"Socialism / Communism has never been tried"

[Jaluzaga]

Excellent! Awesome quote by Reisman, I will translate it to Spanish.

[ACFnici]

Communism was successfully tried in the kibbuzim, Zapatistas and Spain during the civil war. (also some indian tribes) ;) And look. Those systems have no leaders or money or private proberty and are lucky. So motivated, that there are NO crimes to proof and the quote of diseases is MUCH lower than the capitalist systems. Greetings comrade!

[Wittgensteinism]

Your facts could not be further from the truth..

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@Wittgensteinism What specific facts do i have wrong?

[Wittgensteinism]

@StudentOfObjectivism well for starters, from 0:06 - 1:00, that entire second paragraph is 100% false. There are plenty of countries that embrace socialism today that are nowhere NEAR being "totalitarian". (i wonder if you even know what either "socialism" or "totalitarianism" IS given this sophomoric usage and conflation of the two terms).

Norway for instance is largely socialist and they are considered the best country to live in according to the UN Human Development Index.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@Wittgensteinism You are clearly ignorant of the meaning of the word 'fact'. The second paragraph doesn't contain any facts, it contains true statements. Those statement being true they are not contradicted by any facts.

Norway is, like most of the world, a mixed economy - and the extent to which it is mixed with socialism is the extent to which people are manifestly not free to spend their money or live their lives as they see fit.

[JohananRaatz]

@StudentOfObjectivism That's because communism (as Marxists conceive it) CAN never be tried. Economics by definition requires private property, thus to construct an economic model without private property is a contradiction in terms.

All that happens is that the the state owns all of the property, and is thereby able to artificially enforce equality of outcome. If it were ever to leave, capitalism would return. Hence why the state can never "wither away," under socialism.

[michaelwuzthere]

Society does exist just as much as the individual exists, in the same manner that an object is really a collection of atoms but a single object nonetheless.

And then you just go on from there with more irrational objectivist dogma. It's childish and stupid, to put it simply. If you want to understand what it means to have a global human cooperative, here: /watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@michaelwuzthere That's ridiculous. Yes, an individual entity is made up of individual cells and the cells are made up of individual atoms... and yes, the individual is still an entity. That is because the individual has the capacity to act and to think independently. 'Society' does not have any such characteristic. 'society' cannot *think* or *act*. Only individuals can do those things. By evading this point it is you that is operating on 'dogma'.

I'll watch your video later.

[michaelwuzthere]

@StudentOfObjectivism Denying that society is capable of action is like saying that humans are incapable of action, and only our cells or organs are. That's how skyscrapers and dams or revolutions and social changes come about - acting on a collective empathy and mission.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@michaelwuzthere I hate coming down to this, but you are a real idiot. I've explained why you are wrong and there is no excuse for you to continue reificating society as you are right now.

Like I said in my PM from the Dannidandannikins channel: I don't think there is an honest defence of socialism... nothing you have said has onvinced me otherwise.

[michaelwuzthere]

@StudentOfObjectivism Again, denial of basic facts just makes you more wrong. Calling me an idiot doesn't make you any more right either. If you want to follow the cult of a confirmed sociopath - Ayn Rand - then you have that right, but you can't change basic facts. I encourage you to watch the video which I have previously linked so I don't have to restate points already in that video.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@michaelwuzthere Dude, you can't say, 'And then you just go on from there with more irrational objectivist dogma. It's childish and stupid' and then act all butt-hurt when I get tired of it and call you an idiot. Your position is a textbook example of reification and you therefore deserve to be called an idiot.

Furthermore, Objectivism is not a cult and if you insist on using ad homs then you can get stuffed. Blocked.

[forttrres]

The Ukraine from 1918 to 1921, and especially the Catalonia region of Spain during the Spanish Civil War in the 30s' are good examples of a form of Communism gone right. Anarcho Communism is I believe the link that serves between individuality in Anarchy, and the economic work of Communism. In Anarchist Spain it worked to the point where George Orwell wrote "No one owned anyone else as his master." It doesn't get any more individualistic then that.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@forttrres George Orwell was a good reporter and novelist in many ways, but he was not infallible and I don't for a second buy his claim that an anarchist state was one in which 'No one owned anyone else as his master' - unless the full context of the quote is one in which he observes that under anarchy no one owns anything as his property - ie that anarchy is unstable condition just waiting for a tyrant to emerge.

