Marxism is a wide spectrum complete philosophy of life, society, politics, economy, art, morals, nature, science, history, culture, classes, political parties, professional unions, etc. The narrator, who probably has no clue and David Horowitz neither. For him to say, Marxists believe if the private property is eliminated, the paradise society comes is like to say, if we remove the horse, the buggy becomes a car. Is it not funny?. No good and evil in Marxist philosophy.
This is gross misrepresentation of the Marxism and Leninism. One of the basic misrepresentation is using the therm "private property" instead "PRIVATE PROPERTY OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION". The difference is huge. Marxism is not against the private property but is for Microsoft, Google, Apple, Ford, GM, GE, Texaco, etc. to be a public property, same way as the schools, roads, bridges, etc. People can have cars, homes, etc. personal or family property. Intellectual property is public too.
@DrNikol2007 communism is the abolishment of private property. The main argument that marx has is the inevitable doctrine where he believes socialism is inevitable because in marx's view capitalism is just a continuation of feudalism and feudal society was based on land. Yes people can have cars and stuff but if the state decides that we must ration people's stuff for the general good your private property rights are gone. Marxism is simply the elimination of rule of law
@batman93oo re:communism is the abolishment of private property.
If you want to know: Communism is a possible social-economic system; it is based on high stage of economic and cultural development of the society, PRODUCTION MEANS are COLLECTIVE PROPERTY, and the production of goods an services are enough to meet the demand of the all persons. The principal of distribution is "from everyone regarding their abilities and to everyone regarding their needs. Communism is NOT against private property.
@DrNikol2007 (4) Now on the economics, Marx was completely wrong on the theory of labor value and commodities to start off with. What Marx thought was exploitation was simply what Bahm-Bawerk pointed out as the theory of interest, that the worker in stead of choosing to become an entrepreneur he trades his labor for the current goods (value) while the profits are simply the future time prices minus the production. Though in today's world there is foreign exploitation due to fiat currency
@batman93oo 4/ Eugen Böhm-Bawerk did not make any scientific discovery he just a priory assumes, from moral stand point, that the value is created on the market while labor is already out of the game. Same like when we boycott chocolate bars made of coconuts where children labor was used because they were exploited – paid miserable wages. Another argument would be whether the constant capital is entitle “rights to be creator” of value and its owner would get profits on its behalf.
@DrNikol2007 5) Fascism and Socalism are siblings of one another because they follow a statist rule of collectivism. Mussolini followed marxism all his life, his father read to him passages of Kapital as a child, and he carried a locket of Marx everywhere. Marxist of the early 1900's praised Fascism because of its abilities to overrule the individual's voice when they disagreed on a socialist policy. There is only coercive force in socialism whether it comes in the form majority or the minority
What ever you say about F and S here is utter BS. The misinformation you puking come from some stupid, ugly source. You MUST read about Marxism directly from the authors to understand it; you do not need regurgitated BS. The communism is supposed to reach the goals of the French revolution since the capitalism failed to do it. Would you be on the right truck if you conclude about G.W.Bush analyzing who was G.H.Bush - no!
@DrNikol2007 (4) You don't understand economics in the first place because you would understand that crisis are created due to malinvestment that comes from false price signals results from government intervention. You sound like the rehash of the speakers at the marxism festival in central london who try to justify Marx's impossible system by saying its just an example of different thoughts that can emerge and that communism will work just because it is the antithesis of capital
What a horse sh*t. I am a Marxist but not like one from the Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park; I really know Marx’s philosophy, which is materialistic philosophy and the liberal one, the one you subscribe with, is idealistic. That is why you cannot understand my thinking. Most of the intellectuals in the west, who did not take time to read materialism and stuck for life with Plato and Aristotela are just crippled thinkers.
@batman93oo 6) I am not saying Christianity is a good ideology yet I would not conclude on its essence from what the Catholic church did during the middle ages.
Communists in Italy and Germany were dedly wrong supporting fascists in the beginning of 20th century; that is why they paid with their lives later. They shortsightedly united fascist against social democrats; according to you they were "siblings", that is why fascist were killing communists, which had to go underground.
@DrNikol2007 (3) you want to talk propaganda it has been since the progressive era in America that has constantly refuted against the idea of free market when they in fact every government action has caused a crisis. People are insane to believe you can fix the economy. that is the same Keynesian-new deal BS that has plagued our universities with the idea you can treat an organic force that is the market as some kind of car engine not because capitalism fails....
When you have a social phenomenon as an economic depression and you know, in its complexity, it depends on many factors, how is possible to exclude out of the equation a significant factor as the market and toss all the blame to the government? Laissez-faire market is a chaotic system; the government cannot help or harm.
I do not believe anything can help the capitalism, let alone Keynesian/Austrian cosmetics; see this: watch?v=-e8rt8RGjCM
@batman93oo 7) North American societies are drowning in propaganda. One can study in Canada or US and they will be crippled intellectually because the universities block the students from significant part of accumulated by humanity knowledge. This is a sad fact. This is so, because people, here, are religious and used to being told what to do and know. I feel so sad when I read what you have written.
@DrNikol2007 (1) I will continue to reply later but had to stop at the part of the
French revolution and first off start by saying I fundamentally disagree with the french revolution and it's philosophers. They were obsessed with the idea of the general will and reason which lead to utter chaos of factions of the people. This is what is actually used as propaganda to support left-statist groups, the fact that they group english enlightenment to the French one....
If you think I make sense at all, then you have to pay close attention on what I talk about. I talked about the ideals of the goals of the French revolution that inspired the American Revolution. If you are libertarian, which is twisted American for liberal, and you are a fan of the Austrian school of economics, then you must subscribe with classical liberal philosophy of 19th century an stand behind “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” or you are quite confused
@DrNikol2007 (2) You are the typical left insulting and dismissing anything that goes against your idea of reason. The point of individualism is the freedom granted to each person so he can shape his own life to how he deals with society. The fact that you desire a collective society is your view that there is solely one set of right morals and that individuals who disagree are blindly ignorant or wrong. The attack of the collective is always direct
Liberal philosophers are full of illusions like “freedom is in the equal opportunities”, “freedom is in right to property”, “inequality is just if the system benefits the poorer” , and more BS. I was not wrong I said you do not understand the human nature. A person does not deal with society because is a part of it not an opponent. You are one of the 95% of people who does not understand what freedom is. Listen to a story by Prosper Merimee.
@batman93oo (2a) a slave trader tricks an African tribe leader, Tamango, and his tribesmen to visit his ship then chained them on the ship intending to sell them as slaves. On the way to America, Tamango managed to free himself and several other tribesmen; they took over the ship and killed all the white people. In the first storm, the free slaves realized no one of them knew how to sail. The ship sunk together with the all free people on it.
