communism and socalism is two differnt kind of idealogies XD so you, youself are a bit ignorant :)
I live in denmark, and WE ARE socalist! but youre right about were not like any other socalist countries, our system, called the scandinavia-model, is the prove that socalism works great. China and russia ARE NOT SOCALISTS, and after how communism is described you cant really call them communist either, actually.....
this isnt a bad video, I dont know why it has so many downvotes
I dont entirely agree that communism has to be by means of a violent revolution though, basically any form of socialism can be a stepping stone to a communist state (or lack thereof). Looks like social domocracy is the way to go at the moment though, if only western countries werent so brainwashed by stupid shit like the idea that any kind of intrusion of the state into the free market is somehow taking away their personal freedom
Here's an approach to the World's problems: Politics: Too much democracy = Anarchy; Too much Socialism = No Freedom. Economics: Too much Capitalism = So many people left behind; Too much Communism = Death of the economy. Therefore, we need something that is in between and work for the good of people. And Socio-democracy is the way to go. Look at Germany now, and all the Scandinavian countries (led by socio-democrats party).
Socialism, the idea of enforced equality is a revolt against nature itself. The distorted idea that all human beings are "equal". Equality before the law is not the same as being equal. Socialism is the greatest threat to freedom ever.
@TyphorT38 Remove the use of force and coercion and the only system that can possibly remain is not socialism, not fascism (which in essence is a type of socialism) but capitalism as in a free market where all transactions are voluntary because both parties believe they can gain from trade. The problem is NOT the FORM OF GOVERNMENT, IT IS GOVERNMENT!
the number of people that totally ignore what bush did is staggering. he took the worlds economy, trashed it, then the rear flank came in and started to blame everyone except bush. (see below). its one more ploy by the 'right wing' to keep control, hoping that the average american will forget all about 9/11 and the two wars bush launched over it. 9/11, btw, was an inside job, and george bush is now a wanted war criminal.
Its true that socialism has never been actually 100% achieved, neither has communism, because it is almost impossible to achieve without a government to take control of the country. However, this is completely the opposite of the goals that communism and socialism claim to try and project to the people of the world.
This video is balderdash, propaganda and nothing more. First off the Scandinavian "Yellow" countries are Parliamentary Monarchies, this video is so silly I will not go into it any more than that for now.
by the time i’m older, i’m off to scandinavia and then move to italy to help the centre left party over there and end capitalism there. may social democracy DOMINATE!!!
@nico99513 The Social Democracies all over Europe are collapsing. Dont you watch interest rates of Govt bonds over there? Us is next. Austerity now, voluntarily, or bond investors (bond vigilantes), speculators (the market) will slit the throat of these socialist paradises soon anyway.
@luvcheney1 well look at the capitalist countries they have a bad economy. im european but live in new york and a few friends of mine got laid off twice and 3 times! and in italy it’s even worse there is only corruption in that country and there is nothing. im not saying capitalism is a bad system, it’s our leaders that’s the problem. they abuse the systems that their nations follow. the last leaders of ussr ignored the old principles that lenin created when the gov was 1st established.
@nico99513 There is not one statement of an economic policy in your words. Are you in fact suggesting that the USSR was enjoying a higher standard of living than the US, in Lenin`s time? Stalin`s? Kruschev`s? Putin`s? How about Mao`s? Finally, China is progressing, due to relaxing of central rule, in the enterprise zones.
@luvcheney1 no im not saying that (im not a commie) Communism brings everything for all but the amount is so little. america obviously had higher standard of life. but what i ment was that when someone declares a goverment there are always people who abuse it. china was disgusting during mao’s time. your right about your last sentence. btw, i only used ussr as an example. i only like the idea of communism not the gov system. i’ll use an example easier for you to understand in the next comment.
@luvcheney1 here’s the example, a new us president is elected during a crisis and as time passes, this new leader makes a few “changes” that are against usa’s old principles.
(this example might be a bit better than the old one)
@nico99513 The US became the greatest industrial power in the world, with better living standards, with Govt spending, at the Federal, State, and local levels of just 7% of GDP. We have moved up to govt spending at all levels to 40%. The trend is bigger and bigger govt. This level was so high even before the crisis, and Obama. Same trend in Europe, varying by nation, of course. We all are collapsing, we are NOT at all capitalist any longer. 7% gov maybe, but 40% is certainly not.
@luvcheney1 about the last sentence, what do you include eu, usa, other w. european nations like switzerland? i know what you mean but sorry, i don’t know if you’re talking countries in particular.
@nico99513 Switzerland has good currency, but even they are devaluing it intentionally, to maintain trade. I am referring to the Western Democracies in general. Some of the old Soviet block actually have used very free marke, capitalist solutions, and have heavy growth. But, the long 100 year path to centralized controls, nad bigger govt has destroyed the former, more capitalistic nations. EU is now just printing money to save itself.
@luvcheney1 You are right about that especially the fact that the EU is at the brink of collapse. Now here’s a question if you don’t mind, though good economies, do you think the scandinavian nations should keep hold of their economies in a certain way so it can be stronger when it comes with trade or keep their economic balances it has right now?
@nico99513 I will confess I do not spend much time investigating unimportant Scandanavian nations. But, I will say that the Euro is a stupid idea. It forces all nations to behave the same, as far as monetary policies, deficits. This is, of course, impossible. All govts need to follow free trade, and reduce size of govt. Reducing size of govt allows tax reductions. Disobey these ideas, and living standards fall.
@luvcheney1 i just hope the euro ends, there a lot of nations that never fitted with the currency like greece. they should use their currency if the usa would have the same currency like canada or mexico (look up the north american union) they too would have the same problems. a union of trade is ok but to merge their economies into one is just foolish. the only nations that function better in the eu, are the ones that use their own money like the uk and sweden.
@nico99513 If greece had its own currency, and were still lazy, irresponsible, building up too many govt unionized employees, they would still be screwed. Their currency would be devalued by the free markets, by investors and speculators fleeing. They would have austerity anyway. The problem now is, that the strong nation of Germany, will weaken itaself, to save the lazy.
@luvcheney1 If you bunched up all those "unimportant Scandinavian countries" they would become the 10th largest economy in the world with only about 25 million people living there. I'd hardly call that unimportant. And if living standards would fall then why is itk that the countries following the Scandinavian model has both the highest tax rates in the world and the highest living standards? Cheers.
@Nimekasirika Norway has higher productivity than US (GDP PPP), that is because of a large oil industry, in relation to population. Qatar`s wealth, for example, has no relation to a fine economic system either. In the US, Americans of Swedish ancestry are far wealthier, than the US averages, and their poverty rate is half what avg Americans as well. Answer to your question is the difference between hard working, decent people with values, and US inner city trash.
No managers to manage things eh? Big companies are already owned by the people, and you can't enforce socialism without a state. The slow transition to socialism has led to poorer education, higher crime rates, higher medical care costs. Your yellow countries were cocialist, but when their economies started to tank they freed up their markets and improved their economies. In a pure democracy, if 51% of the people want to subjegate the other 49% they can. You need inalienable individual rights.
As for someone who is against religious collectivism and war, I can't say I've exactly 'conformed' to all american values. But the natural driving force of selfishness that I have felt flow through my veins since childhood propels me to a different conclusion, one that I've come to after engaging in many debates, reading many books, and tuning out to what parents and teachers want me to hear. It is this. I live for me. My well-being comes before anything else. No separate mind, no existence.
personally believe that the scandinavians are the leaders in humanitarian progress, except they left the back door open to the poison of religion, [islam].. enjoyed the post typhor. thumbed up.
The map is an aberration (past and present socialist regimes mixed up? What about South America?!), the spelling is very poor. This is not an explanation of Socialism, it is an advertisement for Scandinavian Social Democracy made by people who know very little about the ideas behind socialist thought. My former comrades would be ashamed.
Ok, aside from the fact that this is rife with mispelling and bad grammar, I have to ask; how can any true socialist be for a Demoracy? Isn't that having a ruling class?
@ZmanHot I think it cannot, because by saying to people it is illegal to set up private business, is a oppressive measure. Capitalism is the result of freedom, as people are free to trade goods with each other.
Therefore I am for controlled capitalism, but would never advocate a 100% state controlled economy. It just wouldn't work anyway.
@ZmanHot There are lots. Minimum wages, health and safety, maternity, equality legislation, allowing unions, environmental protection, stopping monopolies, stopping collusion of corporations, baring price fixing, watchdogs to make sure competition takes place. As well as this normal civil laws like barring companies from mugging you, murdering you, beating you up, stealing your house, selling you poison.
Are these bad?
Should we allow business to do whatever they want?
@TheSelfishAltruist No, and that's not the point. Most conservatives aren't actually against regulation, but excessive regulation. When I was getting my business degree, sometimes I had to try and read over regulations and laws relating to certain things, and it was mind boggling. There are 10's of thousands of laws on the books, and I'm sure not all of them are necessary.
