or poor as he chooses to be"
You claim poor people are poor becuase they want? Man that was illarious...
Individualism vs collectivism is a false dichotomy, politics are far more complex than it.
i know waht individualism is or what it claims to be, but the fact is that this dicothomy is false. Your nation founders... they weren't cherubins, some had slaves of their own. Either way I its nice to see individualist defines what collectivists think... If you want, I may send you a PM with my toughts on hierarchy of rights, etc. any thing you may be curious about...
"What we have now is the result of centralized power..." more of the capitalist coprporations than collectivists...
But to control the formal government isn't enought: They must control the hole society! The ownership of all the means of production, distribution, and services (hospitals, colleges) would get out of the hands of the bourgoisie, and start to be controled by either the workers (should it be small), or by the government (should it be large).
*** Remeber: the government isn't a dictatorship of a party, and isn't the dictatorship of a man.
This way, the rulled class of capitalism would become the only class in the Marxist socialism, while the bourgoisie would have to either become part of the working class, or be fought in case of resistance. (fight doesn't mean viollence. e.g. Gandhi fought the imperialism);
But the bouurgoisie is the opressor in capitalism and guilty for all its injustices, having almost no condition of being defended peacifully, they'd probably defend themselves with violence.
Then, probably a reaction to the new government should appear, the new government has this other function as well: defeat the counter-revolution.
We have yet another problem: The evil parts of capitalism (exploitation, materialism, unequalty) boosts it, making it impossible for a true democracy to survive in this "capitalist jungle".
This gives our fellow countryman, and their government, a new task: To Be Global.
And in order to do so, they'd need to spread this revolution arround the world. (as Trotsky defended)
The task of this government is to also assure that around the world people take control over their government:
Lets say France becomes Socialist (following the Marxist definitions), it would be one of their dutties to help the working classes of Germany (just an exemple) to take control over their governments.
Installed this democracy in another contry there are other steps to be taken.
But workers of the world: We are all equals. Nationalities, races, thoses are unnatural definitons that seeks to keep humanity from union.
No more borders. For marx there should be a great nation of free people of a classless sistem. Taking care of each other, all being part of the government, not voting, but debating, discussing, oging to the streets.
A new world would be approating, a classless and countriless world. All brothers as human beings. Their ideals would have to be global ideals, international ideals:
"We don't want equalty in France, or in the USA. We want it for the hole world!"
Once global, the government, of witch all participate, would bring the world to equalty, to education, to understanding, to an assossiation in witch:
"the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"
All that you have described is what we call a utopia. It is a utopia because what is described is obtainable in theory but is not obtainable in real life. It is not obtainable in real life because we are dealing with multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, and unique individuals - not robots. In other words, it will not work because we are all born individuals.
And then with the gradual progress of this egualitarian society, the gradual achievement of a world in witch all are equal, in witch the world is healed from materialism, they reach Communism.
As socialism is converted in communism, government itself becomes unnecessary, and gradually disapears. Once it is gone, the world has reached the perfect society (for MArx).
*People must be changed to achieve this, they must abandon materialism, etc.
Finally, I must remark that, for Marx, no other socialist experience (except the commune the Paris) was trully socialist, and no "communist" experience was indeed communist.
The closest society to communism in history were:
-American indians;
-gentilis in ancient grece (not sure of spelling);
-Didn't have a complete sientific base, as Marx gives to socialism;
But it was quitte good:
-True democracy;
-Proletarium rulled everything;
About the indians, their chiefes were closer to their people than our presidents are to ourselfs, but they had no private property and govenment was very weak, they were close to communism. (Marx calls it primitive communism)
You must review fully your definitions Mr. brainwashed...
Communism (marx) has no government;
Socialism (marx) isn't autoritary;
The individual right must be limitated by the individual rights of all the other persons. If you allow one to have too much rights he'll be a individualist tyran:
Marx profed that any class sistem has class struggle. A sistem without it must be a classless sistem.
Nazism means national socialism, but they act as capitalist, fascists, but racist. Their party's name is their only socialst caracteristic.
Communism, following Marx's definitions, has no government., and socialism is an association in witch the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all (classlessly), not autoritarism, Marx is against tyrans.
Marx said no class system, yet he is the one that is classifying people as bourgeoise, petite bourgeoise, and lumpenproletariat. Laughable.
Communism is no government? So why is it that your beloved Paris Commune was setting up laws/rules/decrees? Again, laughable.
So no classes, eh? So just go into work and do whatever you want. After all, if you have a "boss" then that puts them in a higher "class" then you right? Again, laughable.
If one has absolute freedom, he has freedom over other's life. Absolute freedom of one leads to his tyrany. The rights of the individual must not go farer than the individual himself, or you'll have tyrany.
Bourgoisie has rights over the workers production, workers have no rights over the bourgois production, The bourgois exerces tyrany (softtly, but exerces netherless).
And the only thing worse than a collectivist tyrany is an individualist tyrany.
OK, so let me get this straight. "Tyranny" is here to stay.
And secondly, you just said that "Communism... has no government" and now you are saying that the rights must not go farther than himself. So whatever that means... but my question is, how are you going to enforce these rights if there is no government?
Following Marx, by the association of all the working class, they'd stablish a temporary government of the proletariate.
NOT the government of a party, and for god sake, NOT the government of one man.
Allowing people to be free to develop themselves as human beings. Until they don't need private property to live together, and in such evolution, government itself wouldn't be necessary, and then it should be eliminated.
About rights, you must have rights only over yourself, not over others.
So in this utopia, everyone has nothing? I don't have a house that is all mine - anyone can come in and sleep on my bed. After all, it is not my bed, it is humanity's bed.
Marx defend that the true Democracy, installed by the proletarium, should lead the world to a society that would learn to live without property. Property over companies, means of production, distribution, services, knoledge, nature, tools, etc. Other "properties" can be tolerated as long as they don't hurt equalty: One can only have a house, should his ownership over it doesn't costs the ownership of another's to a similar house.
"A" cant have rights over "B", and B, by his work, generates vaule that belongs to him. A can't have neither rights over what B produces nor over the services B does.
Don't use poor exemples to "prove" this worng:
Before the industrial revolution, the worker had the knoledge, the means, and the tools of his own work. After it he lost all to the bourgois, "A" stole from "B".
Giving back part of what he stole isn't charity, I'd be his obligation to give all back.
And whatever B does cannot be interfered with by A.