@DrNikol2007 (6) And you infer I have never read Engels or Marx I read Das Kapital, the manifesto, and in the midst of the Ideology. I've even watched David Harvey's course on Kapital. The question is have you ever read the Road to Serfdom? Mises' Socialism? Economic Calculation in the socialist commonwealth? You should re think what you are advocating for because all it will lead to is mass planning that will fail. And like I said we still follow mercantilism more than capitalism
@batman93oo (6) every body has medical and dental plan with no pay at all; the employer feeds you at lunch and you can buy cooked food for your family so your wife does not need to cook after work; you have unlimited sick days upon doctor’s reference and 2-3 weeks vacations you can spend in a union vacation resorts fully affordable for your family; in society where dead penalty is forbidden and maximum prison time for any crime is 20 years,
@DrNikol2007 (3) Listen sir if you want to go to the failed experiment that was the USSR that's fine with me, but don't try to give people that all we heard about the Bloc was propaganda. I personally know friends whose families had to escape the USSR and start over new lives after the horror they experienced. And you know what no I don't want nor do I need those things given for free. And you have a pessimistic view of humanity if we just let people die in the street if we had free markets.
You say propaganda; heve you been there; I have and I saw it with my eyes. It was not a propaganda to me.
I am not pessimistic; this is the laissez-faire ideology.
Are you a free market worshiper; to you it is solution to everything; then how come we do not have this solution in America - oh, the government... not this crap again.
@batman93oo (7)where women are really emancipated and can leave their children in full-day daycare or school activities; where youth in mass scale is engaged in sports supported financially by the society. This is not a ferry tale. This is a fact I observed when I visited ears ago my friends in USSR and the east bloc. You can go and read on Wikipedia the moral code of the builder of the Communism to understand what morals these people were aiming to.
@DrNikol2007 (2) Also no Austrian Economist do not follow the French Revolution because if you actually read F.A. Hayek's the Road to Serfdom the praise is on English constitutionalism and individualism. Libertarians follow more of the ideas of Lord Acton and Jeffersonian republic. The french revolution is the flip side of the American Revolution where collectivism is strongly supported and reason trumped over toleration and having the state and reason as your religion.
@batman93oo (8) Then compare it to our society – greedy, gold-hungry selfish majority that can let you die on the street because you do not have medical plan. Did you know these societies had in their constitutions articles that forbid racism, propaganda for war, and discrimination of any kind and that the church was funded by the government contrary to every propaganda you have heard in the West.
@DrNikol2007 (1) no duh each human being is part of society by human beings both externalize and internalize society its basic sociology and individualism is a focus on each human's ability to coup with that due to what he decides is moral within the freedom of the rule of law and not some collective saying what is the moral code for all of humanity and what is deemed more important than the other.
@batman93oo Socialism is supposed to be a transitional form of social-economic system from capitalism to communism. Socialism is based on predominant public property over the production means (PM) with low percent private property over the PM mostly in the sphere of small productions and cervices. Socialism as a (early) stage and the communism are not against private property as it is; only private property over the PM. Example: Rupert Murdoch would be stripped of property.
@DrNikol2007 (3) The man refused to work, he lived in the top 1-5% of income in France and England most his life and he pretended he understood that the proletarian class would be attracted to the system. The truth of the matter is the only people who have ever been attracted to socialism are the bourgeois intellectuals who believe they are beyond work and the nonindustrial population, the very people Marx said would not be attracted to the system were the only people who were.....
@batman93oo 3/ In Das Kapital, Marx proves the nonexistence of Smith's "Invisible Hand" - capitalist economy does not work. In the Marx’s work, theory of labor value is a presupposition; whether the labor is the source of the commodity value or it is just a commodity as such is not a scientific argument; it is a moral argument – does the worker have right to distribution of profit or its role of “commodity” end in the production process and does the constant capital creates value.
@DrNikol2007 (2) Now first off Marx never disproved the invisible hand because that would mean that marx disproved the idea that people have different subjective values over different items and how much they are willing to work for that makes up the economy and just basic supply and demand. The fact of the matter is that people live to their own values whether it regards to material goods or moral and there is no way to measure what necessities fill the desires of all human beings collectively.
@batman93oo re: (2) Now first ... what you said common knowledge stuff or horse sh*t.
The human experience disapproved Adam Smith's "invisible hand" - capitalism is not a self-regulating system.
This is new for you: market is a very INERTIAL system; demand and supply cannot regulate it.
On the farmer market this year was deficit of onions; next year, everybody grows onions an it is so much, they have to scrap it, while potato was in deficit... next year everybody grows potato...
@batman93oo Some Marxian philosophers believe that the cradle of the socialism is in the same capitalism we live in now. One typical socialist property over the production means is contemporary corporation. The collective owners are the shareholders. A basic difference would be a socialist corporation will be way more regulated and the shareholders would have a lot more to say on the dealing of their enterprise - board of directors will have limited power; moderate profit must not be excluded.
@DrNikol2007 (2) The point is that in a statist economy like you are purposing private property will always depend on collective choice so if the collective chooses that enough property or resource is not being used a specific way those resources will ultimately come from a form of increased taxation or rationing. Now it's amazing anybody follows Marx when he is the very bourgeois product of radicalism. He was never a proletarian he never understood economics and was simply a freeloader......
@batman93oo 2/ so, the cornucopia effect is achieved through high prices. On what base private property is more important than public? Austrian economics failed to sustain economy without crises and ended on to occasions dramatically with the Great depression and the series of economic bubbles bursting in 1990s and 2008.
Classical liberal laissez-faire society does not work. It leads to alienation in and revolutions. The theory of labor value is not an invention of Marks
@DrNikol2007 (3) Also the insane idea that you can measure all labor in the same standard and that a doctor does 10 times amount of work that a factory work does in a hour to recieve his labor voucher is insane because the connection is not labor but just what people are demanding. If society right now decided that health wasn't the most important thing that they value something else over health than the worker that pertains to what is valued higher than health will get paid more than the doctor
If you have insane way to implement a principal, it does not make a principal invalid.
The example with the doctor is ridiculous.
One can always find way to evaluate an input in the system like doctors work and it does not need to be in so primitive ways.
The doctors deal with the most precious thing in the human nature but they are the less qualified for their job among all the professionals. They are overly paid.