@ZmanHot I probably agree with you that some laws are unnecessary, but I don't agree that government regulation stifles business. Yes it sounds like common sense, but I don't think the facts bear this out.
The problem is that if one country is more lax than another competition can be slightly unfair, so I think countries need to try and harmonise legislation via a world treaty or something. Cause if one country can pay people nothing, and another has a minimum wage theres a obvious unfairness.
@TheSelfishAltruist Now I definately am not on the same page as you. Countries should make their own laws. It's up to each country to do what's best for them, and if some do it better than others, that's part of the game. We shouldn't bring some countries down because they are more on the ball. If countries are more successful because they have less regulation, then maybe we should emulate that. By your own words regulatuon stifles business.
@ZmanHot This would benefit us because at the moment its cheaper to hire workers in the third world then in the 1st, so many countries outsource work.. which is bad for us. I dont mean protectionism, but some kind of agreement. Its unfair a massive firm can hire people in India and pay them next to nothing when a small firm in the UK or US has to pay minimum wage cause they're not big enough to outsource.
This is partly why big firms get so big and this is not what capitalism is about.
@TheSelfishAltruist Furthermore; I must ask if you've ever read through any of these codes, because I have. They're purposely deceptive. Regulators make them this way so companies have the utmost trouble following them, make a mistake, and have to pay some huge fine, with much of that money going to the government. As to your point here about it being cheaper: yes and no. It can be cheaper to go to a 3rd world nation, but not always because sometimes these people mess up.
@ZmanHot Aswell as this, huge supermarkets can bully producers to give them goods at ridiculous low prices because the contracts are massive and losing it can bankrupt a farmer, meaning they have to cut corners such as in animal welfare, or food quality.
This again is unfair on small business that dont have this kind of buying power, and have to pay more, meaning they have to sell for more.
This is where government needs to play a role. Adam Smith never advocated this kind of capitalism.
@TheSelfishAltruist When these factories in these countries screw it, businesses here have to scrap it, and then wait for new product to complete shipment, which can cost the company much money. And don't even tell me about the farmers, who already receive subsidies from governments. They control the means of production as the raw suppliers. Since there are so few left, markets need to pay something fair, or risk no product. Using your large size is a smart business tactic.
Yeah Scandinavian countries because everyone talks about how great those places are. They must be beating people back from trying to get citizenship there. Please. No one cares about Scandinavian countries because it is just another place to live. Now the USA has to stop people from trying to get in. Why? Because everyone wants to live there and knows that is the place to be.
@e93gsx Only ones trying to get into US in numbers are mexicans/south americans cause there is a border to share.And they only try to escape the oligarchy misery they live in.Americans who have lived in germany for a few years are not that keen to go back to the US and that has a reason.The central european and scandinavian countrys have a far more cohesive society.Germany has a higher "human developement index" than US and the live expectance is higher too due to better health care
@chris99103 And don't forget the fact that so many people are leaving the US just cause of the bad and expensive health care system thet have there, lol!
am from israel, i don't know if you have heard of something called a Kibutz it was a form of socialist settlement here. the farms, the land and all the property was owned by the collective. but now it faces extinction.
slightly inaccurate - it basically means worker have control over their own lives, true democracy in both the political and economic spheres, decisions that affect all, are decided by all.
The people that say the USSR/North Korea are socialist don't know what they're talking about and obviously find it hard to think for themselves - they fail the basic test, how much control did the workers in the USSR/NK have over their lives? This isn't even the fundamental socialism = freedom over your life
im from scotland and we are becoming socialist i think socialism is the purest desition democrazy can make thiers nothing fairer for all that socializm
@TyphorT38 It is easy to believe that everything will be sunshine and rainbows once all are equal. Fact is those in charge will want more and more power.
@Roald1988 north korea doesnt allow people to leave it is filled with slums starvation and coruption. the rich people are seperated from the poor people to make them think everything is alright and a corupt government doesnt all ow anyone else to rule other than there own greedy family.
@pivot1nerf2starwars3 i know, i know, i know, and still they claim to be communist, just like many other ''communist'' countries, therefore a ''communist country'' has a new meaning
One way or another people will come from monetary based system to the resource based system where all resources belong to all the people and with help of technology machines can produce abundance of product for everybody to have enough, shared equally. It will be moneyless, stateless, crimeless, trully free and democratic (direct democracy) society. IF... we won't destroy each other when we run out of resources in this out-dated monetary-market (on-going consumption) system.
And communism isn't a way to reach socialism. But Marxists say, that communism can be reached by socialism. But then there are different ways to reach communism and socialism. Like Marxism, Trotzkyism, Leninism... But i think, some of those kinds aren't really good to reach any of it. For example Leninism or Stalinism is more like statescapitalism.
Socialism is the previous society of communism (for the Marxists). Communism is like Anarchy. All for all, no money, no leaders, no state. And communism existed in the North of Spain during the civil war. I think even in the Machno-Movement. Today communism exists as far as i know in the Zapatistas and the Kibbuzim. And its proved, that it is the best society ever. There are MUCH less diseases and NOT ANY crimes. All in all, good video comrade!
@ACFnici the communists that existed in northern Spain were brutal Stalinists who killed there anarchist brothers - it was these anarchist who have established the best example, the City of Barcelona, Catalonia, parts of Aragon, parts of Andalusia, parts of Asturias, were truly free for nearly 2 years, involving over 2 million people. They were betrayed by all in the Popular Front and denied arms to defend themselves by the commies, who the weapons to terrorize the people instead of the fascists
@Mr1100112233 I know, that it were the anarchists that made the communism there. ''Communismo libertario'' right? And anarchists are communists. And stalinists and leninists are NOT communists! I know what you are telling me. But i just want you to know, what communists are. The anarchocommunists or anarchists that want anarchy, a free society, are commies. Marxists are commies too, but no anarchists. Anarchists and Marxismuniststs want communism. But they have different tactics
this video looks like it was made by a 3rd grader. your english is so poor that i cannot even begin to understand what you're saying. good luck promoting equality over efficiency.
Conveniently, the bloody failures of socialism in the 20th are explained here by saying they weren't real socialists because socialists aren't totalitarian. Problem is that poster focuses on the results, the ends and not the means. Stalin,Mao,Lenin,Castro,PolPot,Hitler killed tens of MILLIONS by gaining complete control of their governments. They gained control under the guise of socialism. We should be very wary of folks looking to expand gov. in order to obtain "socialism". It leads to misery.
@TyphorT38 People don't use their freedom to "spread misery". People use their freedom to act as they wish. If they wish to compete and gain success then they can do so. If their definition of success is accumulating wealth than so be it. So long as their pursuit of success does not infringe upon the equal rights of others. THAT'S FREEDOM. In contrast, gaining control of a country, forcibly confiscating people's property, and killing MILLIONS who disagree w/ your views is FAR worse. No contest.
@coolbreezed listen kid, today the world is in chaos. over 1 billion people are considered to suffer from starvation every single day. our world is not perfect, our worlds current system is that of capitalism and some people seriously believe that by using more capitalism the wolrd will turn out great. but truth is that there is no freedom to be found in a world with 1 billion starving people. no freedom at all. cuz 1 billion is denied their freedom to the right to a good life.
@quarky123456 i've read the communist manifesto :P well i do not claim to be any kind of expert. But i consider myself to have one advantage over many others and that is that i do not mix my own opinion into discussions about political facts. i disslike socialism but that dosn't mean that i will spread propaganda and call it a totalitarian ideology, for example. If you have any questions i would be hapy to answer them to the extent of my ability.
@TyphorT38 Well what do you dislike about ***workers controlling what they themselves produce***(if you really read the C.M you would kno)? Is it not quite obvious that if there is autocracy in the economy, there will be the scale of global extortion which we see today?: 3 Billion humans earn less than $2 a day working to produce the Capital for the 500 heads of corporations who control 52% of ALL the world's produced riches. I'm pretty sure we need to have some justice before we have peace. ☭★
@noprofitmaximierung "Workers controlling what they themselves produce" is something that i fully suport and i fully suport the idea of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". my main problem whit the many types of socialism is that they all seem to want an end-goal that is free from state and gouverment. and to me it just seem ilogical that there would be much justice without some form of state.
@TyphorT38 Oh yes, i see what you mean. I recommend reading Lenin's "The State and Revolution", a historical analysis of how the state developed and how it acts (namely: it came from the ruins of feudal society and the rise of the ruling bourgeois class, for the ruling class; all very much to the current). I can give you the link to the book.
@noprofitmaximierung thx for the link, i lock forward to read it. and i'm not less of a man that i can admit that i might be wrong. a world without a state might work, we just haven't tried it jet.
@TyphorT38 Capitalism can work for the benefit of the people, if it is regulated in such a way that it can be controlled by the people via government.