And yeah, they did their own thing before the industrial revolution, as soon as the king told them what to do. They also dug deep holes and took poops in them. Should we go back to that system too?
I didn't defended the sistem, but a part of it: the control the worker had over his own work (despite tributes to his lord).
Today along with the tribute to his lord (bourgoisie), he has neither the tools to work with, nor the knoledge on who to do it, not the means of how to produce it.
He gave it to the new lords, "A" must give "B" back what he took from them, not as charity, but as obligation.
No audio :\
BurkeLCH 3 weeks ago
I love this series, I have been trying to buy this DVD for some time, Can you point me in the right direction?
robertk1968 2 years ago
This is just a video someone made for youtube.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
still no sound 8(
VeritasAmantesVocat 2 years ago
Youtube seems to hate Part5... both on my account and other's that have uploaded it to their account. I have uploaded another copy with audio to my account, with sound so please go check it out.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
The "natural law" the "natural right" is the law of the jungle, the law of the strongest, it is not moral, nor imoral, it is amoral.
This is why we make laws, to transcend the wildreness, but in doing so, we often create another jungle, perhaps even worse.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Laws exist to protect people, it's that simple, there is no "transcendent" purpose. You're making it sound like there's some holy philosophical purpose behind laws. They exist for one reason- to protect (and therefore restrict) people.
paolung 2 years ago
CARPENTER, Luiz. F. is from whom I translated "right is amoral" from his book "Da Prescrição" 3. ed. 1958 , v.1. p. 287. Perhaps you want to know where I got it from.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
If all you collectivist disagree, then what kind of cohesive thought process is that?
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
I think it is pretty obvious that in MarxistStudant's world, there are no trees in a forest. A forest is a forest of which contains no trees.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
Groups are more than simply many individuals together. A forest is a group of trees that holds a whole ecosistem, it is ashelter to many things other than the trees, things such as animals, other plants, even primitive human groups.
Many people have things that transcends each inividual, "Unity makes strenght" - Culture, or independece, those are more than individual rights, those are collective ones. (public) Education is not individual, its collective, and so is (public) health care.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
And neither education nor health care are RIGHTS. They are PRIVILEGES.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that a group is only comprised of individuals who have rights? The group itself CANNOT have rights. It doesn't have responsibilities or a conscience and doesn't own anything- only the individuals in the group have these characteristics, and only they can have rights.
paolung 2 years ago
Do you defend HUMAN RIGHTS? Well comrade, minimum health standarts and quality education are in the declaration of huaman rights along with live, liberty and property. You have swallowed propaganda and learned to like it, but health care and education are rights too.
You prove yourself very dogmatic: "group itself CANNOT have rights", but i will answer it a very simple way: Doesn't a nation (group) have the right for indepedence?
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
@MS: Are you dense? I told you to not call me a "comrade" again. Let me say this explicitly.
DO NOT CALL ME "COMRADE." I AM NOT YOUR COMRADE AND NEVER WILL BE.
NÃO ME CHAME, COMRADE! EU NÃO SOU SEU COMRADE.
Got it? It is called RESPECT.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
I got it, you don't want to be called comrade, but yelling is not a very respectfull act, oh and by the way, in portuguese, "comrade" is actually CAMARADA, google translator I bet...
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Yes, do you have it?! I asked you once, maybe even twice to not call me Comrade. You continued.
So, to get your attention, I had to yell.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
The "declaration of human rights" is a joke, written by people who have no concept what a right really is. Health care and education are not rights- no one is entitled to them because of their existence (unlike life, liberty and property ownership rights).
The "right" of independence is just an extension of the INDIVIDUAL right of self-defense. A nation cannot do what its people don't want it to (for long). The people grant the nation power- therefore, by definition, privileges (not rights)
paolung 2 years ago
Right is neither moral or imoral its is Amoral, rights are related to laws and the true definition of rights is what is assured by a law. Laws can be moral or imoral, thus rights are amoral, to claim they are transcendental things is naive because law is not a transcendental.
If a law allows slavery, then it is one's rights to buy and sell slaves. This actually existed one the USA of the "founding fathers".
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Your "definition" of rights tells me that you, like the UN, have no clue what a right truly consists of.
A right CAN be related to law, but does not have to be. There is no law that says "I have the right to breathe air" but I do. It's an extension of the right to life (and, it could be argued, liberty as well). A right is defined by ownership of property (I keep having to repeat this to you), and natural rights (the ones that are inherent) are both inalienable (including by law) and intrinsic
paolung 2 years ago
"I have the right to breathe air"
If this is a right, then all animals have it, but you had said yourself that animals have no rights, thus this is not a right, but a natural feature animals share, not related to rights. But required to them.
A law assures us our right to life (including its conditions such as to breathe), and tries to forbid shackes (liberty is the inexistence of shackles) in some aspects, it is also the what assures property, despite the fact property is not natural.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Nice try, but your logic is faulty. Rights also imply responsibilities, and since animals have no responsibilities, they can have no rights.
Having the ability to do something doesn't make it a right. I have the ability to pull a trigger and kill someone, but that isn't a right that I possess.
Property IS natural to the extent that you and I own our bodies and minds! That's why I keep reminding you that property is not only material.
Laws may PROTECT rights but they do not GRANT rights.
paolung 2 years ago
Responsibilities, duties are the exact opposite to rights, and either way, there is no responsibilities associated with to breathe. Property also reduces one's responsibilities on its own way: Rich often have to work less than poor, they may recive stimulus or so what, there is no "natural responsibility" related to property.
Property refers to material things other than your body. You can't sell your life, you can't your freedom, you can't sell your mind.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
No sir, they are not opposites at all -they are the "flip side of the same coin". Rights IMPLY responsibilities.
There are responsibilities with breathing- I have the right to breathe air, but I have the responsibility to not destroy the air for others as much as I can. I have the right to pursue a means of happiness, but the responsibility to not step on others in the process.
Property is anything I own, plain and simple, including my thoughts. How can property REDUCE responsibilities at all?
paolung 2 years ago
I agree. Education and health care are privledges. We agree on this.
So why do we HAVE to give people education and HAVE to give people health care as Socialist and Communist believe?
The entire last paragraph seems to agree with what I am saying, so I am not sure what to say to that.