I don't know anything about the Ukraine, and I'm not much interested either...

[StudentOfObjectivism]

If a remote and rebellious region of Spain and a vassal of the USSR are the best you can come up with you may as well just concede the points I made in this video.

[forttrres]

@StudentOfObjectivism "...Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine." The Ukraine was not a vassal of the USSR at that time. In fact the Anarchist Black Army had to fight back literally every political group in the area just to have their freedom. They fought the White army, Ukranian Nationalists, random pockets, and finally against the Bolsheviks who betrayed them twice and took them over. Oh, and Catalonia isn't remote. Barcelona is it's capt.

[forttrres]

@StudentOfObjectivism "Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master." Thats the entire quote. While I agree he isn't infallible, he gave us a first-hand view of the situation.

[forttrres]

@StudentOfObjectivism In this situation, Anarchy was not an "unstable condition just waiting for a tyrant to emerge." Everyone contributed to the cause. Productivity increased by 20%.. Of course that all changed when the Republicans attacked them, unfortunantly, but while this lasted "above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings"

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@forttrres BS. I'm not a historian and I don't have access to an English language library, nor do I have the inclination to traipse all over the internet trying to find out the exact details of the Ukraine and Catalonia. However, one does not need specific information to counter something that is obviously BS. eg if the Ukraine had been anarchist, how could it form a unified military command to fight those other armies? How could it be 'betrayed' if it was an anarchy without leaders?

[forttrres]

@StudentOfObjectivism First of all, why would I BS this? What possible reason would I have to BS this? Secondly, go look up "Free Territory of Ukraine" I promise you it's 100% accurate. Nester Makhno was about the closest thing to a commander it had, and he was nothing more then a military strategist and an advisor, who people joined to fight back these others. It was a society ran by the peasents and workers. If you don't agree, thats fine and I respect that. However, don't accuse me of BS.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@forttrres If it was 'run by the peasants and workers' then, by definition, it wasn't an anarchy. Anarchy means 'no rulers'.

I'm not necessarily accusing you of BS btw, I think it's more likely that you have simply been taken in by some BS.

[forttrres]

@StudentOfObjectivism Anarchy can also mean no centralized form of government, it can also mean no ruler or state. It wasn't governed in the sense of the way we've come to mean run by a government. It was "administered at the local level by autonomous peasants' and workers' councils." It wasn't run by anything, the economics were helped by peasant councils to distribute the goods, under the economics proposed by Peter Kropotkin.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@forttrres lol. Whatever.

[forttrres]

@StudentOfObjectivism Well put, sir. Continue on with your "Objectivism", however, before you criticize my philosophy, it might be better to atleast attempt know about what i'm talking about. Just my two cents. Good luck brah.

[NetzKaiser]

I am not sure, if we could put this lines away. Ayn Rand also said: "Mixed-up cappitalism is not true capitalism." Many people use a line like above. Is not it double standard to accept Ayn Rand's line and not the communist's line?

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@NetzKaiser Well there are two things wrong with that line of argument.

Firstly, Ayn Rand makes specific suggestions of what has been wrong with near capitalist societies (such as the USA in its golden age) whereas the socialists just complain 'oh, it should have been more democratic' and evade the issue that whether it is a democracy or dictatorship it still contains the premise that the individual can be commanded by the collective.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

Secondly, when Ayn Rand points to America and says it was never quite Capitalist, she doesn't have to try and distract people from a pile of over a hundred million dead bodies, as do the socialists.

[kajmobile]

dude, do u realize u have a video of urself on utube publicly claiming that slaves were treated better than people working for socialized organizations (like NASA, national institutes of health, fire department) because slaves were someone's private property and people dont beat or murder their private property.

r u sure u wanna be on public record with that claim? or do u wanna maybe take a little more time thinking this thru?

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@kajmobile Errrr, excuse me, I have a video in which I observe that feudal slaves were better off than Soviet peasants... this video is not about mixed economies and when you try to accuse me of making such an argument it is you who are guilty of erecting a strawman.

To claim that Marx was for individual freedom is ridiculous - it can only be stated by someone consciously evading the actual meaning of the term 'freedom'.

[kajmobile]

@StudentOfObjectivism u werent comparing feudal slaves to soviet peasants:

"Slavery existed in...the United States. Nevertheless...there was an important factor that restrained these slave owners...That was that the slaves were private property...Under socialism the slaves r public property. Those in charge of the slaves therefore will not derive any material benefit if the slaves r alive"

then u end the vid by saying all socialism is the same.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@kajmobile Oh my god, you are such a rationalist.