After WWII the world saw a steady and consistent growth year on year because of good regulation. Thatcher and Reagan destroyed the post war consensus and moved towards the free market, almost anarcho capitalism, and since then growth has been haphazard.
This recession was caused by lack of good regulation, and gov must get a grip on it.
@TheSelfishAltruist true this..and not only this...sice this "predator capitalism" appeared the money is taken away from the poor and middle class and accumulating around the big banks,cooporations and the wealthy asnd to crwon it all is these people who get the big bailouts after loosing all these moneys in risky roulette like speculations...sickening,isnt it?
@chris99103 I completely agree. Short term economics is bad for the business, bad for the economy and should be regulated against. Maybe make illegal ridiculous speculative investing. Another interesting idea is to put bank employees on the board, or make policy that executive pay is directly correlated to company success.
Something has got to change for banking and the whole economy.This change will only come from government.Free markets cant do this because banks are not allowed to fail
@chris99103 Free markets cant change banking for the simple reason that governments cant allow bad banks to go out of business via the 'selection' process of capitalism.
If a bank fails currently, they are bailed out. Obviously we cant allow banks to fail, but this fact brings into focuses how banking is a different animal, then for example, a retail store.
If banking is not allowed to fail via normal capitalism, then it must be hugely regulated.
@chris99103 nor does it health, police, fire, farming, transport and the military I might add. These entities are essential, and therefore if they are privately owned, there should be powerful government regulation and investment to not allow them to go 'bankrupt' - imagine if the ambulance service went bankrupt? This is why these services are broadly owned democratically.
Private enterprise should only own things that are not essential like a clothes store, so if they go bankrupt, tough luck.
As for socialism: The Nazi where the socialist party of Germany. So if you want to know extreme socialism, get a history book.
Why did it end like that? Because the state becomes more important than the individual. And, unless the individual ideas agree with the party in power, they do not have a chance to grow.
Not to say that capitalism does not have a similar ending (due to corporations).
How about capitalism based on cooperatives instead? More dificult to manipulate.
@rxantos Long before any jew were sent to concentrationcamps the nazi sent socialists, communists and socialdemocrats. why? because socialits demands democracy and human rights. Nationalsocialism (nazism) are socialists to name ony and not in action
@TyphorT38 Nazism is its own beast which really comes from the combination of nationalism and socialism, the idea that your mother country is the most important thing in anyone's life, and that workers' rights and egalitarianism are the means to achieve a stronger state. Socialism took a back seat to nationalism, but to say it has nothing to do with nazism is misleading. Nazis are just not *pure* socialists.
@eggory the core of socialism is Democracy, and No-State(the state is a means of oppression and thus not needed).... i can't find those within Nazism, sorry but i cant
nice vid ! but btw every democratic party uses welfare socialisam ideas today so they are not seen as socialist but rather democratic which is nice
but that is so apparent in scandinavia because of mentality of people
they have no problem sharing wealth and are not too greedy and very tolerant and hardworking and smart and ... you get the point = learn from those people
@CroZomBie Yes, as a Socialdemocrat and Swede, the whole idea is that welfare and wellbeing can only be achieved by a communal effort. Profit will always only serve the top of the pyramid and the idea of capitalism is that everybody strives for the top. For all those who follow current affairs, we can see that this is an illusion. Only by joining our efforts can we succeed in creating a better, more empathic and more respectful society. But it's every single ones responsibility to contribute.
@azynkron Sounds very oppressive. What if a person does not wish to give over his or her property to the state, or to be empathetic, or to help others. Should that person be forced? You talk of respect, yet your egalitarian society does not respect the individualism of others. Social democracy is nothing better than mob rule.
How to provide the equal opportunities if some families can pay killer to eliminate anyone, and can pay to block any further investigation?
Gentleman in giving big donations for the church, and for the school, so I can not allow the case to be opened? Move, you wretches, or I will arrest you for the subversive revolutionary activities?
@TyphorT38 Even socialism recognizes some basic form of the concept of property and ownership. If you don't believe in it at all you are a communist where nothing is "owned" by anyone and we live in an anarchal stateless "utopia" society.
@stebecool When socialists talk about abolishing ownership they mean land and means of production aka industries. they do not talk about sharing toothbrusches. i personally never said that i dont believe in ownership, thats just you jumping to conclusions
@TyphorT38 If we go to worker-owned production, are all of the workers willing to provide upfront capital to the business and to lose not only their jobs, but lose everything financially if the business isn't successful? If not, then it's not ownership. Would working for a stable non-contracted wage not be an option if that's what someone wanted? If you quit the job, do you get your money back? Do you have to find someone to replace you and buy your ownership from you? This will never work.
@stebecool you don't get it do you? the video is not about whenewer it works or not. it's about what the socialist believe. it's the same thing as saying thet christians believe in an invisible man in the sky, it dosn't try to prove that the invisible man exist it just says that they believe in one!
Please explain how a worker-owned business economy would ever work. Who fronts the capital/money/resources/whatever to get the business started because they have nothing. Or do they have to wait for real capitalist entrepreneurs to create and build the business and then kill them and their families and take it over to be owned by the workers? How would they know what supply and demand is and what resources are abundant/limited without a free market price system? You live in a fairy tale land.
@stebecool i do not have to explain how the socialist want things to work. i simply stated what they want things to be. i'm no socialist but you have alrady judge me based on a video containing facts, not opinions. aren't you the one who live in your own world?
I am proud to say that I believe in democratic socialism as the greatest alternative to capitalism. Because the best government is the one that doesn't have to exist(which we can all agree on), a government by the people, for the people, is the most logical alternative. This form of government is destined to replace capitalism at some point. Contrary to popular belief, we are not a democracy here in the U.S.; we are a Plutocracy- ruled by large corporations, the privileged, and the wealthy.
@Andershasgotitgoinon ... social democracy will always result in the 49% or fewer subsidizing the 51% or more through the threat of violence or coercion.
This goes nothing into economic differences between capitalism and socialism. "removing managers" is hardly explicative. planned versus unplanned economies...then you realize the disadvantages of socialism.
a revolution, because they saw no other way to reason with the ruling class, because it had nothing to gain from a communist society, and thus it would be highly unlikely for a compromise to be achieved. Many people support a violent revolution today for exactly those reasons. It is sickening to see how people, especially young people, are constantly being brainwashed and lied to, for the ultimate purpose of profit and control.
socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism, something of an in-between, because Marx and Engels realized it would be impossible for the transition to happen overnight. Basically, they believed, and i agree with them, that the mindset of the majority of the people, is subtly but undoubtedly defined by society, and to extent, the ruling class. This is because the ruling class has always controlled the flow of information, education etcetera.
@SovietGamers There are not explicit call for violence in the Manifesto, but if you read "Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung" you are going to see this:
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.
Marx was extremely racist and advocate genocide all the time in his personal life haha.
Search for Marx on genocide.
Time to grow, dude.. read some Ludwig Von Mises and shut up... ;)
The entire idea of communism/socialism is totalitarian state. I don't see how you people legitimately think it can be any other way...if you do not own your labor, then you do not own yourself. You relinquishing self ownership to the state...that's slavery.
@munkyusm The entire idea of communism/socialism is no state, and the socialist claim "property is theft" is far more logical than "taxes are theft". who said you could own anything in the first place? /a non-socialist
@munkyusm who said we own ourselves? there are no holy magical stoneplate give bu some god thing that say so. the idea that we own ourselves and that we have the right to own other things are just that, an idea.
@TyphorT38 How can you not believe in self ownership? Do you not think you own your own ideas? Do you not think you own your actions? Let's not play semantics with the word "own". I would hope you would agree that you are responsible for your own life? If you're not, then you're saying you want to be a slave.
@munkyusm I did not claim that I do not believe in the fact that i'm my own person. i simly question the argument that ownership is a "natural-right".
@munkyusm physically, my brain controls the body's movements. but what do that have to do with the fact that there are no such thing that say that you can take a rock and call it yours.
@TyphorT38 Well if you admit you control your own body, then do you not think that you own your own labor? If you do not admit that, again you're admitting your wish to be a slave.
@munkyusm what kind of logic is that? i can take two pices of wood and nail them together but why would that make the wood mine? if i control and "Own" my body, that stil dosn't mean i have any "Right" to the things i tutch. or who told you otherwise? "god?"
@TyphorT38 Such a semantical argument..."right" "own", who gives a shit what the words are. Are you a slave or aren't you? This is the fundamental question you must answer. If you choose no, then you must be support liberty and subsequently people voluntarily trading things...if you choose yes, then you support systems in which a state, or a society claims ownership over your body and your labor.
@munkyusm aren't you the one that only se things in black and white? if wanting to live a good life just like anyone else is making you a slave then fuck yes i'm a "slave". this stupid conversation is ower
@hallabalooza about the slave stuff? so anyone that say, thinks it's good to pay a little bit more taxes is a "slave"? seriously? the problem with his Slave/slaver/freeborn argument is that it requiers the "Right-to-ownership" to be a natural-law/god-given-right. and until he can prove that it is so, his argument isn't worth shit.