Yes, people have rights. We have the right to speak, practice religion as we see fit, protect ourselves, the right to private property, the right to innocence until proven guilty... etc.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
We don't. Communist and Socialist thought doesn't embrace the same concept of "rights" as individualists do in general, especially those who are educated on the concept of what a right really is.
paolung 2 years ago
Should I even argue this? Sure, why not... There are more than individual trees in a forest. No, there is not. A forest is made of trees. A forest is not comprised of a ecosystem, animals, or other plants.
you are talking about the functions and external participants in a forest, not the forest itself. We cannot cather a bunch of dogs, cats, plants, and primative human groups and call it a forest, can we?
Or is that what you think?
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
A forest is also made of trees, but has actually things that compose it other than trees. Bushes, grass, etc. Actually, tree is not a very precise exemple of individual, because there are many different trees in the same forest.
You belive things are simple, possible to be expressed in a line, but nature is more complex man. Things cannot be stripped down to so easily.
Forests are biomes, far more than a simple group of equal trees.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Concepts that define a political theory MUST be able to be stripped to their bare essentials, which must be coherent, simple and easy to understand. I'm sure you've been asked to simplify Marxist theory into a few sentences, yes? Same concept here. It doesn't have to be all complicated and complex, and you're making it out to be more than it really it.
Viewed in the context of individualism vs. collectivism, which is the context that the author intends, the videos make perfect sense.
paolung 2 years ago
Transcends each individual? Check it out. Collectivism goes, "you are black, therefore you are an african american." Individualism says, "you are black, so what?"
I can CHOOSE to participate in a culture just like I can CHOOSE to participate in a group. Just because I am part of a group does not mean that I am a collectivist.
And what about puclib education and public health care? Again, so because I went to school with kids my age, I was a collectivist?
Please explain.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
I find very funny that the "individualsist" define what collectivists think... You have called your theory the "true debate of our time", started developed and concluded it by yourselves!
I guess you don't seem to acept as a possiblity that I as a "collectivist" can disagree with what you claim "collectivists" agree.
Stalinists and Trotskists both disagree about a lot, and both are "collectivists".
But if you want to belive religiously in those teories, I guess I can do nothing.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Of course it's possible to disagree within a political spectrum and within a political theory. To say otherwise is absurd. But it is precisely our INDIVIDUAL differences which allow us to disagree in the first place!
It's not about religious belief, it is about rigorous examination of belief systems and political theories. The collectivist core value is equality of results, whereas the individualist counts equality under law and opportunity as the paramount values. Fundamental differences.
paolung 2 years ago
Any political spectrum that tries to simplifie politics in a line or plane is incomplete. To fully polarize politics is simply worng there is far more than "individualism and collectivism" how hard is it to accept that ideologies whitin those groups disagree on what should be done? A stupid maniqueist view is a consequence of this naive simplification.
If you saked me to make a political spectrum I'd have to use 5 or 6 criterias to represent it with some coherence, you try to make it with one!
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Of course it's incomplete. Did anyone try to claim otherwise?!?
That doesn't make it "simply wrong", however, it only means it is not a complete model. The videos never claimed to be comprehensive views of politics- they are viewing political views from a simplistic spectrum of "individualism vs collectivism", and they do so quite well.
You are acting as if one needs to obtain a PhD to understand politics- it's simply untrue.
paolung 2 years ago
"The research of Mr. Edward G Griffin reveals how all viewpoints can be stripped down to 2 basic positions."
This sounds like a polarization to me, this sounds like a generalization to me, this seems to claim that there are ONLY 2 opposing ideologies...
This dichotomy is simply worng due its simplifications, but also due its very naive attempt on polarizing ideas and making generalization about gorups that disagree.
Stalin vs Trotsky, Marx vs Bakunin, "collectivsts" disagree on what to do!
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Okay, let me give you a parallel- Marx' own viewpoints can be stripped down to a dichotomy as well- that of the wealthy and poor, or the bourgeois vs. proletariat, etc. In fact, Marx himself said this "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
Isn't this exactly what you're talking about? Generalization? It's done for simplification and easy understanding, that's all.
The disagreement may be on what to do, but the causes and basics are agreed upon.
paolung 2 years ago
By that I mean that while Trosky and Stalin may disagree on TACTICS, the STRATEGY is identical- overthrow those in charge, dictatorship of the proletariat, and eventually utopian communism is the result. The core values are also the same- workers are exploited, the state exists to benefit the wealthy and will be eventually abolished, the GROUP is more important than the INDIVIDUAL, rights are granted by the state which is all powerful (state in this instance is the "public"), etc.
Core = same
paolung 2 years ago
No, the Core vaules are not the same. Orthodox marxists defend the ownership over the means of production BY the workers, not by the state, they defend dictatorship of the proletarium, not the dictatorship of a party or of a man. Stalinists may claim they are defending communism, but they are not. You may simplifie things and make them look similar, but they are not. Collectvists don't agree on what they should do.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
That's what I said- dictatorship of the proletariat. Did you read what I posted? You're trying to be distinct from other collectivists but the CORE values are identical. CORE VALUES, not tactics. Read again.
paolung 2 years ago
Proletariat =!= Communist party,
This is infraestructural ! A core distiction, not a mere tatic. The economical system each "collectivist" ideology defends is fundamentally different. Workers direct ownership vs state absolute ownership. This determines completely different super-structures.
Either way, the generalization this dichotomy presents also refers to autority, one thing nearly all collectivists disagree.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Man you are really reaching now. It's clear that either you don't understand what I'm saying, or you're desperately clutching at straws. Either way, I'm done trying to explain.
I will leave you with this quote: "The measure of a country can be determined by how many people are trying to enter and leave it."
How many people just can't wait to get into communist or socialist countries? Contrast that with how many people try to get into the US?
It's not a coincidence...
paolung 2 years ago
@paolung If China or Russia will change immigration law in the same manner like America, they also will be flooded with unqualified workers who try to enter their country.
topverh 7 months ago
This statement Marx wrote in the communist manifesto (which has around 30 pages) is a simplification (obviously), but what Marx means with it is that wherever and whenever there are classes, there shall be class struggles. This is a consequence of the very existence of classes.
Marx, studied the capitalist society he lived in, this society is composed by two classes, but politics are far more complex than a line.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Of course it it's not just a line, there are varying degrees and many factors in politics. You are not seeing the point I made, which is that even Marx himself could strip down views to a dichotomy. No one said it was a complete and comprehensive view of the world, just that it was valid.
paolung 2 years ago
Here is an exemple on why is this dichotomy is wrong: Fascists vs Communists: They disagree absolutelly on the core vaules and goals! Fascism don't want dictatorship of the proletarium, it is its opposite. Communism don't aims a party's dictatroship, etc.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Again, you're not seeing the same thing. The core values of facism are complete glorification and power of the state over individuals, aggressive militarism, and elitism. Sound familiar? Sounds like every communist country ever attempted.