@batman93oo So, my friend, do not form your opinion out of propaganda slogans whit no one understands. The second characteristic of capitalism as we know it, the market competition, killing you business rival, bankruptcy, laying off workers, such waste of resources would not be typical for the socialist society. Private property is absolutely acceptable but not over Production Means
@DrNikol2007 (1) Before we fill this comment section with a debate you should know you are arguing with someone whose views are the total opposite of yours. I follow Austrian Economics and am a Libertarian. For one Private property is the greatest granting of individual freedom and so Private property is always more important than "Public". Two Communism or socialism could never meet the demands of the people that capitalism can. Three you miss the point about private property......
@batman93oo 1/ Capitalism promised freedom, equality, and brotherhood more than 210 years ago with no success yet. Even US society which is most privileged historically and geographically failed. During the times of the cold war West was claiming they to be a cornucopia of goods and services while the socialist countries suffered deficits. This was, and still is, a myth because in the west the store windows are full of goods, which the population could not afford;
@DrNikol2007 4. Besides the technicalities why free markets lead to more ideal and practical lives and understanding of human beings is the philosophy. The fact is individualism allows for each individual to adapt his subjective values to what is around him and collectivism imposes a set of values that acts as a coercive force to everyone. we have yet to follow capitalism because we still rely heavily on the idea of nations over individuals and so we are still following mercantilism ....
You have very wrong understanding of the human nature. It is contradictory - personal needs for survival against collective ways to secure the needs. You think that the egocentric part is more important hence we have to give it priority. But, with out a social group a person cannot exist then the collective origin of human nature is stronger after birth. The propaganda makes people change to ease ruling class's efforts to benefit from their labor.
@DrNikol2007 (5) You also underestimate the people's own knowledge in the market, even with your potato and onion example. Not everyone will shift back to potato, a good entrepreneur will see this is a good time to expand your capital and specialize in his field while markets requilabrate. You are assuming you can plan the economic lives of 7 billion people. Planning will always fail because it's impossible to measure subjective values and not coerce with people's own plans...
Planning in the society does not need to central and never was in the Eastern bloc. You are citing western propaganda. Workers from the shops, factories, plants were doing the plans. They had good results. Would you like to live in a society where you will NEVER worry of being laid-off, fired, loosing you home or pension; a society where women have paid maternal leave and daycare is affordable for every one; the schools and universities students do not pay tuition
@DrNikol2007 (4) I'm not even going to bother with your links honestly, you just glance over everything that is said like every other marxist I deal with. You don't understand the difference of a pure capitalistic society from one that is intervened with. The fact of the matter is that when you impose any moral system on another being it is a coercion of their own desires and beliefs. You want to believe in materalism fine but we all have desires we cope with so stop being arrogant.
@DrNikol2007 You know what I still ended up checking link and guess what have already seen your videos. And you know what the fact is you can't refute anything I say because Pure Capitalism, Free markets, is the idea of zero regulation of capital and zero intervention there is a major difference to our keynesian style economics and one where people interact according to natural rates in the market. Your implication that we hold the same morals as children to when our mind is developed is flawed
@batman93oo The same capitalist do not wont your pure capitalism, you moron. They wont to be protected by the government from external competition, reaction from the unions, social movements etc. There was never pure C neither they wanted it. Capitalist own the government that serve them well; they complain to make a theater and ask for more privileges. Historically capitalists always had some kind of exemptions or special status, subsidies from the governments etc. Open your eyes.
@batman93oo You probably never argued on the topic with some one having opposite views. So, you do not show any skills to listen and analyse - only reply through learned slogans like "You don't understand the difference of a pure capitalistic society from one that is intervened with." You do not even try to make sense. Pure capitalism - what is this like pure cold? Is it given by god and someone intervened it?
@batman93oo If you never studied logic you need a crash course. To argue is not like making a quarrel. You need true premises ans sound conclusions. Try it, please.
@DrNikol2007 (2) coming from the man who argues with zero logic and just says things as liberal bs. You had no premise besides "whatever you heard was propaganda." Just seriously go read the Grundrisse again or something and deal with the fact that the system you support failed and that Marx was a disturbed radical who couldn't stand bourgeois activities like finish college.
@batman93oo 1/ I do not understand why religious people hate Marx so much. Marx was way milder than Lenin was towards religion. I myself think of you as arrogant, hypocritical, coercive menace and very dangerous for the rest of society. You believe you are entitled to teach people how to live their lives and how to think. With your righteous fanaticism you are the worst pat of the society ready to impose their freaky life style to all of humanity. Only communists can stop you.
@batman93oo 2/ I do not need logic to understand what I have seen with my own eyes in 1970-80s and do not need to compare what Marx wrote 1850. I did not arguing with you on any issue but referring to well known fasts which you happened not to now - it is not you fault.
@batman93oo 2/ Marx was disappointed like many progressive students at that time from the fact that capitalism did fail to bring the dreams of people from the times of the French Revolution. You do not need to read Grundrisse to understand this; you need a little bit knowledge of the history of that times.
Io not see what else I can tell you. I do not consider this place as place to teach anyone. I think it was good we could exchange opinions.
@DrNikol2007 last reply: I don't want to teach anyone and I'm not trying to impose anything on you that is why I follow individualism because I don't believe anyone should impose anything without giving the other person the fair shot to study it themselves. The point is I know certain large firms like the protection of gov't and thats why we shouldn't let gov intervene so it isn't a tool. I pointed out long before that intervention consisted of subsides and incentives, read with your eyes
This is a utopia intelligentsia dreams about. I am part of the intelligentsia but I do not have illusions being individualist no meter how much I want it because in addition I am a realist. Society imposes its moral standards to us from the first day of our lives. We need society (family, community, country); so, to survive we conform. Everything else is just an utopia.
@batman93oo 2. You are young; you may dream; that's OK. Gradually, you'll understand the individualism is just a propaganda trap set by the bourgeoisie for you to believe in your right to choose. This is how you are turned into servant to the bourgeoisie that propagates its lies.
If you do not know and cannot see the government (legislative, executive, judicial) is not enemy to the capitalists; it serves them devotedly; Look for "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"
@batman93oo Once in you life listen what someone out of your propaganda environment has to say. Listen to Bob Avakian watch?v=qJuuZoF9WT8&feature=autoplay&list=SPDE5CB83A8BE1696B&lf=list_related&playnext=4
It'll souns as communist propaganda to you; nevertheless make yourself to hear to the end and then try to think over the issues he points to. If you are not change, that's fine, but if you want you may give it more thoughts. Do not prejudge.
@DrNikol2007(5) one last side note before you respond because you mentioned some marxist professors believed socialism is an outcome of capitalism. Socialism is ancient and does not come from actual capitalism but as seen throughout history the outcome of the centralization of power. In Roman history The Diocletian Model was essentially the socialist-Fascist model of Germany and the USSR. Free market liberates the masses centralization controls the people
@batman93oo 5/ How is possible to equate fascism to socialism of Germany and USSR in 1930. Hitler’s ideology was “Deutschland über alles” and Stalin’s ideology was “proletarians of the world unite”. This is ridiculous. The socialism is an ancient idea; common tribe societies were primitive form of it; Marx’s socialism is unique because is global not stranded in a nation like with Hitler.