@TyphorT38 If you claim, that there is no such thing as ownership, you're a dreamer. There are always people who claim to "own" something - it is just human. The question here is wether you think you own your life or you don't, which is what I mark as the necessity of thinking in black or white. It is just a matter of premises. If you say you own your life, that means you own your future. If you are free, you own your present. If you have property, that represents the work of your past.
@hallabalooza I do not claim that there are no property, i do not claim that i do not own myself. I only claim that he can't treat ownership as a natural right without prof. i'm tired of all this liberal semantic bullshit. propery isn't a priority, low taxes aren't a priority. A good life for you, me and all our fellow man is a priority and if that's means higher taxes than so be it. if "Good life>liberal bullshit" makes me a slave then yes i'm a "liberal slave" happy now?
@TyphorT38 Without a doubt, I believe you when you say that you ultimately want everybody to live a good life. However the question here is: do you want to impose your IDEA of a good life on others? In my opinion you do so, especially when asking for collectivistic ideas like "socialism" - and that I think is the whole problem. You say higher taxes lead to a better live - but that is oversimplification. You need somebody to take care of that (government) and people have individual desires.
@hallabalooza okey, first things first. i'm not a socialist, i'm a fascist and yes i consider it worth to impose quite a lot if that imposing leads to a good life for 7 billion people. And you are right higher taxes is a simplification and dosn't necesarely lead to a good life. my point is that the goal is "a good life" and people should focus on the goal and not on "ingredients" like taxes, ownership and shit like that. and i'm sick and tired hearing that goverment is"evil"
@TyphorT38 Government is not evil in principle, it is inefficient and dangerous. And you call yourself a fascist, are you kidding me? I find it quite interesting that in the 21st century some people are still so afraid to use their own noodles and take credit for the consequences of their actions.
@hallabalooza it is the 21st century and fascists like me are basicly extinct. i follow the works of Per Engdahl (the late ones without the raist nazi bullshit) so i guess i fall within the fascist chategory.
@TyphorT38 I also don't think that you're a "liberal slave", I only think that history has proven that whenever people in the context of a society followed an idea rather than their own interests, it led to intellectual sloth and in the end to dictatorships of different extents. Personally I would also call a system in which a majority rules a minority call a dictatorship, which necessitates the principle of subsidiarity so people could autonomously take care of themselves without big government
@munkyusm who said we own ourselves? there are no holy magical stoneplate give bu some god thing that say so. the idea that we own ourselves and that we have the right to own other things are just that, an idea.
@TyphorT38 No taxes are theft.. Socialism does not work, it never has worked.. You are talking about countries that survive based on a system of printed value.. Meaning they are THE most vulnerable.. America is propping these countries up.. They are one of the few countries that still promote free trade.. If America falls, so do every socialist nation on earth.. So you better wish that capitalism works..If not? Everyone is riding shotty trains..Americans take cars..Why? They are rich.
@1337wafflezz what are you talking about? the fact that property is but a made up concept and that you can't prove that the "right" to ownership exist?
@1337wafflezz That isn't very logical. If there is no private property, it wouldn't be 'your shit' to be jacked in the first place. What you may want to say is that people form personal attachments to things they use so, psychologically, a society would be hard pressed to accept a paradigm without a form of private property. The question then would be 'could people grow beyond their attachments to material things'?
@TyphorT38 Yeah it is based upon reaching fully realized eternal catharsis among all people brought about by universal and unending conflict(insert irony).
@TyphorT38 Property is theft is far more illogical than taxes are theft. Property, in most cases, is rightfully owned by the individual. Taxes are property forcibly confiscated by the state. Most children can recognize this distinction.
"Who said you could own anything in the first place?" This is very telling of your world view. There is NO ONE that ALLOWS people to own property. Its the natural condition of things. A fundamental and natural right afforded to all humans. Your logic is flawed.
@coolbreezed No, Your logic is flawed. The is NO NATURAL LAW that say that ANYONE got ANY Right to ANY property. what prof do you have for this natural law that you claim to exist? no prof, just as little prof as there is for santa and for god. it dosn't exist. it's a made up concept. I do not say that I am against ownership. I simply say that there is NO prof for the right to ownership.
@TyphorT38 Property is the NATURAL state of things because humans have ALWAYS had and understood the concept of private property in some form or another. The RIGHT to property is a philosophical and historical constant for thousands of years. There's my proof. To say property is theft operates on the wrongful assumption that everything belongs to everyone. It doesn't. Never HAS & never WILL. The concept of taxes are much more like theft. Its property rightfully gained and then taken by force.
communism and socalism is two differnt kind of idealogies XD so you, youself are a bit ignorant :)
I live in denmark, and WE ARE socalist! but youre right about were not like any other socalist countries, our system, called the scandinavia-model, is the prove that socalism works great. China and russia ARE NOT SOCALISTS, and after how communism is described you cant really call them communist either, actually.....
Mariebuur 16 hours ago
An economy with no managers? So who redistributes the wealth? Someone has to, and they become the manager?
jontycampbell 3 days ago
this isnt a bad video, I dont know why it has so many downvotes
I dont entirely agree that communism has to be by means of a violent revolution though, basically any form of socialism can be a stepping stone to a communist state (or lack thereof). Looks like social domocracy is the way to go at the moment though, if only western countries werent so brainwashed by stupid shit like the idea that any kind of intrusion of the state into the free market is somehow taking away their personal freedom
yngvaibucketrucci 3 days ago
Here's an approach to the World's problems: Politics: Too much democracy = Anarchy; Too much Socialism = No Freedom. Economics: Too much Capitalism = So many people left behind; Too much Communism = Death of the economy. Therefore, we need something that is in between and work for the good of people. And Socio-democracy is the way to go. Look at Germany now, and all the Scandinavian countries (led by socio-democrats party).
nicsab09 3 days ago
Everyone complains about it but, no one correctly explains what Socialism is.
Charlie12241 6 days ago
Socialism, the idea of enforced equality is a revolt against nature itself. The distorted idea that all human beings are "equal". Equality before the law is not the same as being equal. Socialism is the greatest threat to freedom ever.
renierinoz 6 days ago
@renierinoz Yes. Socialism is as great a threat to freedom because of its naivety, as capitalism is in its out right denial of freedom.
TyphorT38 6 days ago
@TyphorT38 Remove the use of force and coercion and the only system that can possibly remain is not socialism, not fascism (which in essence is a type of socialism) but capitalism as in a free market where all transactions are voluntary because both parties believe they can gain from trade. The problem is NOT the FORM OF GOVERNMENT, IT IS GOVERNMENT!
renierinoz 5 days ago
@renierinoz yeah yeah yeah, anarchy is the way to go we got that...
TyphorT38 5 days ago
@renierinoz And who would protect the good people from greedy people then?
Anarcho socialism for the win!This way the people would protect themselves.
Gotcha1234Mariok 3 days ago
@renierinoz hahaahah facism and socalism? its nothing near each other xD
please go back to school and study WW2!
Mariebuur 16 hours ago
It's only "real" socialism when it's something good? How about you fund the "revolution" without the taxpayers money..
zazack79 1 week ago
with*
XxXBIHXx 1 week ago
and whats witz yugoslavia ?? fail...
XxXBIHXx 1 week ago
I still dont get it :(
jadey12014 1 week ago
the number of people that totally ignore what bush did is staggering. he took the worlds economy, trashed it, then the rear flank came in and started to blame everyone except bush. (see below). its one more ploy by the 'right wing' to keep control, hoping that the average american will forget all about 9/11 and the two wars bush launched over it. 9/11, btw, was an inside job, and george bush is now a wanted war criminal.
vengencefrom1979 2 weeks ago
Its true that socialism has never been actually 100% achieved, neither has communism, because it is almost impossible to achieve without a government to take control of the country. However, this is completely the opposite of the goals that communism and socialism claim to try and project to the people of the world.
rossastan 2 weeks ago
I don't like socialism.
TCfoxs 2 weeks ago
This video is balderdash, propaganda and nothing more. First off the Scandinavian "Yellow" countries are Parliamentary Monarchies, this video is so silly I will not go into it any more than that for now.
ThisLadyIsNotTheSame 2 weeks ago
@ThisLadyIsNotTheSame who said they wasn't Parliamentary Monarchies? get your head out your ass
TyphorT38 2 weeks ago
by the time i’m older, i’m off to scandinavia and then move to italy to help the centre left party over there and end capitalism there. may social democracy DOMINATE!!!