I wonder why that is...?
paolung 2 years ago
No, the goals are not the same, not even in teory. Take a look at the communards, socialists of the commune de paris, had it anything to do with a powerfull and agressive state?
Besides, the distorcions that hapenned in the communist contries are NOT the goals of communism, here it is clear that collectivists disagree on goals. A classless society is certainly not a gooa of fascism neither of capitalism.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
You think English Imperialism was individualism? That explains a lot. Why do you suppose we fought a revolution and kicked the Brits out? Because they were Collectivist, and we wanted to start an Individualist nation. Don't forget, America "was" a colony of the British. The Central Bank that now rules us is no differant than the same one who ruled us before the revolution. The Bank of England, the ultimate Collectivist manifestation. Until you learn this, you'll always be in dream land.
magwan77 2 years ago 2
I'd like to make you aware about one FACT on capitalism (imperialism): During the brithish colonization of India, ONLY during the reign of Queen Victoria, 30-40 MILLION people died of hunger, and yet India exported food! This is the market generating profit DESPITE the mizery of thousands.
Don't blind yourself comrade, this are facts, THAT is capitalism (at least the real one).
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
So what if some parts of India exported food? Are you implying that those parts CAUSED the starvation of other parts of the country? As if because I choose to sell insurance to someone, it's my fault someone else dies because they don't have it? What kind of crazy argument is that?
paolung 2 years ago
About India:
No, it was not the expotation, but the gaps and unequality, the terrible differences between rich and poor, the poor distribution, the over concentration, etc.
But either way, 30-40 million died during the government of 1 british queen, NEVER regarded as a mass-murderer...
THIS is a simple and plain fact, millions died DUE colonization: before it there was no utopia, but with it things got worse for MANY people.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Let's see... there were 14 famines (killing millions) between 11th and 17th centuries. This is BEFORE colonization happened.
The reality is that Indian agriculture depends heavily on Indian climate and a favorable southwest summer monsoon is critical in securing water for irrigating Indian crops. Without this, there is famine in India.
The famines that happened under British colonization/rule were a combination of drought/weather and some bad British policies, this is true.However, if you do
paolung 2 years ago
(cont) ... your research you will see that the British did try to stop the famines and became successfully better at dealing with them- not as a result of communism or marxist philosophy, either.
This is in stark contrast to the policies of Mao and Stalin and even Kim Jong Il who allowed millions to starve purposefully while keeping the grain locked away for political reasons!
paolung 2 years ago
I did not defend any of those red-fascists, either way, the english profited a lot form the inequality they amplified in India. Regardless of what they were defending they were not socialists, but imperialists, imperialism socialism stands against since its beging.
The modern impires caused and amplified previous existent problems in the whole world, supported dictatorships or took political power, would even cause the World wars! This is the real capitalism, then and now!
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
That doesn't make any sense. Capitalist nations have given more and helped more than any other countries that have ever existed, because they create wealth and voluntarily give it to others. Sure, there are some "bad apples" out there. So what? It wasn't because of capitalism that the inequality was amplified.
paolung 2 years ago
Poor (capitalist) countries lose over 2 billion a day to rich (capitalist) ones due unfair trade agreements, many created by WTO (capitalist) itself, 14 times more than they recieve in aid.
Isn't capitalism so humane?
I live in a capialist country and it sucks! You only know your nuttshel and the propaganda you have been told your whole life.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Please cite your sources for this information.
In any country that has ever even attempted a communist way of life, you wouldn't even be able to complain about how much anything sucks. Your ability to post on Youtube here has been brought to you by the dreaded capitalism.
So, your argument is that capitalism is unfair because countries signed voluntary agreements that may not necessarily be in their favor? How is this related to capitalism again? And what's unfair about voluntary agreements?
paolung 2 years ago
"So, your argument is that capitalism is unfair because countries signed voluntary agreements that may not necessarily be in their favor? How is this related to capitalism again? And what's unfair about voluntary agreements?" QFT!
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
Comrade, viewpoints simply cannot be stripped down to 2 basic positions as this ridiculous series openly claims!
There are many collectivists and many individualists, different and opposing inside each group!
While some collectivists are anarachists ("against all autority"), some are stalinists, and some are moderated.
You simpply CAN"T polarise ideas, they are more complex than dot on the line of collectivism vs individualism.
Please open you eyes!
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Keep drinking the Kool-aid mate.
Im aware Stlin and Hitler had nothing to do with your Utopia. But thats the problem isnt it? WIthout proper safeguards to stave off such men, your dream land will always be taken over, reshaped, and unleashed by such men. It is a weak system. That is why its best example in history lasted sixty days before being dismantled.
Keep dreaming. Ill be fighting for your freedom.
magwan77 2 years ago 2
But it may well last longer, that is why we study history comrade! Learn from the mistakes of the past in order not to commit them again!
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Actually, while being simplistic, it does a pretty good job of exposing the underlying concepts and ideologies between the contrasts of individualism and collectivism.
Where has collectivism actually IMPROVED the lives of citizens over along period of time? It's responsible for over a hundred million deaths, more than all wars combined! How has it HELPED any society in the long run?
paolung 2 years ago
This dichotomy is false, just like any other simplistic dichotomy, actually just like ANY dichotomy.
Here are a few exemples on "collectivism" improving peoples life:
Strikes and class struggle (many socialists and communist oriented) improved the standart of living EVERYWHERE, including in the USA.
The Commune de Paris, even Russia and Cuba (the people lived worse under the tzar and the US tiran than with the red fascism later installed).
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Strikes are not necessarily communist-aligned- the Solidarity strike in Poland was AGAINST communism and won.
Strikes are made up of individuals, that's what you're not seeing. In fact, solidarity between those INDIVIDUALS is PARAMOUNT to a strike being effective. If even a few individuals defect, the strike can easily dissolve. People (individuals) have to CHOOSE to work together, or the "group" (again, comprised of INDIVIDUALS) has no effect.
paolung 2 years ago
Not necessarily, but MANY were (also by socialists, anarchists, and other "collectivists") and this is collectivism bringing a good standart of living to people.
Strikes are made by groups, if one single person makes a strike, he is fired. Groups are more than simply many individuals, "unity makes strenght", toguether they have things individuals don't have.