The followers of Mises, Hayek, Friedman are dinosaurs from 19th century like Ron Paul.
@DrNikol2007 (1) listen sir your understanding of economics if very low if you think laissez faire markets caused the great depression and our current crisis. Every economic crisis since at least 1913 has been due to government intervention due to either monetary or fiscal policy. You have to understand anytime you artificially change the interest rate from the natural rate you will cause price and investment distortion because of the FED's constant adjustment....
My friend, Austrian school of economic devoted thousands of pages arguments trying to convince the American society laissez-faire capitalism was good. The fact is that humanity never returned to this 19th century type of economy even during Reagan's times.
Think a little. If government measures can spoil the economy, it can fix it. Actually even the freshmen in economy learns the government cannot do too much - capitalist economy is chaotic system.
I see only superficial differences between Feudalism and Slave Society. Can someone please tell me how they contrast? They are both agriculturally centered. They are both theocratic. They are both controlled by hereditary aristocracies with virtually no class mobility. The middle class consists of merchants and subsistence farmers. What's the difference between a serf and a slave?
Now, I heard the "Video" so no we can discuss it. Primary, Socialism does NOT necessarily lead to Communism. In Socialism, an Engineered Social-Economic system is put in place to service the People of the nation. Scientific Socialism is the"Equivalence or near Equal Distribution of Wealth amongst the People". Thereby, the Peoples' Wealth permits the "Purchas of items from the Corporations". It is a very Complex issue,& it is obvious that Humankind will discuss Socialism of the Russia,years
Private property is bad if someone has to much and the other doesnt has anything... Than its unfair.Wow Marx was really clever, and he was right it seems so.
An absurd propaganda video. Anyone who hasn't noticed the propaganda bias need only listen from 06:38 to 06:47 and ask themselves "Does this any any way sound like capitalism?"
And if they're still not sure, they need only turn to 02:56 and check the credentials of Richard Ebeling, which read:
"Ludwig Von Mises - Professor Of Economics"
And if they don't know who Ludwig Von Mises is, then Wikipedia is their friend.
@samsonlovesyou "Does this any any way sound like capitalism?"
Pure capitalism, yes. American capitalism, no.
"Ludwig Von Mises - Professor Of Economics"
The criticism of Mises on wikipedia is just a bunch of hearsay and personal attacks. There's no criticism of his ideas, just criticism of his personality. What a joke.
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity in a modality of commodity production for abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration . A system of wage slavery in a employment system of suppression and dehumanistion. We need to transcend this false limits to our creative cooperative energies for a moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our energies in freedom of being
This video is less biased than some other material on Marx on Youtube; however it's inaccurate, uninsightful, and horribly misrepresenting of what people fail to realize is an extremely complicated ideology, whether that's convenient or not.
@SirLoin21 so where can i find a documentary about marxism made by marxists themselves?? i spend hours browsing youtube but to no avail, im beginning to convinced that marxism is a failed ideology.
@malayneum its not a failed ideology, just one that is in constant potentiality, it doesn't come about because the people who don't believe in it want to keep it there, they never want to have marxian economics realized, and this video is proof of it, they're demonizing it and confusing the viewer into thinking that this is marxian ideology, it's not, its leninism, stalinism, totalitarianism and the failed experitment known as the USSR
@ergoproxyism "its not a failed ideology, just one that is in constant potentiality,"
Okay, so it's not a failed ideology, but it's a BS ideology. As a population increases, its ability to control/govern itself decreases. That's why Socialism will NEVER progress to Communism. Communism only works in the tiniest populations (communes and primitive tribes).
@ergoproxyism leninism is the only significant strand of communism that has ever escaped potentiality. i'm sorry you think that lenin defiled the revealed religion of marxism.
@malayneum there are lots of classes on marxism by a marxist on 'bliptv' (search: professor wolff). this guy is a brilliant lecturer and a joy to listen to. there are classes for beginners and more advanced stuff. see also his website rd.wolff.com. for an appetiser check 'capitalism hits the fan' (the 1hr 45m one is the best) on here.
I come onto youtube to have proper constructive debates on politics. If I'm going to face the Nazism=Marxism load of shit again, then I'm going to leave and find a different debate elsewhere.
Marx's vision of a socialist society is not utopian: it's very much real.
Right now, in the twenty first century, human social labour has unbelievable productive capacities. If we were to harness this power, by taking over the means of production, we could easily draw grand wealth from it.
We already have the technology where humans can achieve the means of subsistence by only labouring for a few hours a day.
@nurktwin1960 You mean after his speech where he was drawing a comparison between Marxism and Nazism... You do know that was before the later entries in his journal?
@axe863 No, I mean Goebbells repudiated Marxism and took pains to distinguish National Socialism from Marxism. If you bother to read some of the Nuremberg speeches, it's all there. You do know that the Nazis killed communists, right?
what is hell is that picture at 1:55
guitardude495 4 months ago
Marxism is a wide spectrum complete philosophy of life, society, politics, economy, art, morals, nature, science, history, culture, classes, political parties, professional unions, etc. The narrator, who probably has no clue and David Horowitz neither. For him to say, Marxists believe if the private property is eliminated, the paradise society comes is like to say, if we remove the horse, the buggy becomes a car. Is it not funny?. No good and evil in Marxist philosophy.
DrNikol2007 5 months ago 2
This is gross misrepresentation of the Marxism and Leninism. One of the basic misrepresentation is using the therm "private property" instead "PRIVATE PROPERTY OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION". The difference is huge. Marxism is not against the private property but is for Microsoft, Google, Apple, Ford, GM, GE, Texaco, etc. to be a public property, same way as the schools, roads, bridges, etc. People can have cars, homes, etc. personal or family property. Intellectual property is public too.
DrNikol2007 5 months ago
@DrNikol2007 communism is the abolishment of private property. The main argument that marx has is the inevitable doctrine where he believes socialism is inevitable because in marx's view capitalism is just a continuation of feudalism and feudal society was based on land. Yes people can have cars and stuff but if the state decides that we must ration people's stuff for the general good your private property rights are gone. Marxism is simply the elimination of rule of law
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo re:communism is the abolishment of private property.