LIBERTAS ET INCREMENTVM
nico99513 2 weeks ago
@nico99513 The Social Democracies all over Europe are collapsing. Dont you watch interest rates of Govt bonds over there? Us is next. Austerity now, voluntarily, or bond investors (bond vigilantes), speculators (the market) will slit the throat of these socialist paradises soon anyway.
luvcheney1 2 weeks ago
@luvcheney1 well look at the capitalist countries they have a bad economy. im european but live in new york and a few friends of mine got laid off twice and 3 times! and in italy it’s even worse there is only corruption in that country and there is nothing. im not saying capitalism is a bad system, it’s our leaders that’s the problem. they abuse the systems that their nations follow. the last leaders of ussr ignored the old principles that lenin created when the gov was 1st established.
nico99513 1 week ago
@nico99513 There is not one statement of an economic policy in your words. Are you in fact suggesting that the USSR was enjoying a higher standard of living than the US, in Lenin`s time? Stalin`s? Kruschev`s? Putin`s? How about Mao`s? Finally, China is progressing, due to relaxing of central rule, in the enterprise zones.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1 no im not saying that (im not a commie) Communism brings everything for all but the amount is so little. america obviously had higher standard of life. but what i ment was that when someone declares a goverment there are always people who abuse it. china was disgusting during mao’s time. your right about your last sentence. btw, i only used ussr as an example. i only like the idea of communism not the gov system. i’ll use an example easier for you to understand in the next comment.
nico99513 1 week ago
@luvcheney1 here’s the example, a new us president is elected during a crisis and as time passes, this new leader makes a few “changes” that are against usa’s old principles.
(this example might be a bit better than the old one)
nico99513 1 week ago
@nico99513 The US became the greatest industrial power in the world, with better living standards, with Govt spending, at the Federal, State, and local levels of just 7% of GDP. We have moved up to govt spending at all levels to 40%. The trend is bigger and bigger govt. This level was so high even before the crisis, and Obama. Same trend in Europe, varying by nation, of course. We all are collapsing, we are NOT at all capitalist any longer. 7% gov maybe, but 40% is certainly not.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1 about the last sentence, what do you include eu, usa, other w. european nations like switzerland? i know what you mean but sorry, i don’t know if you’re talking countries in particular.
nico99513 1 week ago
@nico99513 Switzerland has good currency, but even they are devaluing it intentionally, to maintain trade. I am referring to the Western Democracies in general. Some of the old Soviet block actually have used very free marke, capitalist solutions, and have heavy growth. But, the long 100 year path to centralized controls, nad bigger govt has destroyed the former, more capitalistic nations. EU is now just printing money to save itself.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1 You are right about that especially the fact that the EU is at the brink of collapse. Now here’s a question if you don’t mind, though good economies, do you think the scandinavian nations should keep hold of their economies in a certain way so it can be stronger when it comes with trade or keep their economic balances it has right now?
nico99513 1 week ago
@nico99513 I will confess I do not spend much time investigating unimportant Scandanavian nations. But, I will say that the Euro is a stupid idea. It forces all nations to behave the same, as far as monetary policies, deficits. This is, of course, impossible. All govts need to follow free trade, and reduce size of govt. Reducing size of govt allows tax reductions. Disobey these ideas, and living standards fall.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1 i just hope the euro ends, there a lot of nations that never fitted with the currency like greece. they should use their currency if the usa would have the same currency like canada or mexico (look up the north american union) they too would have the same problems. a union of trade is ok but to merge their economies into one is just foolish. the only nations that function better in the eu, are the ones that use their own money like the uk and sweden.
nico99513 1 week ago
@nico99513 If greece had its own currency, and were still lazy, irresponsible, building up too many govt unionized employees, they would still be screwed. Their currency would be devalued by the free markets, by investors and speculators fleeing. They would have austerity anyway. The problem now is, that the strong nation of Germany, will weaken itaself, to save the lazy.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1 If you bunched up all those "unimportant Scandinavian countries" they would become the 10th largest economy in the world with only about 25 million people living there. I'd hardly call that unimportant. And if living standards would fall then why is itk that the countries following the Scandinavian model has both the highest tax rates in the world and the highest living standards? Cheers.
Nimekasirika 1 week ago
@Nimekasirika Norway has higher productivity than US (GDP PPP), that is because of a large oil industry, in relation to population. Qatar`s wealth, for example, has no relation to a fine economic system either. In the US, Americans of Swedish ancestry are far wealthier, than the US averages, and their poverty rate is half what avg Americans as well. Answer to your question is the difference between hard working, decent people with values, and US inner city trash.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
No managers to manage things eh? Big companies are already owned by the people, and you can't enforce socialism without a state. The slow transition to socialism has led to poorer education, higher crime rates, higher medical care costs. Your yellow countries were cocialist, but when their economies started to tank they freed up their markets and improved their economies. In a pure democracy, if 51% of the people want to subjegate the other 49% they can. You need inalienable individual rights.
BelieversinThings 3 weeks ago
As for someone who is against religious collectivism and war, I can't say I've exactly 'conformed' to all american values. But the natural driving force of selfishness that I have felt flow through my veins since childhood propels me to a different conclusion, one that I've come to after engaging in many debates, reading many books, and tuning out to what parents and teachers want me to hear. It is this. I live for me. My well-being comes before anything else. No separate mind, no existence.
quidnick 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
quidnick 3 weeks ago
personally believe that the scandinavians are the leaders in humanitarian progress, except they left the back door open to the poison of religion, [islam].. enjoyed the post typhor. thumbed up.
kram83au 3 weeks ago
The map is an aberration (past and present socialist regimes mixed up? What about South America?!), the spelling is very poor. This is not an explanation of Socialism, it is an advertisement for Scandinavian Social Democracy made by people who know very little about the ideas behind socialist thought. My former comrades would be ashamed.
nicolibri 4 weeks ago
has everyone forgotten china?
93razzmatazz 4 weeks ago
Ok, aside from the fact that this is rife with mispelling and bad grammar, I have to ask; how can any true socialist be for a Demoracy? Isn't that having a ruling class?
ZmanHot 4 weeks ago
@ZmanHot I think it cannot, because by saying to people it is illegal to set up private business, is a oppressive measure. Capitalism is the result of freedom, as people are free to trade goods with each other.
Therefore I am for controlled capitalism, but would never advocate a 100% state controlled economy. It just wouldn't work anyway.
TheSelfishAltruist 4 weeks ago
@TheSelfishAltruist I'm just wondering; what's controlled Capitalism? You mean with regulations like we have now?
ZmanHot 4 weeks ago
@ZmanHot Similar to what we have now yes. I would like further regulation though, like in northern Europe.
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
@TheSelfishAltruist More? Do you have any concept of how many regulations we have on the books?
ZmanHot 3 weeks ago
@ZmanHot There are lots. Minimum wages, health and safety, maternity, equality legislation, allowing unions, environmental protection, stopping monopolies, stopping collusion of corporations, baring price fixing, watchdogs to make sure competition takes place. As well as this normal civil laws like barring companies from mugging you, murdering you, beating you up, stealing your house, selling you poison.
Are these bad?
Should we allow business to do whatever they want?
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
@TheSelfishAltruist No, and that's not the point. Most conservatives aren't actually against regulation, but excessive regulation. When I was getting my business degree, sometimes I had to try and read over regulations and laws relating to certain things, and it was mind boggling. There are 10's of thousands of laws on the books, and I'm sure not all of them are necessary.
ZmanHot 3 weeks ago
@ZmanHot I probably agree with you that some laws are unnecessary, but I don't agree that government regulation stifles business. Yes it sounds like common sense, but I don't think the facts bear this out.
The problem is that if one country is more lax than another competition can be slightly unfair, so I think countries need to try and harmonise legislation via a world treaty or something. Cause if one country can pay people nothing, and another has a minimum wage theres a obvious unfairness.
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
@TheSelfishAltruist Now I definately am not on the same page as you. Countries should make their own laws. It's up to each country to do what's best for them, and if some do it better than others, that's part of the game. We shouldn't bring some countries down because they are more on the ball. If countries are more successful because they have less regulation, then maybe we should emulate that. By your own words regulatuon stifles business.
ZmanHot 3 weeks ago
@ZmanHot This would benefit us because at the moment its cheaper to hire workers in the third world then in the 1st, so many countries outsource work.. which is bad for us. I dont mean protectionism, but some kind of agreement. Its unfair a massive firm can hire people in India and pay them next to nothing when a small firm in the UK or US has to pay minimum wage cause they're not big enough to outsource.
This is partly why big firms get so big and this is not what capitalism is about.
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
@TheSelfishAltruist Furthermore; I must ask if you've ever read through any of these codes, because I have. They're purposely deceptive. Regulators make them this way so companies have the utmost trouble following them, make a mistake, and have to pay some huge fine, with much of that money going to the government. As to your point here about it being cheaper: yes and no. It can be cheaper to go to a 3rd world nation, but not always because sometimes these people mess up.
ZmanHot 3 weeks ago
@ZmanHot Aswell as this, huge supermarkets can bully producers to give them goods at ridiculous low prices because the contracts are massive and losing it can bankrupt a farmer, meaning they have to cut corners such as in animal welfare, or food quality.