The strikes were made by the working class, for the working class. People gained rights not only for them but for us as well.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Groups are an abstract concept of many individuals. The individuals choose to work together in a group, or the group does not function at all. The perceived strength in a group is merely the result of many individuals choosing to work in harmony towards common goals.
The difference here is that in collectivism, the concept is that the group OUTWEIGHS the individual. In collectivist thought, individuals can be sacrificed against their will to benefit the group. Strikes don't work in this way!
paolung 2 years ago
This is a generalization that is terrible false! Marx NEVER defended the sacrifice of individuals! In his own words, letter to the NY tribune:
"Capital punishment cannot be justified in ANY society calling people similar"
You see WHY is this ridiculous dichotomy simply WRONG? "Collectivists" don't think and defend what "individualists" CLAIM they do.
FYI, the 1st to defend equal rights to women were socialists, communists and anarchists, ALL "collectivists".
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
No, it's a generalization that is completely correct. When you strip individuals of (exercising) their rights by stripping them of their property, it ALWAYS leads to sacrificing individuals for "groups". Always has, always will. Look at history.
This applies to ANY political system, by the way, not just communism or a republic or democracy. That's why a republic is important because it strives to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. When individuals are protected the group is never paramount.
paolung 2 years ago
"FYI, the 1st to defend equal rights to women were socialists, communists and anarchists, ALL "collectivists". "
IF this is true, which I don't know, it doesn't prove anything. It's like saying "the first people to defend the right to freedom of the press and speech were classical liberals"
So what? Doesn't prove anything except the statement made.
paolung 2 years ago
@Paolung: It doesn't prove anything. The fact is that people - individuals - wanted to give rights to women.
Another example of MS refusing to see trees in a forest.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
Againg PeacefullKancer tries to ignore a forest is more than many trees, it transcend the individual limitations of each tree.
Forests have trees, but a whole ecosystem as well, trees are not the only thing in a forest.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
It demonstrates that the dichotomy is neither absolute nor correct. WE simply cannot strip down politics to a line, it is FAR more complex and any attempt to simplifie it is a naive attempt. Anarchists and Stalinists are both collectivist, but are nearly opposing! Fascism and Trotskism would both be called such as well, but are opposing ideas!
You listen to this man's teory as many listen to the priest's words about the Holy Bible...
There is more on politics than this dichotomy!
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Man, generalizations are nearly always wrong. Marx would be called a "collectivist" and yet defends individual rights, "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".
Your faith on one's ideas blind you, this dichotomy is Ed. Griffin's, it is not a eternal or absolute truth as you seem to belive.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
PeacefulKancer, I have here a quote from the communist manifesto that question this ridiculous dicotomy (individualism vs collectivism) who many blindly belive. I find funny one person would alone start develop and conclude the "true debate of our time".
"In place of the old bourgois society (...) there shall be an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"
This is communism (collectivist) and respect individual rights!
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
All forms of collectivism require a strong central planning organization to keep things "fair." They are in charge of distrubting wealth, food, goods & services. It is too much power for one group to have, and will always become corrupt, no matter how much you use "All Caps" to scream your denial about your totalitarianistic system of oppressive government.
Governments are power hungry. They eat liberty. And when the liberty runs out, they will eat people to survive.
wake up comrade.
magwan77 2 years ago
All Americas have equal rights... our reps are elected and "removable" by the people... as they are about to find out. Yet we still had corrpution sneak back in, in the form of a central bank. Collectivism. The slavery and sexism you are refering to were by-products of the middle ages and the British colonial empire which it took time to be rid of. The US Constitution, before being stolen by the collectivists... put in place the tools for equality and the protection of individual rights.
magwan77 2 years ago
Only in an Oligarchy can individual rights be stolen. destruction of the dollar forces people to rely on the gov because they cannot afford the neccesities of life any longer, and are forced to pool money and get insurance.. which neccesitates the gov to legislate behavior for group fairness. That leads to oppressive government.
Each time Marxism has been tried, the lack of safe-guards against corruption has led to mass graves and delightful personalities like Stalin and Hitler.
Its weak
magwan77 2 years ago
"Each time Marxism has been tried, the lack of safe-guards against corruption has led to mass graves and delightful personalities like Stalin and Hitler."
Comrade, Hitler was OPENLY anti-marxist and anti-communist ! The "national socialism" has only 1 socialist carracteristic: its name and speech !
About Stalin, take a look at Marx on Communism from "Marx in Soho" play, actually take a look on all videos from the play.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Today perhaps... equal rigths? Do you know the USA of the founding fathers? The one with slavery? That in which women had no rights (until the 1st world war)? That in which there was reacial segregation and legal racism (until Martin Luter King) ?
You blind yourself on your belifs! Much of those weren't consequece of governments and actually LAWS (made by governments) were needed to end them (there are some places in which they have not).
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
You must be referring to the same USA that grew in wealth and prosperity faster than any other nation in history and now helps and aids more other countries than any other nation that has ever existed. The same USA that eventually abolished slavery and recognized women's and minority rights (yes, we didn't have them in the 18th/19th century, but no one else did either!)
No one claims the USA is flawless with no mistakes. We just didn't kill 100 million for "progress" like communism did.
paolung 2 years ago
The Commune de Paris was surelly socialist, collectivist and is one of the least autoritarian "goverments" ever existed.
The problem with the poor fools that belive this near maniqueist dicotomy is, besides the manipulation of definitions, that they use words such as ALL, NONE, ONLY, etc. Having a very poor understanding on politics once they evauluate things based on 1 single criteria. They still claim it is "the true debate of our time" which they started, developed and concluded alone!
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Communism CANNOT respect individual rights by definition! Rights derive from property ownership. The question of rights can always be resolved by asking, "who owns it?"
If it is MY house, I decide who can be there. Why? Because it's MY house. I have the right. If it's MY body, I decide what to do with it, it's MINE.
Communism wants to abolish ownership of private property. Without property, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. That's why communism CANNOT respect individual rights- government owns everything!
paolung 2 years ago
Rights are NOT property, your freedom is not a commodity tobe both and sold in the market, neither is your life, nor your rights to health care, free education (HUMAN RIGHTS), etc..
Property is property, ok, but is not required to have other rights! The poorest, having nothing but his hunger to satisfie, can be free. Animals are free and have no property (their law is the strongest law).
You misuderstand rights comrade, even without property rights there may be other rights.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Firstly, animals have no rights. At all.