I don't say that all socialist societies are the same in concrete terms, I say that they are the same in principle; and the further they go with that principle, the more they progress toward the worst imaginable form of slavery.

[TheAntiFascist2010]

@kajmobile It all made perfect sense to me, reminded me of the Egyptian slave who died building the pyramids and other great buildings for there Emperor. Truly a perfect example of a collective society. Like a hive mind. But I am not an insect. I am a free man with a mind for investigative logic.

[kajmobile]

@TheAntiFascist2010 the egyptians who built the pyramids were not unpaid forced laborers. they were wage slaves just like most workers today. if u use ur mind for investigative logic, u will find that freedom is found in socialism where u r given economic benefits as a right, not in our current system where u r forced into wage slavery.

freedom in our current system only exists for the independently wealthy.

[kajmobile]

this video is painful and just plain dumb.

it is based on a strawman. socialism doesnt require anyone to work in siberia or anywhere else against their will.

the purpose of socialism is individual freedom. marx was not for collectivization or for totalitarianism or for socialism in a primitive country.

the whole point of marxism is to end the rule of one class over another, to put an end to one class compelling another to work for them.

u r part of a cult. and it is warping ur mind.

[MrGentlemanly]

Bravo!

[ColemanMulkerin]

Just to add... The teacher didn't really argue to much with the student at the time. Later, he did argue that Communism failed because it could not address the problems of the modern global economy. I think he believes that some kind of socialism is the best as a compromise between Capitalism and Communism.

I am just trying to get by with a good grade in the course. Hopefully I can use what little I have learned as a jumping off point for learning more. I could start with that book. :D

[ColemanMulkerin]

Update on my history class... I had a fellow student argue that Stalin did not do it right and the communism might work if it happened like Marx described it. I thought it was a bit odd because the Communist Manifesto seems to me to be a prediction and not a blueprint to implement Communism.

All I could chip in on the discussion in the limited time I had was to mention the tens of millions of people who died in Russia and China.... Lives are just means to their Utopian ends.

[The1stArtist]

Einstein was a socialist. Einstein was brilliant.

It must then follow that socialism is good.

:P

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@The1stArtist lol

[The1stArtist]

@StudentOfObjectivism Yeah. I only just found out about this great man's stance on politics and it kinda shocked me.

But then again, intellectual prowess can be restrained to only a field.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@The1stArtist The really amazing thing is that I've heard the argument you made up there presented seriously by so many people. Socialists are well keen on arguments from authority, authoritarians that they are.

[WarVideo]

@The1stArtist

I've seen scientists give their political views on tv, radio, docs, lectures etc, on severa ldifferent occasions and accrosss the board their political views are always horrible and always statists.

[The1stArtist]

@WarVideo

Well, who's their sugar daddy ?

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@qix77 'How did it come to this?' Excellent question.

I think the answer lies in the morality of altruism. How many people have you ever met who will stand there, unabashed, and say, "I'm selfish- I'm pursuing my own happiness"? When it is said that each man has a duty to others, how many men say "Why?"

If people aren't willing to stand up for their right to act for their own goals, how can you expect them to stand up to the growth of a government that tells them to act for the goals of others?

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@qix77 oops, sorry I got mixed up so I deleted my reply. Thanks for your generous evaluation of my video. I think a serious problem today is that too many people are willing to give socialism the credit for being a 'noble end' of some sort, when in fact it is clearly absolutely murderous.

[Twiggy269]

@StudentOfObjectivism

"a serious problem today is that too many people are willing to give socialism the credit for being a 'noble end' of some sort,"

It makes me want to rip my hair out when talking about political philosophy with someone when they say "Socialism/Communism is good on paper...."

A classic example of the Theory-Practice Dichotomy.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@Twiggy269 yeah, if the theory can't be put into practice then in what sense is it 'good'!

[Twiggy269]

I've been waiting for this vid dan!

Excellent work. You condensed down a lot of material that you could have gone over and used, and stuck to the fundamentals and did it very well. Very concise, clear, well thought out video my friend.

This could be an entire video series, but I'm sure you can access all of the information from one vid or another that is already on youtube.

This one goes in the favorites!

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@Twiggy269 Thank Tyler, I'm glad you like it so much.