This again is unfair on small business that dont have this kind of buying power, and have to pay more, meaning they have to sell for more.
This is where government needs to play a role. Adam Smith never advocated this kind of capitalism.
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
@TheSelfishAltruist When these factories in these countries screw it, businesses here have to scrap it, and then wait for new product to complete shipment, which can cost the company much money. And don't even tell me about the farmers, who already receive subsidies from governments. They control the means of production as the raw suppliers. Since there are so few left, markets need to pay something fair, or risk no product. Using your large size is a smart business tactic.
ZmanHot 3 weeks ago
@ZmanHot I talk too much.
TheSelfishAltruist 3 weeks ago
Yeah Scandinavian countries because everyone talks about how great those places are. They must be beating people back from trying to get citizenship there. Please. No one cares about Scandinavian countries because it is just another place to live. Now the USA has to stop people from trying to get in. Why? Because everyone wants to live there and knows that is the place to be.
e93gsx 1 month ago
@e93gsx Only ones trying to get into US in numbers are mexicans/south americans cause there is a border to share.And they only try to escape the oligarchy misery they live in.Americans who have lived in germany for a few years are not that keen to go back to the US and that has a reason.The central european and scandinavian countrys have a far more cohesive society.Germany has a higher "human developement index" than US and the live expectance is higher too due to better health care
chris99103 4 weeks ago
@chris99103 And don't forget the fact that so many people are leaving the US just cause of the bad and expensive health care system thet have there, lol!
tokzan 4 weeks ago
am from israel, i don't know if you have heard of something called a Kibutz it was a form of socialist settlement here. the farms, the land and all the property was owned by the collective. but now it faces extinction.
goblinclaus 1 month ago
slightly inaccurate - it basically means worker have control over their own lives, true democracy in both the political and economic spheres, decisions that affect all, are decided by all.
The people that say the USSR/North Korea are socialist don't know what they're talking about and obviously find it hard to think for themselves - they fail the basic test, how much control did the workers in the USSR/NK have over their lives? This isn't even the fundamental socialism = freedom over your life
Mr1100112233 1 month ago
im from scotland and we are becoming socialist i think socialism is the purest desition democrazy can make thiers nothing fairer for all that socializm
SlipySama 1 month ago
communism, it worked for north-korea, it is a great country, others should follow
Roald1988 1 month ago
@Roald1988 north korea is as far from communism as you'll get
TyphorT38 1 month ago 17
@TyphorT38 Yes, North Korea is yet another example of how communism fails.
2411Hellokitty 3 weeks ago
@2411Hellokitty north korea is as far from communism as you'll get. as in; not a representation of communism at all
TyphorT38 3 weeks ago
@TyphorT38 I didn't say it was communist. I said that it is another example of failed communism.
2411Hellokitty 3 weeks ago
@TyphorT38 It is easy to believe that everything will be sunshine and rainbows once all are equal. Fact is those in charge will want more and more power.
2411Hellokitty 3 weeks ago
@2411Hellokitty (I'm not a communist, i do not believe in sunshine)
TyphorT38 3 weeks ago
@Roald1988 north korea is fascist not communist
SlipySama 1 month ago
@SlipySama the claim to be communist, just like all the other ''communist'' countries, anyway i was trolling
Roald1988 1 month ago
@Roald1988 north korea doesnt allow people to leave it is filled with slums starvation and coruption. the rich people are seperated from the poor people to make them think everything is alright and a corupt government doesnt all ow anyone else to rule other than there own greedy family.
pivot1nerf2starwars3 1 month ago
@pivot1nerf2starwars3 i know, i know, i know, and still they claim to be communist, just like many other ''communist'' countries, therefore a ''communist country'' has a new meaning
Roald1988 1 month ago
One way or another people will come from monetary based system to the resource based system where all resources belong to all the people and with help of technology machines can produce abundance of product for everybody to have enough, shared equally. It will be moneyless, stateless, crimeless, trully free and democratic (direct democracy) society. IF... we won't destroy each other when we run out of resources in this out-dated monetary-market (on-going consumption) system.
AlexeyJones 1 month ago
the radical philosopher dot word press dot com
ikid77 1 month ago
And communism isn't a way to reach socialism. But Marxists say, that communism can be reached by socialism. But then there are different ways to reach communism and socialism. Like Marxism, Trotzkyism, Leninism... But i think, some of those kinds aren't really good to reach any of it. For example Leninism or Stalinism is more like statescapitalism.
Greetings!
ACFnici 1 month ago
Socialism is the previous society of communism (for the Marxists). Communism is like Anarchy. All for all, no money, no leaders, no state. And communism existed in the North of Spain during the civil war. I think even in the Machno-Movement. Today communism exists as far as i know in the Zapatistas and the Kibbuzim. And its proved, that it is the best society ever. There are MUCH less diseases and NOT ANY crimes. All in all, good video comrade!
ACFnici 1 month ago
@ACFnici the communists that existed in northern Spain were brutal Stalinists who killed there anarchist brothers - it was these anarchist who have established the best example, the City of Barcelona, Catalonia, parts of Aragon, parts of Andalusia, parts of Asturias, were truly free for nearly 2 years, involving over 2 million people. They were betrayed by all in the Popular Front and denied arms to defend themselves by the commies, who the weapons to terrorize the people instead of the fascists
Mr1100112233 1 month ago
@Mr1100112233 I know, that it were the anarchists that made the communism there. ''Communismo libertario'' right? And anarchists are communists. And stalinists and leninists are NOT communists! I know what you are telling me. But i just want you to know, what communists are. The anarchocommunists or anarchists that want anarchy, a free society, are commies. Marxists are commies too, but no anarchists. Anarchists and Marxismuniststs want communism. But they have different tactics
ACFnici 1 month ago
plenty of info, but terrible grammar and spelling :)
quarky123456 1 month ago 2
this video looks like it was made by a 3rd grader. your english is so poor that i cannot even begin to understand what you're saying. good luck promoting equality over efficiency.
IncoherentCommenter 1 month ago
@IncoherentCommenter Ha en bra dag du med
TyphorT38 1 month ago
Conveniently, the bloody failures of socialism in the 20th are explained here by saying they weren't real socialists because socialists aren't totalitarian. Problem is that poster focuses on the results, the ends and not the means. Stalin,Mao,Lenin,Castro,PolPot,Hitler killed tens of MILLIONS by gaining complete control of their governments. They gained control under the guise of socialism. We should be very wary of folks looking to expand gov. in order to obtain "socialism". It leads to misery.
coolbreezed 1 month ago
@coolbreezed just as wary as one should be towards those who uses the word Freedom in order to spread misery and increase their personal well-being.
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 People don't use their freedom to "spread misery". People use their freedom to act as they wish. If they wish to compete and gain success then they can do so. If their definition of success is accumulating wealth than so be it. So long as their pursuit of success does not infringe upon the equal rights of others. THAT'S FREEDOM. In contrast, gaining control of a country, forcibly confiscating people's property, and killing MILLIONS who disagree w/ your views is FAR worse. No contest.
coolbreezed 1 month ago
@coolbreezed listen kid, today the world is in chaos. over 1 billion people are considered to suffer from starvation every single day. our world is not perfect, our worlds current system is that of capitalism and some people seriously believe that by using more capitalism the wolrd will turn out great. but truth is that there is no freedom to be found in a world with 1 billion starving people. no freedom at all. cuz 1 billion is denied their freedom to the right to a good life.
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 how much do you know about 'capitalism, Marxism, and socialism'? id like to know, and if you could enlighten me, that would b great
quarky123456 1 month ago
@quarky123456 i've read the communist manifesto :P well i do not claim to be any kind of expert. But i consider myself to have one advantage over many others and that is that i do not mix my own opinion into discussions about political facts. i disslike socialism but that dosn't mean that i will spread propaganda and call it a totalitarian ideology, for example. If you have any questions i would be hapy to answer them to the extent of my ability.
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Well what do you dislike about ***workers controlling what they themselves produce***(if you really read the C.M you would kno)? Is it not quite obvious that if there is autocracy in the economy, there will be the scale of global extortion which we see today?: 3 Billion humans earn less than $2 a day working to produce the Capital for the 500 heads of corporations who control 52% of ALL the world's produced riches. I'm pretty sure we need to have some justice before we have peace. ☭★
noprofitmaximierung 1 month ago
@noprofitmaximierung "Workers controlling what they themselves produce" is something that i fully suport and i fully suport the idea of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". my main problem whit the many types of socialism is that they all seem to want an end-goal that is free from state and gouverment. and to me it just seem ilogical that there would be much justice without some form of state.