Secondly, you're the one misunderstanding the concept of rights here- rights are inextricably linked to property, and are intrinsic.
The "poorest", in your example, of course has rights. The rights to his own life, liberty, and property, like everyone He does NOT have the "right" to other people's life, liberty or property! I don't have a "right" to YOUR food, it's YOURS. I don't have a right to YOUR health care or educational services, they are YOURS
paolung 2 years ago
Ok, not rights to animals, but they are free wihtout property AND the human being is an animal.
Rights are not related necessairly to property, you can understand it this way, but "rights is amoral" niether moral or imoral, people agree about what rights people will have.
Freedom is not a commodity ! Neither is your life ! You can't sell your freedom for someone in jail (anthietic), neither can you sell your life to someone dieing (biologically impossible).
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
You are correct about rights being intrinsic- true rights cannot be taken away from anyone. They can be voluntarily restricted, or prevented from being exercised.
However, rights ARE linked to property. You are restricting your thinking to material things only- I'm referring to ALL ownership (including owning your own body/mind etc). In this manner, any question of rights can be resolved by asking "who owns the property in question?"
You CAN sell (your) freedom, this is a contract by which
paolung 2 years ago
I can sell my freedom? A rich person is in jail and then I sell him my freedom, so I take his place and he will go free? Or I sell my freedom to a person and become his slave? You can't sell it, under any ethical sistem.
Freedom is inexistence if shackles, you can't sell an inexistence, you can only take shackles. The point is how to remove them? Are they phisical ones, they may well be ideological ones.
You took those shackles and belive you are free! Remember the Plato's cave comrade.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
@MS: I think you are the one living in Plato's cave.
You are the one who watches the government dance around behind you promising you this and that and believing it all. You ignore human psychology and believe in a human utopia.
With that said, you are the one that cannot see the problems that government creates. You are blind to this because you are the one that is shackled in the cave.
I don't know about others here, but I don't appreciate being called "comrade." I am not a Communist.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
For sure both we are in our different caves comrade, but you think you're not.
I don't belive the government, the polititians, for me the people should take absolute control of the government and form a commune, like the one in PAris 1871. I don't belive yours and mine bourgois government, don't worry.
I guess I am not as shackled as you because I KNOW I am shackled while you belive to be free in many aspects your simply not.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
One last... the only reason that the commune de Paris did not abuse power was because it didn't have time to do so. It generally takes more than 60 days for the special interests to begin digging their claws in. If you are delusional enough to think it would have remained corruption free, I urge you to look at American Labor Unions. These are some of the most corrupt institutions on earth, and resemble what the French did in many ways.
magwan77 2 years ago
The commune's ELLECTED members were not permanent and were REMOVABLE by the people. There WEOMEN HAD EQUAL RIGHTS! In your illusion about individualism and capitalism, there simply was NOT! Women would have rights after the 1st world war, and racial segregation would end even later..
THIS IS NOT A FAIR SYSTEM, NEITHER IS IT A DEMOCRACY NOR A REPUBLIC!
OVER 50% OF THE PEOPLE HAD NO RIGHTS!
Comrade, socialism would defend the rights you claim it stands against. We have rghts despite capitalism
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
@MS: You need to calm down and realize that Socialism and Communism do not work. As Magwan77 said, it didn't even have time to abuse power or corrupt, so quit spouting your bologna.
You are silly and there is no need to YELL! :)
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
Ill point out again, America is no longer individualist. This died with the Federal Reserve Act, which cemented the collectivists' stranglehold on America.
I encourage you to watch part 3 of Zeitgeist the movie if you do not believe me. It is a good introduction to the death of individualism in America. This system is not being practiced anywhere in the world today, which is why we have stagnated and grown poorer and less stable world wide.
We are working to change this in America.
magwan77 2 years ago
The commune de Paris lasted only two monthes. While it had some individualist ideas, the welfair and wealth redistribution would have bankrupted it eventually. You cannot cling to a system that couldn't even go three monthes as an example of the sucess of Marxism.
The poor in an individualistic society "do" choose to be poor. Here, if they wish to improve their lives, they simply need to work harder, smarter, or longer in order to rise above. Poverty is their own fault if they do not.
magwan77 2 years ago
Under siege ANY system bankrupts, and the commune, even under siege achieved things no "individualist" society had even achieved. Things such as equal rights to women and to foreigners, or "diferent races". This the USA so called "land of the free" had not SINCE its very begining!
No, the commune is not an exemple of the success of marxism, but of success of socialism. Marxism was yet being developed back then, Marx was influenciated by it.
Poor chose to be poor... so naive... so fool...
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
OK MarxistStudant, I am getting lost in your broken English.
This is what I want you to do. I want you to tell me how an ideal [Marxist] society would work. Who would do what? What government would look like, if any? Etc.
I will ask you questions from there...
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
I am sorry I don't know your language that well, but I guess you don't know mine either, so lets go on.
For Marx, the people should have control of the government, by taking part on it. They should decide collectivelly the laws, rules, education, health care, etc.
All being part of the government, the rulling class (always a minority) would lose gradually the power it has over the others. A classless society would be approaching.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Your English is fine. I just can't understand what you are trying to prove.
OK, well, let's say that you have your perfect communist/socialist world that you just described...
What job do I get to do?
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
The one you have talent for.
"...form each acording to his abilities..."
But you'll have to contribute to other things to:
Cleaning the city- lets say that, once a week, everione cleans the street where he lives, in this case, none must work at cleanning streets.
All would contribute for the common good, but work as a "professional" (doctor, teacher, etc).
The jobs you couldn't really have would be:
-Stock owner;
-Company owner;
-Bourgois actually;
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
So, in effect one does not get to choose what they do with their life and instead has to be employed in whatever careers best suits their abilities or talents? Sounds like fun. Sorry, I'll take freedom instead, thank you though.
dkickboxer 2 years ago
People have many skills and abilities, therefore could chose among various jobs, the important is that all his work's results goes either to himself (according to his needs) and to the common good of the society (according to his abilities).
People would be free, why not? Marxist communism hasn't even a government to supress freedom.
PS: The soviet union claimed to be marxist and communist, but following marx definitions, weren't even socialists.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
What if since I'm "selfish" I refuse to let the fruits of my labor be taken from me and given to those who did not earn them?What if I leave the country for somewhere else where I know I have the ability to take care of myself without the help of others? What if all of those with "ability" do the same thing? Call it a "strike".
paladin2012 2 years ago
1st: In capitalism this already happens to you comrade, it is called "surplus-vaule".