If you want to know: Communism is a possible social-economic system; it is based on high stage of economic and cultural development of the society, PRODUCTION MEANS are COLLECTIVE PROPERTY, and the production of goods an services are enough to meet the demand of the all persons. The principal of distribution is "from everyone regarding their abilities and to everyone regarding their needs. Communism is NOT against private property.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (4) Now on the economics, Marx was completely wrong on the theory of labor value and commodities to start off with. What Marx thought was exploitation was simply what Bahm-Bawerk pointed out as the theory of interest, that the worker in stead of choosing to become an entrepreneur he trades his labor for the current goods (value) while the profits are simply the future time prices minus the production. Though in today's world there is foreign exploitation due to fiat currency
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo 4/ Eugen Böhm-Bawerk did not make any scientific discovery he just a priory assumes, from moral stand point, that the value is created on the market while labor is already out of the game. Same like when we boycott chocolate bars made of coconuts where children labor was used because they were exploited – paid miserable wages. Another argument would be whether the constant capital is entitle “rights to be creator” of value and its owner would get profits on its behalf.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 5) Fascism and Socalism are siblings of one another because they follow a statist rule of collectivism. Mussolini followed marxism all his life, his father read to him passages of Kapital as a child, and he carried a locket of Marx everywhere. Marxist of the early 1900's praised Fascism because of its abilities to overrule the individual's voice when they disagreed on a socialist policy. There is only coercive force in socialism whether it comes in the form majority or the minority
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo re: 5) Fascism...
What ever you say about F and S here is utter BS. The misinformation you puking come from some stupid, ugly source. You MUST read about Marxism directly from the authors to understand it; you do not need regurgitated BS. The communism is supposed to reach the goals of the French revolution since the capitalism failed to do it. Would you be on the right truck if you conclude about G.W.Bush analyzing who was G.H.Bush - no!
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (4) You don't understand economics in the first place because you would understand that crisis are created due to malinvestment that comes from false price signals results from government intervention. You sound like the rehash of the speakers at the marxism festival in central london who try to justify Marx's impossible system by saying its just an example of different thoughts that can emerge and that communism will work just because it is the antithesis of capital
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo Re: (4) You don't understand
What a horse sh*t. I am a Marxist but not like one from the Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park; I really know Marx’s philosophy, which is materialistic philosophy and the liberal one, the one you subscribe with, is idealistic. That is why you cannot understand my thinking. Most of the intellectuals in the west, who did not take time to read materialism and stuck for life with Plato and Aristotela are just crippled thinkers.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo 6) I am not saying Christianity is a good ideology yet I would not conclude on its essence from what the Catholic church did during the middle ages.
Communists in Italy and Germany were dedly wrong supporting fascists in the beginning of 20th century; that is why they paid with their lives later. They shortsightedly united fascist against social democrats; according to you they were "siblings", that is why fascist were killing communists, which had to go underground.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (3) you want to talk propaganda it has been since the progressive era in America that has constantly refuted against the idea of free market when they in fact every government action has caused a crisis. People are insane to believe you can fix the economy. that is the same Keynesian-new deal BS that has plagued our universities with the idea you can treat an organic force that is the market as some kind of car engine not because capitalism fails....
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo Re:(3) you want to talk propaganda
When you have a social phenomenon as an economic depression and you know, in its complexity, it depends on many factors, how is possible to exclude out of the equation a significant factor as the market and toss all the blame to the government? Laissez-faire market is a chaotic system; the government cannot help or harm.
I do not believe anything can help the capitalism, let alone Keynesian/Austrian cosmetics; see this: watch?v=-e8rt8RGjCM
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo 7) North American societies are drowning in propaganda. One can study in Canada or US and they will be crippled intellectually because the universities block the students from significant part of accumulated by humanity knowledge. This is a sad fact. This is so, because people, here, are religious and used to being told what to do and know. I feel so sad when I read what you have written.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (1) I will continue to reply later but had to stop at the part of the
French revolution and first off start by saying I fundamentally disagree with the french revolution and it's philosophers. They were obsessed with the idea of the general will and reason which lead to utter chaos of factions of the people. This is what is actually used as propaganda to support left-statist groups, the fact that they group english enlightenment to the French one....
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo Re: (1) I will continue
If you think I make sense at all, then you have to pay close attention on what I talk about. I talked about the ideals of the goals of the French revolution that inspired the American Revolution. If you are libertarian, which is twisted American for liberal, and you are a fan of the Austrian school of economics, then you must subscribe with classical liberal philosophy of 19th century an stand behind “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” or you are quite confused
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (2) You are the typical left insulting and dismissing anything that goes against your idea of reason. The point of individualism is the freedom granted to each person so he can shape his own life to how he deals with society. The fact that you desire a collective society is your view that there is solely one set of right morals and that individuals who disagree are blindly ignorant or wrong. The attack of the collective is always direct
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo Re: (2) You are…
Liberal philosophers are full of illusions like “freedom is in the equal opportunities”, “freedom is in right to property”, “inequality is just if the system benefits the poorer” , and more BS. I was not wrong I said you do not understand the human nature. A person does not deal with society because is a part of it not an opponent. You are one of the 95% of people who does not understand what freedom is. Listen to a story by Prosper Merimee.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo (2a) a slave trader tricks an African tribe leader, Tamango, and his tribesmen to visit his ship then chained them on the ship intending to sell them as slaves. On the way to America, Tamango managed to free himself and several other tribesmen; they took over the ship and killed all the white people. In the first storm, the free slaves realized no one of them knew how to sail. The ship sunk together with the all free people on it.
Morals: the freedom is a conscious necessity.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (6) And you infer I have never read Engels or Marx I read Das Kapital, the manifesto, and in the midst of the Ideology. I've even watched David Harvey's course on Kapital. The question is have you ever read the Road to Serfdom? Mises' Socialism? Economic Calculation in the socialist commonwealth? You should re think what you are advocating for because all it will lead to is mass planning that will fail. And like I said we still follow mercantilism more than capitalism
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo (6) every body has medical and dental plan with no pay at all; the employer feeds you at lunch and you can buy cooked food for your family so your wife does not need to cook after work; you have unlimited sick days upon doctor’s reference and 2-3 weeks vacations you can spend in a union vacation resorts fully affordable for your family; in society where dead penalty is forbidden and maximum prison time for any crime is 20 years,
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (3) Listen sir if you want to go to the failed experiment that was the USSR that's fine with me, but don't try to give people that all we heard about the Bloc was propaganda. I personally know friends whose families had to escape the USSR and start over new lives after the horror they experienced. And you know what no I don't want nor do I need those things given for free. And you have a pessimistic view of humanity if we just let people die in the street if we had free markets.
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo (3) Listen
You say propaganda; heve you been there; I have and I saw it with my eyes. It was not a propaganda to me.
I am not pessimistic; this is the laissez-faire ideology.