[ColemanMulkerin]

I want to thank you for these videos as I am going through a modern history course and could use an analysis of socialism/communism/capitalism that makes sense!

I read the "Rape of Nanking" for class the other day. I can't think of a more clear view of the evils that socialism can achieve. Some of my classmates seemed to be focused on the Japanese feeling "superior" to the Chinese.....

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@ColemanMulkerin QTutoringhelps recommended the book that I quoted from in this video (Capitalism by George Reisman) which you can download from the von Mises website as a pdf. The section on socialism is excellent and I spent a long time trying to think how to put all that into this video but ended up deciding that doing so would require me to explain too much economics so I only took that bit about forced labor. If you need something for uni essays you could do a lot worse than look that up.

[lashkaretoiba]

Another home run. :)

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@lashkaretoiba haha, thanks!

[Warblade118]

Good video. We may not agree 100% but many of your points and explanations are very good.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@Warblade118 thanks, I am very confident that I am right though so I'd be intrigued to see where you disagree.

[Warblade118]

@StudentOfObjectivism Sorry I was referring to the conversation we're having on the other video were we weren't exactly in agreement.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@Warblade118 Oh, I beg your pardon. I'm glad you enjoyed this video though, thanks for subbing. I hope I will persuade you some day that socialism is not a 'good intention'!

[Warblade118]

@StudentOfObjectivism okay, I read your reply and yeah, I was right in the middle of your video when you sent me that message (eery huh? lol) maybe I just haven't explain my side of it well enough. I agree that having socialism as THE system of government is a very, very bad thing. What I'm saying is not every idea in the “socialist bin” if you will are bad or evil ideas. Surly the basic premise for something like welfare is not a evil idea is it? yes its become a bloated money pit but the...

[Warblade118]

(continued)…concept of everybody chipping in a little when somebody is truly needy isn’t a bad thing is it?

I was curious as to what % of a governing/economic system should be socialist? I said 80% capitalist and no more than 20% socialist may strike the right balance. What do you think? Let me guess 105% capitalist and -5% socialist? (Lol I’m just kidding)

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@Warblade118 I'm an absolutist- I think that the initiation of force is absolutely wrong. The basic premise of welfare statism is that people must be forced to help the needy. While I've no objection at all to charity -to helping people who through bad luck or some kind of injustice are in a difficult position- I think that to tell a man that if he doesn't help someone then he is to be sent to jail for tax evasion is absolutely evil, it's a rights violation. So yes, I'm for 100% capitalism.

[Warblade118]

@StudentOfObjectivism Interesting. I tend to agree but what about taxation in general then? If you don't pay your taxes you're thrown in jail. Isn't that a form of statisum to? How could we have a society without the ability of the government to tax us? Or put another way, how could we have a society without at least a little statisum or socialism?

btw I'm not for taxes, I think they are WAY too high and unevenly distributed.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@Warblade118 Again, I'm against any form of compulsion so yes, I do oppose compulsory taxation. However, I don't think that a state can only exist with a compulsory tax code. I think that if the government stuck to its proper function - the protection of individual rights - then all that the state would provide is the police, the armed forces and the law courts. The cost of this would be so negligible compared to today's ludicrous spending that it could be funded easily by voluntary means...

[StudentOfObjectivism]

One way that Ayn Rand suggested for doing this is that the government charge a percent or two on the value of credit transactions. If companies chose not to pay this charge then there would be no punishment levied against them, but if the contract broke down for whatever reason then they would not be able to go to the law courts to arbitrate. Since the enforcement of contracts is of a legitimate service that only the government can provide I think most people would be perfectly willing to pay.

[Warblade118]

@StudentOfObjectivism Again, interesting. I'd have to look into more on how that would work but to be honest I'm not quite as interested in the exact details. These things start to get a little dry for me after a while ya know? Maybe the example you used could be expand on to include other government services individuals and corporations could opt into? It could work but would greatly diminish the government's power over us so I'd wager they'd be fight it tooth and nail! lol

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@Warblade118 'These things start to get a little dry for me after a while ya know?' That's why I try to keep my videos focussed on the philosophical principles rather than specific policies or budget plans.

'Maybe the example you used could be expand on to include other government services individuals and corporations could opt into?' I don't think so - the government shouldn't provide any other services. That said I've heard other Objectivism inclined people in favor of a government lottery...

[greenghost2008]

I've been posting your vids to my facebook

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@greenghost2008 thanks