2nd: Communism would be as global as capitalism is today.
3rd: In all societies people live toguether. You may no need others to earn your money, but alone (in a jungle) you'd starve.
4th: Those with ability would have their wages increased and much more quality publi benefits such as education, health, security, etc. They have a world to win and nothing to lose. They would do the revolution.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
What will all of "those with need" do when "those with ability" are no longer available to be sacrificed for "the greater good"? Would you rather have a minority of "have-nots" or a whole country of "have-nothings"? Who is John Galt?
paladin2012 2 years ago
Comrade, I guess you didn't get the idea. All of us have needs and all of us have abilities (Blind people have greater needs than regular ones, we all have nececity for culture, literacy, food, health, etc). All of us need life (even in order to use our abilities) and for Marx "death penality cannot be justified in any place".
None would be killed for the greater good (after the stablishment of the new society) you would have a world without "have-nots" and "have-nothings".
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Man, the kool-aid is really strong these days...
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
Are you going to ask another question? Or should I stop waiting?
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Collectivism fails because power corrupts. Marxism centralizes power, giving too much to one group. The beuracrat. The Government. Tyranny follows. Only in centralized power is a dictator like Stalin possible.. Inevitable.
Power spread thin, as in individualism, is the only defense against totalitariansim.
The rare failures of individualism are measured in brief economic downturns.
The inevitable failures of collectivism are measured in mass graves & death of progress.
Choose
magwan77 2 years ago
Collectivism... take a look at Marx form his manifesto:
"In place of the old bourgois society (...) there shall have an association in with the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"
Is it autoritarian? What about this:
"Death penality cannot be justified in ANY society calling people similar"
You misunderstand marxism and stalinism.
Individualists have made terrors hard to be possibly tolerated. (cont.)
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
(cont.)
In Latin America, the USA has made interventions nearly since its independence, instaling dictatorships, puppet govt, defending "national intersses", etc.
If you want a good exemple of socialism, take a look at the commune de paris, you'll find how the capitalists (individualists) displayed much tolerance there.
Besides, this whole dichotomy is false. You can't just line up doctrines, and call good guys and bad guys. Proff: "collectivist" Bakunin and Marx.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
The USA is not individualist, nor has it been since the Federal Rerserve usurped our nation and ruined the founder's visions with their banker elite Oligarcy. The main problem here is that people like you misunderstand what individualism is. What capitalism is. If you watched the video above and apply it to the current ruling classes the world over, you'll find that Individualism does not exist any longer. What we have now is the result of centralized power and collectivism.
magwan77 2 years ago
Marxism is a pipe dream that cannot now or ever function because it attempts to change human nature into something it is not. If you take away people's ambition to improve their own lives by regulating their lives for them at the behest of the all-knowing legislator, all you will do is convince people to work only hard enough to avoid trouble. Only ambition and the ability to change your stars will drive people to innovate, progress and improve the world around them. A dream worth regaining.
magwan77 2 years ago
If you don't understand marxism, spare me of your tougths on it.
"all-knowing legislator"? Dictatorship of the PROLÇETARIUM (class) a group, a social majority. Not a communist party or leader.
"regulating their lives"? how when the free development of each would be the condition for the free development of all?
"Only ambition..." this is very naive comrade. Many people have no material ambition and develop amazing things (i.g. Socrates)
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Name one nation to adopt Marxis communism that didn't degenerate into a totalitarian Orwellion nightmare. How easy it is abuse power in such a system.
There will always be rich and poor because people are not equal. Some are smarter, some are wiser, some are ambitious, some are not.
People will always want to achieve more.
In an individualist society, a person is as rich or poor as he chooses to be. He or she has equal oppertunity to succeed. That is as close to equality as can be.
magwan77 2 years ago
The commune de Paris follwed many aspects of Marxism, and did not abused power. They had a socialism that was more democratic than ANY other system in history AND had a "republic" once (for the 1st time in history) there was an ellected government in witch women had equal rights!!!
"a person is as rich or poor as he chooses to be"
You claim poor people are poor becuase they want? Man that was illarious...
Individualism vs collectivism is a false dichotomy, politics are far more complex than it.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
i know waht individualism is or what it claims to be, but the fact is that this dicothomy is false. Your nation founders... they weren't cherubins, some had slaves of their own. Either way I its nice to see individualist defines what collectivists think... If you want, I may send you a PM with my toughts on hierarchy of rights, etc. any thing you may be curious about...
"What we have now is the result of centralized power..." more of the capitalist coprporations than collectivists...
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
But to control the formal government isn't enought: They must control the hole society! The ownership of all the means of production, distribution, and services (hospitals, colleges) would get out of the hands of the bourgoisie, and start to be controled by either the workers (should it be small), or by the government (should it be large).
*** Remeber: the government isn't a dictatorship of a party, and isn't the dictatorship of a man.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
This way, the rulled class of capitalism would become the only class in the Marxist socialism, while the bourgoisie would have to either become part of the working class, or be fought in case of resistance. (fight doesn't mean viollence. e.g. Gandhi fought the imperialism);
But the bouurgoisie is the opressor in capitalism and guilty for all its injustices, having almost no condition of being defended peacifully, they'd probably defend themselves with violence.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Then, probably a reaction to the new government should appear, the new government has this other function as well: defeat the counter-revolution.
We have yet another problem: The evil parts of capitalism (exploitation, materialism, unequalty) boosts it, making it impossible for a true democracy to survive in this "capitalist jungle".
This gives our fellow countryman, and their government, a new task: To Be Global.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
And in order to do so, they'd need to spread this revolution arround the world. (as Trotsky defended)
The task of this government is to also assure that around the world people take control over their government:
Lets say France becomes Socialist (following the Marxist definitions), it would be one of their dutties to help the working classes of Germany (just an exemple) to take control over their governments.
Installed this democracy in another contry there are other steps to be taken.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Marx said:
"workers of the world, unite"
not:
"workers of germany"
"of russia, france, USA, etc"
But workers of the world: We are all equals. Nationalities, races, thoses are unnatural definitons that seeks to keep humanity from union.
No more borders. For marx there should be a great nation of free people of a classless sistem. Taking care of each other, all being part of the government, not voting, but debating, discussing, oging to the streets.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
A new world would be approating, a classless and countriless world. All brothers as human beings. Their ideals would have to be global ideals, international ideals:
"We don't want equalty in France, or in the USA. We want it for the hole world!"