Are you a free market worshiper; to you it is solution to everything; then how come we do not have this solution in America - oh, the government... not this crap again.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo (7)where women are really emancipated and can leave their children in full-day daycare or school activities; where youth in mass scale is engaged in sports supported financially by the society. This is not a ferry tale. This is a fact I observed when I visited ears ago my friends in USSR and the east bloc. You can go and read on Wikipedia the moral code of the builder of the Communism to understand what morals these people were aiming to.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
Comment removed
batman93oo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrNikol2007 (2) Also no Austrian Economist do not follow the French Revolution because if you actually read F.A. Hayek's the Road to Serfdom the praise is on English constitutionalism and individualism. Libertarians follow more of the ideas of Lord Acton and Jeffersonian republic. The french revolution is the flip side of the American Revolution where collectivism is strongly supported and reason trumped over toleration and having the state and reason as your religion.
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo (8) Then compare it to our society – greedy, gold-hungry selfish majority that can let you die on the street because you do not have medical plan. Did you know these societies had in their constitutions articles that forbid racism, propaganda for war, and discrimination of any kind and that the church was funded by the government contrary to every propaganda you have heard in the West.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (1) no duh each human being is part of society by human beings both externalize and internalize society its basic sociology and individualism is a focus on each human's ability to coup with that due to what he decides is moral within the freedom of the rule of law and not some collective saying what is the moral code for all of humanity and what is deemed more important than the other.
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo re: (1)
Again liberal hose sh*t.
There is no moral code for all of humanity.
Morals are socially relevant and are attributed to certain social group.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo Socialism is supposed to be a transitional form of social-economic system from capitalism to communism. Socialism is based on predominant public property over the production means (PM) with low percent private property over the PM mostly in the sphere of small productions and cervices. Socialism as a (early) stage and the communism are not against private property as it is; only private property over the PM. Example: Rupert Murdoch would be stripped of property.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (3) The man refused to work, he lived in the top 1-5% of income in France and England most his life and he pretended he understood that the proletarian class would be attracted to the system. The truth of the matter is the only people who have ever been attracted to socialism are the bourgeois intellectuals who believe they are beyond work and the nonindustrial population, the very people Marx said would not be attracted to the system were the only people who were.....
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo 3/ In Das Kapital, Marx proves the nonexistence of Smith's "Invisible Hand" - capitalist economy does not work. In the Marx’s work, theory of labor value is a presupposition; whether the labor is the source of the commodity value or it is just a commodity as such is not a scientific argument; it is a moral argument – does the worker have right to distribution of profit or its role of “commodity” end in the production process and does the constant capital creates value.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (2) Now first off Marx never disproved the invisible hand because that would mean that marx disproved the idea that people have different subjective values over different items and how much they are willing to work for that makes up the economy and just basic supply and demand. The fact of the matter is that people live to their own values whether it regards to material goods or moral and there is no way to measure what necessities fill the desires of all human beings collectively.
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo re: (2) Now first ... what you said common knowledge stuff or horse sh*t.
The human experience disapproved Adam Smith's "invisible hand" - capitalism is not a self-regulating system.
This is new for you: market is a very INERTIAL system; demand and supply cannot regulate it.
On the farmer market this year was deficit of onions; next year, everybody grows onions an it is so much, they have to scrap it, while potato was in deficit... next year everybody grows potato...
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo Some Marxian philosophers believe that the cradle of the socialism is in the same capitalism we live in now. One typical socialist property over the production means is contemporary corporation. The collective owners are the shareholders. A basic difference would be a socialist corporation will be way more regulated and the shareholders would have a lot more to say on the dealing of their enterprise - board of directors will have limited power; moderate profit must not be excluded.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (2) The point is that in a statist economy like you are purposing private property will always depend on collective choice so if the collective chooses that enough property or resource is not being used a specific way those resources will ultimately come from a form of increased taxation or rationing. Now it's amazing anybody follows Marx when he is the very bourgeois product of radicalism. He was never a proletarian he never understood economics and was simply a freeloader......
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo 2/ so, the cornucopia effect is achieved through high prices. On what base private property is more important than public? Austrian economics failed to sustain economy without crises and ended on to occasions dramatically with the Great depression and the series of economic bubbles bursting in 1990s and 2008.
Classical liberal laissez-faire society does not work. It leads to alienation in and revolutions. The theory of labor value is not an invention of Marks
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (3) Also the insane idea that you can measure all labor in the same standard and that a doctor does 10 times amount of work that a factory work does in a hour to recieve his labor voucher is insane because the connection is not labor but just what people are demanding. If society right now decided that health wasn't the most important thing that they value something else over health than the worker that pertains to what is valued higher than health will get paid more than the doctor
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo (3) Also the insane idea...
If you have insane way to implement a principal, it does not make a principal invalid.
The example with the doctor is ridiculous.
One can always find way to evaluate an input in the system like doctors work and it does not need to be in so primitive ways.
The doctors deal with the most precious thing in the human nature but they are the less qualified for their job among all the professionals. They are overly paid.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo So, my friend, do not form your opinion out of propaganda slogans whit no one understands. The second characteristic of capitalism as we know it, the market competition, killing you business rival, bankruptcy, laying off workers, such waste of resources would not be typical for the socialist society. Private property is absolutely acceptable but not over Production Means
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (1) Before we fill this comment section with a debate you should know you are arguing with someone whose views are the total opposite of yours. I follow Austrian Economics and am a Libertarian. For one Private property is the greatest granting of individual freedom and so Private property is always more important than "Public". Two Communism or socialism could never meet the demands of the people that capitalism can. Three you miss the point about private property......
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo 1/ Capitalism promised freedom, equality, and brotherhood more than 210 years ago with no success yet. Even US society which is most privileged historically and geographically failed. During the times of the cold war West was claiming they to be a cornucopia of goods and services while the socialist countries suffered deficits. This was, and still is, a myth because in the west the store windows are full of goods, which the population could not afford;
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 4. Besides the technicalities why free markets lead to more ideal and practical lives and understanding of human beings is the philosophy. The fact is individualism allows for each individual to adapt his subjective values to what is around him and collectivism imposes a set of values that acts as a coercive force to everyone. we have yet to follow capitalism because we still rely heavily on the idea of nations over individuals and so we are still following mercantilism ....
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo re: 4. Besides the
You have very wrong understanding of the human nature. It is contradictory - personal needs for survival against collective ways to secure the needs. You think that the egocentric part is more important hence we have to give it priority. But, with out a social group a person cannot exist then the collective origin of human nature is stronger after birth. The propaganda makes people change to ease ruling class's efforts to benefit from their labor.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (5) You also underestimate the people's own knowledge in the market, even with your potato and onion example. Not everyone will shift back to potato, a good entrepreneur will see this is a good time to expand your capital and specialize in his field while markets requilabrate. You are assuming you can plan the economic lives of 7 billion people. Planning will always fail because it's impossible to measure subjective values and not coerce with people's own plans...