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Oh yes, i see what you mean. I recommend reading Lenin's "The State and Revolution", a historical analysis of how the state developed and how it acts (namely: it came from the ruins of feudal society and the rise of the ruling bourgeois class, for the ruling class; all very much to the current). I can give you the link to the book.
noprofitmaximierung 1 month ago
@noprofitmaximierung thx for the link, i lock forward to read it. and i'm not less of a man that i can admit that i might be wrong. a world without a state might work, we just haven't tried it jet.
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Capitalism can work for the benefit of the people, if it is regulated in such a way that it can be controlled by the people via government.
After WWII the world saw a steady and consistent growth year on year because of good regulation. Thatcher and Reagan destroyed the post war consensus and moved towards the free market, almost anarcho capitalism, and since then growth has been haphazard.
This recession was caused by lack of good regulation, and gov must get a grip on it.
TheSelfishAltruist 4 weeks ago
@TheSelfishAltruist true this..and not only this...sice this "predator capitalism" appeared the money is taken away from the poor and middle class and accumulating around the big banks,cooporations and the wealthy asnd to crwon it all is these people who get the big bailouts after loosing all these moneys in risky roulette like speculations...sickening,isnt it?
chris99103 4 weeks ago
@chris99103 I completely agree. Short term economics is bad for the business, bad for the economy and should be regulated against. Maybe make illegal ridiculous speculative investing. Another interesting idea is to put bank employees on the board, or make policy that executive pay is directly correlated to company success.
Something has got to change for banking and the whole economy.This change will only come from government.Free markets cant do this because banks are not allowed to fail
TheSelfishAltruist 4 weeks ago
@chris99103 Free markets cant change banking for the simple reason that governments cant allow bad banks to go out of business via the 'selection' process of capitalism.
If a bank fails currently, they are bailed out. Obviously we cant allow banks to fail, but this fact brings into focuses how banking is a different animal, then for example, a retail store.
If banking is not allowed to fail via normal capitalism, then it must be hugely regulated.
Conventional Free markets don't work for banks
TheSelfishAltruist 4 weeks ago
@chris99103 nor does it health, police, fire, farming, transport and the military I might add. These entities are essential, and therefore if they are privately owned, there should be powerful government regulation and investment to not allow them to go 'bankrupt' - imagine if the ambulance service went bankrupt? This is why these services are broadly owned democratically.
Private enterprise should only own things that are not essential like a clothes store, so if they go bankrupt, tough luck.
TheSelfishAltruist 4 weeks ago
@coolbreezed i do agree wit this, each to their own...so if you are willing to stand up and make something of your life, then so what?! good on you.
'treat people as they deserve to be treated', i.e, if you work well, wreak the rewards, ..why not, its well deserved.
quarky123456 1 month ago
As for socialism: The Nazi where the socialist party of Germany. So if you want to know extreme socialism, get a history book.
Why did it end like that? Because the state becomes more important than the individual. And, unless the individual ideas agree with the party in power, they do not have a chance to grow.
Not to say that capitalism does not have a similar ending (due to corporations).
How about capitalism based on cooperatives instead? More dificult to manipulate.
rxantos 1 month ago
@rxantos Long before any jew were sent to concentrationcamps the nazi sent socialists, communists and socialdemocrats. why? because socialits demands democracy and human rights. Nationalsocialism (nazism) are socialists to name ony and not in action
TyphorT38 1 month ago 16
@TyphorT38 Nazism is its own beast which really comes from the combination of nationalism and socialism, the idea that your mother country is the most important thing in anyone's life, and that workers' rights and egalitarianism are the means to achieve a stronger state. Socialism took a back seat to nationalism, but to say it has nothing to do with nazism is misleading. Nazis are just not *pure* socialists.
eggory 1 month ago
@eggory the core of socialism is Democracy, and No-State(the state is a means of oppression and thus not needed).... i can't find those within Nazism, sorry but i cant
TyphorT38 1 month ago
As I see it, this are the fatal flaws on capitalism.
1- Things are not valued by their real cost, but by perceived value.
2- There is no need to disclosure where the money goes on a transaction.
3. The ones that work the most are not the ones that earn the most.
4. Is legal to pay people different salary for the same job. And is legal to hide this information.
Is more about information than the system itself. How can a person make an intelligence decision if information is withold?
rxantos 1 month ago
nice vid ! but btw every democratic party uses welfare socialisam ideas today so they are not seen as socialist but rather democratic which is nice
but that is so apparent in scandinavia because of mentality of people
they have no problem sharing wealth and are not too greedy and very tolerant and hardworking and smart and ... you get the point = learn from those people
CroZomBie 1 month ago
@CroZomBie Yes, as a Socialdemocrat and Swede, the whole idea is that welfare and wellbeing can only be achieved by a communal effort. Profit will always only serve the top of the pyramid and the idea of capitalism is that everybody strives for the top. For all those who follow current affairs, we can see that this is an illusion. Only by joining our efforts can we succeed in creating a better, more empathic and more respectful society. But it's every single ones responsibility to contribute.
azynkron 1 month ago
@azynkron Sounds very oppressive. What if a person does not wish to give over his or her property to the state, or to be empathetic, or to help others. Should that person be forced? You talk of respect, yet your egalitarian society does not respect the individualism of others. Social democracy is nothing better than mob rule.
coolbreezed 1 month ago
How to provide the equal opportunities if some families can pay killer to eliminate anyone, and can pay to block any further investigation?
Gentleman in giving big donations for the church, and for the school, so I can not allow the case to be opened? Move, you wretches, or I will arrest you for the subversive revolutionary activities?
1906965181507 1 month ago
@alexandrosbr Long live Fascism!
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@stebecool who is this communist you're talking to?
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Even socialism recognizes some basic form of the concept of property and ownership. If you don't believe in it at all you are a communist where nothing is "owned" by anyone and we live in an anarchal stateless "utopia" society.
stebecool 1 month ago
@stebecool When socialists talk about abolishing ownership they mean land and means of production aka industries. they do not talk about sharing toothbrusches. i personally never said that i dont believe in ownership, thats just you jumping to conclusions
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 If we go to worker-owned production, are all of the workers willing to provide upfront capital to the business and to lose not only their jobs, but lose everything financially if the business isn't successful? If not, then it's not ownership. Would working for a stable non-contracted wage not be an option if that's what someone wanted? If you quit the job, do you get your money back? Do you have to find someone to replace you and buy your ownership from you? This will never work.
stebecool 1 month ago
@stebecool you don't get it do you? the video is not about whenewer it works or not. it's about what the socialist believe. it's the same thing as saying thet christians believe in an invisible man in the sky, it dosn't try to prove that the invisible man exist it just says that they believe in one!
TyphorT38 1 month ago
Please explain how a worker-owned business economy would ever work. Who fronts the capital/money/resources/whatever to get the business started because they have nothing. Or do they have to wait for real capitalist entrepreneurs to create and build the business and then kill them and their families and take it over to be owned by the workers? How would they know what supply and demand is and what resources are abundant/limited without a free market price system? You live in a fairy tale land.
stebecool 1 month ago
@stebecool i do not have to explain how the socialist want things to work. i simply stated what they want things to be. i'm no socialist but you have alrady judge me based on a video containing facts, not opinions. aren't you the one who live in your own world?
TyphorT38 1 month ago
The Scientific Socialism, move for education, SURELY IS...
That is against autocracy and against repression, too...
1906965181507 1 month ago
I am proud to say that I believe in democratic socialism as the greatest alternative to capitalism. Because the best government is the one that doesn't have to exist(which we can all agree on), a government by the people, for the people, is the most logical alternative. This form of government is destined to replace capitalism at some point. Contrary to popular belief, we are not a democracy here in the U.S.; we are a Plutocracy- ruled by large corporations, the privileged, and the wealthy.
Andershasgotitgoinon 1 month ago
@Andershasgotitgoinon ... social democracy will always result in the 49% or fewer subsidizing the 51% or more through the threat of violence or coercion.
renierinoz 1 day ago
estonia IS NOT commusistic or sotsialistic.
multicultivate 1 month ago
@multicultivate rewatch -.-
TyphorT38 1 month ago
This goes nothing into economic differences between capitalism and socialism. "removing managers" is hardly explicative. planned versus unplanned economies...then you realize the disadvantages of socialism.
GaribaldiInTheMaking 1 month ago
a revolution, because they saw no other way to reason with the ruling class, because it had nothing to gain from a communist society, and thus it would be highly unlikely for a compromise to be achieved. Many people support a violent revolution today for exactly those reasons. It is sickening to see how people, especially young people, are constantly being brainwashed and lied to, for the ultimate purpose of profit and control.
galatisnik5 1 month ago
you are wrong.
socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism, something of an in-between, because Marx and Engels realized it would be impossible for the transition to happen overnight. Basically, they believed, and i agree with them, that the mindset of the majority of the people, is subtly but undoubtedly defined by society, and to extent, the ruling class. This is because the ruling class has always controlled the flow of information, education etcetera.