Once global, the government, of witch all participate, would bring the world to equalty, to education, to understanding, to an assossiation in witch:
"the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
As people develop themselves, they learn to rule themselves without the government they are part of.
Gradually they forsake materialism and figure out it is better to BE than to HAVE;
They gradually reach the world in witch you have:
"from each according to his ablilities, to each according to his needs"
For Marx the ideal society.
So gradually, people start to understand and know how to keep forever the ideal society they took decades to achieve.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
All that you have described is what we call a utopia. It is a utopia because what is described is obtainable in theory but is not obtainable in real life. It is not obtainable in real life because we are dealing with multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, and unique individuals - not robots. In other words, it will not work because we are all born individuals.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
Utopic? Indeed, but not a fantasie, it is obtainable in real life, should people unite and seek this common good, fighting a common foe.
Society is made by people. We are people let's change capitaism into a "utopia" then.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
And then with the gradual progress of this egualitarian society, the gradual achievement of a world in witch all are equal, in witch the world is healed from materialism, they reach Communism.
As socialism is converted in communism, government itself becomes unnecessary, and gradually disapears. Once it is gone, the world has reached the perfect society (for MArx).
*People must be changed to achieve this, they must abandon materialism, etc.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Finally, I must remark that, for Marx, no other socialist experience (except the commune the Paris) was trully socialist, and no "communist" experience was indeed communist.
The closest society to communism in history were:
-American indians;
-gentilis in ancient grece (not sure of spelling);
-kibuts;
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Uh, even Marx said that the Commune de Paris wasn't good enough so I truthfully have no idea what you are talking about here...
And American Indians... As in the ones that had chiefs that ruled over the tribe and told everyone what to do?
You've lost me...
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
The commune wasn't good enought indeed:
-Only one city, should be all the world;
-Didn't have a complete sientific base, as Marx gives to socialism;
But it was quitte good:
-True democracy;
-Proletarium rulled everything;
About the indians, their chiefes were closer to their people than our presidents are to ourselfs, but they had no private property and govenment was very weak, they were close to communism. (Marx calls it primitive communism)
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Honestly this series sucks...
Class conflic exist as long as there are classes.
Nazism is only socialist on its name;
You must review fully your definitions Mr. brainwashed...
Communism (marx) has no government;
Socialism (marx) isn't autoritary;
The individual right must be limitated by the individual rights of all the other persons. If you allow one to have too much rights he'll be a individualist tyran:
Companies, bourgois;
Exercing totalitarism individually.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Far from brainwashed - I am an individual who practices individualism.
And the rest makes no sense in English. Just random sentences that don't portray a real point.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
Marx profed that any class sistem has class struggle. A sistem without it must be a classless sistem.
Nazism means national socialism, but they act as capitalist, fascists, but racist. Their party's name is their only socialst caracteristic.
Communism, following Marx's definitions, has no government., and socialism is an association in witch the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all (classlessly), not autoritarism, Marx is against tyrans.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Marx said no class system, yet he is the one that is classifying people as bourgeoise, petite bourgeoise, and lumpenproletariat. Laughable.
Communism is no government? So why is it that your beloved Paris Commune was setting up laws/rules/decrees? Again, laughable.
So no classes, eh? So just go into work and do whatever you want. After all, if you have a "boss" then that puts them in a higher "class" then you right? Again, laughable.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
If one has absolute freedom, he has freedom over other's life. Absolute freedom of one leads to his tyrany. The rights of the individual must not go farer than the individual himself, or you'll have tyrany.
Bourgoisie has rights over the workers production, workers have no rights over the bourgois production, The bourgois exerces tyrany (softtly, but exerces netherless).
And the only thing worse than a collectivist tyrany is an individualist tyrany.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
OK, so let me get this straight. "Tyranny" is here to stay.
And secondly, you just said that "Communism... has no government" and now you are saying that the rights must not go farther than himself. So whatever that means... but my question is, how are you going to enforce these rights if there is no government?
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
Following Marx, by the association of all the working class, they'd stablish a temporary government of the proletariate.
NOT the government of a party, and for god sake, NOT the government of one man.
Allowing people to be free to develop themselves as human beings. Until they don't need private property to live together, and in such evolution, government itself wouldn't be necessary, and then it should be eliminated.
About rights, you must have rights only over yourself, not over others.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
So in this utopia, everyone has nothing? I don't have a house that is all mine - anyone can come in and sleep on my bed. After all, it is not my bed, it is humanity's bed.
Is this the idea you are getting at?
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
About what you said on utopia:
Marx defend that the true Democracy, installed by the proletarium, should lead the world to a society that would learn to live without property. Property over companies, means of production, distribution, services, knoledge, nature, tools, etc. Other "properties" can be tolerated as long as they don't hurt equalty: One can only have a house, should his ownership over it doesn't costs the ownership of another's to a similar house.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Those other properties would be limitated by:
-Offering power - own a company mankes you powerfull, destroying equalty;
-Limited possibilities - own an island would be impossible: there aren't 7 billions of them to be owned.
-Create classes - should a property create a RULLING class over a dominated class, this porperty would be anti-democratic.
-The "property" must follow a collectivist sense (as the property amongst the indians):
"Fruits belongs to all and the earth to none"
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
"A" cant have rights over "B", and B, by his work, generates vaule that belongs to him. A can't have neither rights over what B produces nor over the services B does.
Don't use poor exemples to "prove" this worng:
Before the industrial revolution, the worker had the knoledge, the means, and the tools of his own work. After it he lost all to the bourgois, "A" stole from "B".
Giving back part of what he stole isn't charity, I'd be his obligation to give all back.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
So A can't rule B.
And B does what he feels is valueable.
And whatever B does cannot be interfered with by A.
And yeah, they did their own thing before the industrial revolution, as soon as the king told them what to do. They also dug deep holes and took poops in them. Should we go back to that system too?
WHAT did he lose?
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago
For god sake, no feudalism ever againg!
I didn't defended the sistem, but a part of it: the control the worker had over his own work (despite tributes to his lord).
Today along with the tribute to his lord (bourgoisie), he has neither the tools to work with, nor the knoledge on who to do it, not the means of how to produce it.
He gave it to the new lords, "A" must give "B" back what he took from them, not as charity, but as obligation.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
might be my laptop but there no audio on this at all? only video iv looked at today without it.
purplestoner 2 years ago
Yep, no audio. YouTube censored it. I will try to get the audio back.
PeacefulKancer 2 years ago