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo Re:(5) You also…
Planning in the society does not need to central and never was in the Eastern bloc. You are citing western propaganda. Workers from the shops, factories, plants were doing the plans. They had good results. Would you like to live in a society where you will NEVER worry of being laid-off, fired, loosing you home or pension; a society where women have paid maternal leave and daycare is affordable for every one; the schools and universities students do not pay tuition
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (4) I'm not even going to bother with your links honestly, you just glance over everything that is said like every other marxist I deal with. You don't understand the difference of a pure capitalistic society from one that is intervened with. The fact of the matter is that when you impose any moral system on another being it is a coercion of their own desires and beliefs. You want to believe in materalism fine but we all have desires we cope with so stop being arrogant.
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo You are not going to bother with your links because it is painful; disappointment is worst than toothache.
YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO YOURSELF. IMPOSE MORAL SYSTEM? DID YOU HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE YOU OWN MORAL SYSTEM IN YOUR CHILDHOOD?
You call me arrogant. Here is the definition: "Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities"
I have never spoken about my personal abilities. How can I be arrogant?
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 You know what I still ended up checking link and guess what have already seen your videos. And you know what the fact is you can't refute anything I say because Pure Capitalism, Free markets, is the idea of zero regulation of capital and zero intervention there is a major difference to our keynesian style economics and one where people interact according to natural rates in the market. Your implication that we hold the same morals as children to when our mind is developed is flawed
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo The same capitalist do not wont your pure capitalism, you moron. They wont to be protected by the government from external competition, reaction from the unions, social movements etc. There was never pure C neither they wanted it. Capitalist own the government that serve them well; they complain to make a theater and ask for more privileges. Historically capitalists always had some kind of exemptions or special status, subsidies from the governments etc. Open your eyes.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo You probably never argued on the topic with some one having opposite views. So, you do not show any skills to listen and analyse - only reply through learned slogans like "You don't understand the difference of a pure capitalistic society from one that is intervened with." You do not even try to make sense. Pure capitalism - what is this like pure cold? Is it given by god and someone intervened it?
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo If you never studied logic you need a crash course. To argue is not like making a quarrel. You need true premises ans sound conclusions. Try it, please.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (2) coming from the man who argues with zero logic and just says things as liberal bs. You had no premise besides "whatever you heard was propaganda." Just seriously go read the Grundrisse again or something and deal with the fact that the system you support failed and that Marx was a disturbed radical who couldn't stand bourgeois activities like finish college.
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo 1/ I do not understand why religious people hate Marx so much. Marx was way milder than Lenin was towards religion. I myself think of you as arrogant, hypocritical, coercive menace and very dangerous for the rest of society. You believe you are entitled to teach people how to live their lives and how to think. With your righteous fanaticism you are the worst pat of the society ready to impose their freaky life style to all of humanity. Only communists can stop you.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo 2/ I do not need logic to understand what I have seen with my own eyes in 1970-80s and do not need to compare what Marx wrote 1850. I did not arguing with you on any issue but referring to well known fasts which you happened not to now - it is not you fault.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo 2/ Marx was disappointed like many progressive students at that time from the fact that capitalism did fail to bring the dreams of people from the times of the French Revolution. You do not need to read Grundrisse to understand this; you need a little bit knowledge of the history of that times.
Io not see what else I can tell you. I do not consider this place as place to teach anyone. I think it was good we could exchange opinions.
Thanks for you time.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 last reply: I don't want to teach anyone and I'm not trying to impose anything on you that is why I follow individualism because I don't believe anyone should impose anything without giving the other person the fair shot to study it themselves. The point is I know certain large firms like the protection of gov't and thats why we shouldn't let gov intervene so it isn't a tool. I pointed out long before that intervention consisted of subsides and incentives, read with your eyes
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo 1. Re: ... I follow individualism...
This is a utopia intelligentsia dreams about. I am part of the intelligentsia but I do not have illusions being individualist no meter how much I want it because in addition I am a realist. Society imposes its moral standards to us from the first day of our lives. We need society (family, community, country); so, to survive we conform. Everything else is just an utopia.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo 2. You are young; you may dream; that's OK. Gradually, you'll understand the individualism is just a propaganda trap set by the bourgeoisie for you to believe in your right to choose. This is how you are turned into servant to the bourgeoisie that propagates its lies.
If you do not know and cannot see the government (legislative, executive, judicial) is not enemy to the capitalists; it serves them devotedly; Look for "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo Once in you life listen what someone out of your propaganda environment has to say. Listen to Bob Avakian watch?v=qJuuZoF9WT8&feature=autoplay&list=SPDE5CB83A8BE1696B&lf=list_related&playnext=4
It'll souns as communist propaganda to you; nevertheless make yourself to hear to the end and then try to think over the issues he points to. If you are not change, that's fine, but if you want you may give it more thoughts. Do not prejudge.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007(5) one last side note before you respond because you mentioned some marxist professors believed socialism is an outcome of capitalism. Socialism is ancient and does not come from actual capitalism but as seen throughout history the outcome of the centralization of power. In Roman history The Diocletian Model was essentially the socialist-Fascist model of Germany and the USSR. Free market liberates the masses centralization controls the people
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo I will response extensively later; you can see this now.
watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=9qjvwQrZmpk
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 Not a full link.
batman93oo 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 Sorry; here it is /watch?v=9qjvwQrZmpk
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@batman93oo 5/ How is possible to equate fascism to socialism of Germany and USSR in 1930. Hitler’s ideology was “Deutschland über alles” and Stalin’s ideology was “proletarians of the world unite”. This is ridiculous. The socialism is an ancient idea; common tribe societies were primitive form of it; Marx’s socialism is unique because is global not stranded in a nation like with Hitler.
The followers of Mises, Hayek, Friedman are dinosaurs from 19th century like Ron Paul.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
@DrNikol2007 (1) listen sir your understanding of economics if very low if you think laissez faire markets caused the great depression and our current crisis. Every economic crisis since at least 1913 has been due to government intervention due to either monetary or fiscal policy. You have to understand anytime you artificially change the interest rate from the natural rate you will cause price and investment distortion because of the FED's constant adjustment....
batman93oo 1 month ago
@batman93oo re: (1) listen sir
My friend, Austrian school of economic devoted thousands of pages arguments trying to convince the American society laissez-faire capitalism was good. The fact is that humanity never returned to this 19th century type of economy even during Reagan's times.