They supported the idea of
galatisnik5 1 month ago
@galatisnik5 socialism is not just a transition form.. socialism might also be the goal
R3dSt4r90 1 month ago
u are fucking stupid. If you read Communist Manifest.You will know that is says nothing about being violent in Communism
SovietGamers 1 month ago
@SovietGamers i did read it, and i remember something about the bourgeois never willingly give upp their power. i allso remember the word revolution
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@SovietGamers There are not explicit call for violence in the Manifesto, but if you read "Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung" you are going to see this:
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.
Marx was extremely racist and advocate genocide all the time in his personal life haha.
Search for Marx on genocide.
Time to grow, dude.. read some Ludwig Von Mises and shut up... ;)
paunocu666 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Du är Svensk eller hur? Support social democratic ways! Equality and welfare, för fan!
jimbul5 2 months ago
is english not your first language?
chadimus84 2 months ago
@chadimus84 no it's not
TyphorT38 2 months ago
The entire idea of communism/socialism is totalitarian state. I don't see how you people legitimately think it can be any other way...if you do not own your labor, then you do not own yourself. You relinquishing self ownership to the state...that's slavery.
munkyusm 2 months ago
@munkyusm The entire idea of communism/socialism is no state, and the socialist claim "property is theft" is far more logical than "taxes are theft". who said you could own anything in the first place? /a non-socialist
TyphorT38 2 months ago 8
@TyphorT38 You own yourself correct?
munkyusm 2 months ago
@munkyusm who said we own ourselves? there are no holy magical stoneplate give bu some god thing that say so. the idea that we own ourselves and that we have the right to own other things are just that, an idea.
TyphorT38 2 months ago
@TyphorT38 How can you not believe in self ownership? Do you not think you own your own ideas? Do you not think you own your actions? Let's not play semantics with the word "own". I would hope you would agree that you are responsible for your own life? If you're not, then you're saying you want to be a slave.
munkyusm 2 months ago
@munkyusm I did not claim that I do not believe in the fact that i'm my own person. i simly question the argument that ownership is a "natural-right".
TyphorT38 2 months ago
@TyphorT38 Do you "own" yourself or not? No semantics...do you control your body or do you believe someone else does?
munkyusm 2 months ago
@munkyusm physically, my brain controls the body's movements. but what do that have to do with the fact that there are no such thing that say that you can take a rock and call it yours.
TyphorT38 2 months ago
@TyphorT38 Well if you admit you control your own body, then do you not think that you own your own labor? If you do not admit that, again you're admitting your wish to be a slave.
munkyusm 2 months ago
@munkyusm what kind of logic is that? i can take two pices of wood and nail them together but why would that make the wood mine? if i control and "Own" my body, that stil dosn't mean i have any "Right" to the things i tutch. or who told you otherwise? "god?"
TyphorT38 2 months ago
@TyphorT38 So, you think that because you did that work that someone else has the right to it?
munkyusm 2 months ago
@munkyusm who said that onyone have any "Right" to anything. is i and you "own" or bodies then don't the wood own itself?
TyphorT38 2 months ago
@TyphorT38 Such a semantical argument..."right" "own", who gives a shit what the words are. Are you a slave or aren't you? This is the fundamental question you must answer. If you choose no, then you must be support liberty and subsequently people voluntarily trading things...if you choose yes, then you support systems in which a state, or a society claims ownership over your body and your labor.
munkyusm 2 months ago
@munkyusm aren't you the one that only se things in black and white? if wanting to live a good life just like anyone else is making you a slave then fuck yes i'm a "slave". this stupid conversation is ower
TyphorT38 2 months ago
@TyphorT38 Technically, there is only black or white in this respect.
hallabalooza 1 month ago
@hallabalooza about the slave stuff? so anyone that say, thinks it's good to pay a little bit more taxes is a "slave"? seriously? the problem with his Slave/slaver/freeborn argument is that it requiers the "Right-to-ownership" to be a natural-law/god-given-right. and until he can prove that it is so, his argument isn't worth shit.
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 If you claim, that there is no such thing as ownership, you're a dreamer. There are always people who claim to "own" something - it is just human. The question here is wether you think you own your life or you don't, which is what I mark as the necessity of thinking in black or white. It is just a matter of premises. If you say you own your life, that means you own your future. If you are free, you own your present. If you have property, that represents the work of your past.
hallabalooza 1 month ago
@hallabalooza I do not claim that there are no property, i do not claim that i do not own myself. I only claim that he can't treat ownership as a natural right without prof. i'm tired of all this liberal semantic bullshit. propery isn't a priority, low taxes aren't a priority. A good life for you, me and all our fellow man is a priority and if that's means higher taxes than so be it. if "Good life>liberal bullshit" makes me a slave then yes i'm a "liberal slave" happy now?
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Without a doubt, I believe you when you say that you ultimately want everybody to live a good life. However the question here is: do you want to impose your IDEA of a good life on others? In my opinion you do so, especially when asking for collectivistic ideas like "socialism" - and that I think is the whole problem. You say higher taxes lead to a better live - but that is oversimplification. You need somebody to take care of that (government) and people have individual desires.
hallabalooza 1 month ago
@hallabalooza okey, first things first. i'm not a socialist, i'm a fascist and yes i consider it worth to impose quite a lot if that imposing leads to a good life for 7 billion people. And you are right higher taxes is a simplification and dosn't necesarely lead to a good life. my point is that the goal is "a good life" and people should focus on the goal and not on "ingredients" like taxes, ownership and shit like that. and i'm sick and tired hearing that goverment is"evil"
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Government is not evil in principle, it is inefficient and dangerous. And you call yourself a fascist, are you kidding me? I find it quite interesting that in the 21st century some people are still so afraid to use their own noodles and take credit for the consequences of their actions.
hallabalooza 1 month ago
@hallabalooza it is the 21st century and fascists like me are basicly extinct. i follow the works of Per Engdahl (the late ones without the raist nazi bullshit) so i guess i fall within the fascist chategory.
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Well at least you're honest enough to admit it.
hallabalooza 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 I also don't think that you're a "liberal slave", I only think that history has proven that whenever people in the context of a society followed an idea rather than their own interests, it led to intellectual sloth and in the end to dictatorships of different extents. Personally I would also call a system in which a majority rules a minority call a dictatorship, which necessitates the principle of subsidiarity so people could autonomously take care of themselves without big government
hallabalooza 1 month ago
@munkyusm who said we own ourselves? there are no holy magical stoneplate give bu some god thing that say so. the idea that we own ourselves and that we have the right to own other things are just that, an idea.
TyphorT38 2 months ago
@TyphorT38 you didnt refer that communist countries were attacked by the capitalist countries,therefore there werent so productive
Theostaik 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TyphorT38 No taxes are theft.. Socialism does not work, it never has worked.. You are talking about countries that survive based on a system of printed value.. Meaning they are THE most vulnerable.. America is propping these countries up.. They are one of the few countries that still promote free trade.. If America falls, so do every socialist nation on earth.. So you better wish that capitalism works..If not? Everyone is riding shotty trains..Americans take cars..Why? They are rich.
SuperGuitarman69 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Are you stupid? LOL Hahaha without property there is no liberty and no peace. People can just jack your shit with no repercussions LMFAO.
1337wafflezz 1 month ago
@1337wafflezz what are you talking about? the fact that property is but a made up concept and that you can't prove that the "right" to ownership exist?
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@1337wafflezz That isn't very logical. If there is no private property, it wouldn't be 'your shit' to be jacked in the first place. What you may want to say is that people form personal attachments to things they use so, psychologically, a society would be hard pressed to accept a paradigm without a form of private property. The question then would be 'could people grow beyond their attachments to material things'?
leakydog 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Yeah it is based upon reaching fully realized eternal catharsis among all people brought about by universal and unending conflict(insert irony).
emoplato 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Property is theft is far more illogical than taxes are theft. Property, in most cases, is rightfully owned by the individual. Taxes are property forcibly confiscated by the state. Most children can recognize this distinction.
"Who said you could own anything in the first place?" This is very telling of your world view. There is NO ONE that ALLOWS people to own property. Its the natural condition of things. A fundamental and natural right afforded to all humans. Your logic is flawed.
coolbreezed 1 month ago
@coolbreezed No, Your logic is flawed. The is NO NATURAL LAW that say that ANYONE got ANY Right to ANY property. what prof do you have for this natural law that you claim to exist? no prof, just as little prof as there is for santa and for god. it dosn't exist. it's a made up concept. I do not say that I am against ownership. I simply say that there is NO prof for the right to ownership.
TyphorT38 1 month ago
@TyphorT38 Property is the NATURAL state of things because humans have ALWAYS had and understood the concept of private property in some form or another. The RIGHT to property is a philosophical and historical constant for thousands of years. There's my proof. To say property is theft operates on the wrongful assumption that everything belongs to everyone. It doesn't. Never HAS & never WILL. The concept of taxes are much more like theft. Its property rightfully gained and then taken by force.
coolbreezed 1 month ago