Think a little. If government measures can spoil the economy, it can fix it. Actually even the freshmen in economy learns the government cannot do too much - capitalist economy is chaotic system.
DrNikol2007 1 month ago
"Capital has led to the oppression of the working class by the landowners"
This is supposed to be marxism!?
isedairi 9 months ago
"Any fool can be a professor but not every professor need be a fool" Hal Draper
Marvin3356 9 months ago
This isn't very good. Sheer propaganda.
Subjectivity101 10 months ago
Every interviewee in this film is an extreme right-winger. David Horowitz? The Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College?
It's a film about Marx, but there are no Marxists interviewed in the film, & everyone appears so measured & rational. Nice propaganda vehicle.
If you made a film about biology without interviewing any biologists, would the film represent its subject effectively?
And why no mention of Ronald Reagan's funding of Central American death squads?
bapyou 10 months ago 11
@bapyou I love you
RebelSonBand 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I see only superficial differences between Feudalism and Slave Society. Can someone please tell me how they contrast? They are both agriculturally centered. They are both theocratic. They are both controlled by hereditary aristocracies with virtually no class mobility. The middle class consists of merchants and subsistence farmers. What's the difference between a serf and a slave?
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
Now, I heard the "Video" so no we can discuss it. Primary, Socialism does NOT necessarily lead to Communism. In Socialism, an Engineered Social-Economic system is put in place to service the People of the nation. Scientific Socialism is the"Equivalence or near Equal Distribution of Wealth amongst the People". Thereby, the Peoples' Wealth permits the "Purchas of items from the Corporations". It is a very Complex issue,& it is obvious that Humankind will discuss Socialism of the Russia,years
Jules7892 1 year ago
Private property is bad if someone has to much and the other doesnt has anything... Than its unfair.Wow Marx was really clever, and he was right it seems so.
MarvelExtra 1 year ago
An absurd propaganda video. Anyone who hasn't noticed the propaganda bias need only listen from 06:38 to 06:47 and ask themselves "Does this any any way sound like capitalism?"
And if they're still not sure, they need only turn to 02:56 and check the credentials of Richard Ebeling, which read:
"Ludwig Von Mises - Professor Of Economics"
And if they don't know who Ludwig Von Mises is, then Wikipedia is their friend.
samsonlovesyou 1 year ago
@samsonlovesyou "Does this any any way sound like capitalism?"
Pure capitalism, yes. American capitalism, no.
"Ludwig Von Mises - Professor Of Economics"
The criticism of Mises on wikipedia is just a bunch of hearsay and personal attacks. There's no criticism of his ideas, just criticism of his personality. What a joke.
KayBeeEee1983 1 year ago
I am communist, but I completely disagree with your claims how communism relates to the "destruction of human life".
PesiCool 1 year ago
This video is tripe.
tellyontellyon 1 year ago
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity in a modality of commodity production for abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration . A system of wage slavery in a employment system of suppression and dehumanistion. We need to transcend this false limits to our creative cooperative energies for a moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our energies in freedom of being
arzoyan 1 year ago
This video is less biased than some other material on Marx on Youtube; however it's inaccurate, uninsightful, and horribly misrepresenting of what people fail to realize is an extremely complicated ideology, whether that's convenient or not.
SirLoin21 1 year ago 13
@SirLoin21 so where can i find a documentary about marxism made by marxists themselves?? i spend hours browsing youtube but to no avail, im beginning to convinced that marxism is a failed ideology.
malayneum 1 year ago
@malayneum
If you find one, please also link it to me.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@malayneum its not a failed ideology, just one that is in constant potentiality, it doesn't come about because the people who don't believe in it want to keep it there, they never want to have marxian economics realized, and this video is proof of it, they're demonizing it and confusing the viewer into thinking that this is marxian ideology, it's not, its leninism, stalinism, totalitarianism and the failed experitment known as the USSR
ergoproxyism 1 year ago 2
@ergoproxyism "its not a failed ideology, just one that is in constant potentiality,"
Okay, so it's not a failed ideology, but it's a BS ideology. As a population increases, its ability to control/govern itself decreases. That's why Socialism will NEVER progress to Communism. Communism only works in the tiniest populations (communes and primitive tribes).
KayBeeEee1983 11 months ago
@ergoproxyism leninism is the only significant strand of communism that has ever escaped potentiality. i'm sorry you think that lenin defiled the revealed religion of marxism.
warmongerpro 7 months ago
@malayneum
check out "A Marxist View of the 20th Century". an excellent documentary in my opinion.
danielc1112 1 year ago
@malayneum there are lots of classes on marxism by a marxist on 'bliptv' (search: professor wolff). this guy is a brilliant lecturer and a joy to listen to. there are classes for beginners and more advanced stuff. see also his website rd.wolff.com. for an appetiser check 'capitalism hits the fan' (the 1hr 45m one is the best) on here.
donkiddick08 1 year ago
@SirLoin21 Could you please explain how it is "inaccurate, uninsightful, and horribly misrepresenting"? Just a few examples will do.
KayBeeEee1983 11 months ago
I come onto youtube to have proper constructive debates on politics. If I'm going to face the Nazism=Marxism load of shit again, then I'm going to leave and find a different debate elsewhere.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
"If we were to harness this power, by taking over the means of production, we could easily draw grand wealth from it."
Dumbest comment ever made!!! Capitalism created massive increases in productivity ... so lets take over the means of production. :P
axe863 1 year ago
Marx's vision of a socialist society is not utopian: it's very much real.
Right now, in the twenty first century, human social labour has unbelievable productive capacities. If we were to harness this power, by taking over the means of production, we could easily draw grand wealth from it.
We already have the technology where humans can achieve the means of subsistence by only labouring for a few hours a day.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
@MikhailSilverwood lllllllllllllllllooooooooooolllllllllllllll lolololololololololololololol
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 huh?
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
Total propaganda. Goebbels would be proud.
nurktwin1960 1 year ago
@nurktwin1960 Goebbels had a journal in which he wrote about the glories of Marxism.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 Interesting that Goebbels later repudiated Marxism.
nurktwin1960 1 year ago
@nurktwin1960 You mean after his speech where he was drawing a comparison between Marxism and Nazism... You do know that was before the later entries in his journal?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 No, I mean Goebbells repudiated Marxism and took pains to distinguish National Socialism from Marxism. If you bother to read some of the Nuremberg speeches, it's all there. You do know that the Nazis killed communists, right?
nurktwin1960 1 year ago
wow, total misrepresentation. Did they even understand Marx's theory of alienation?
leethal59 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
not worth your time
izzy72 2 years ago