He misrepresents progressive taxation; as he explains it, you'd think that one would be poorer for having a higher gross income. If he doesn't realize that the "98%" was on income OVER a set amount, he should stop lecturing.
@OuTofJoY What a NITPICKER you are! Ok, so the average American is making $35,000 a year and you are making $150,000. We, your government think that is obscene! We'll allow you to get a normal paycheck for the first 2 months and 3 weeks. By then you will have made your first $35,000. After that, for each month for the rest of the 9 months we will take all but $250 per month. We hope you can pay your bills and feed your family on that...
Is THAT fair? Why work for the last 9 months at all?
It's not "nit picking" - it's an important factual clarification...without which, the situation sounds absolutely absurd (it would mean someone falling into a higher tax bracket would make less than someone in a lower one - absurd, and not at all the case.)
The example you give is also misleading - it describes a situation far steeper. There weren't only two rates, y'know....geez.
@OuTofJoY No need to self-describe like that; the following comments make it clear. The whole point is that once that threshold is achieved, the return for work performed above that level is so small that ABSOLUTELY the individual is poorer becasue the value of his labors is far more than the amount he receives on a net basis.
(The American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
We have exterminated the property owners in Russia. We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America."
(The Jew, December 1925, Zinobit) The world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our affair and will rest in our hands. This revolution will tighten the Jewish domination over all other people."
@MoogDnB You know, I have seen some Brits that have a stronger love for liberty than many Americans. Those Brits that do truly love liberty have experienced a great deal of socialism in the UK. I am hoping that we can scale back the socialism in both countries so that we can experience the liberty that our founders envisioned for all.
problem with this, although its true, is that in capitalist society most people (workers) do not have any private property (by this marx refers to owning the means of production etc). We have nothing but our own labour-power which we have to sell to get wages to live. So here you actually admit that workers have rights under capitalism, as they have no property.
Under communism/socialism there is property, but its collective and not private :]
All people in a capitalist country have property, starting with their bodies and including any justly acquired stuff. And nobody has the right to take your property without your permission. That's why it's called property.
With collective property, somebody must decide if you can live in that house or eat that sandwich or get that surgery. The sad truth is that the person who decides isn't you. If you're one of the few lucky ones, you'll know the person who does.
@Nades129 Well then what do you think Communism is? Do you think it's some magical world where everyone shares everything and lives happily ever after? No, it's a government vision in which the government makes things "fair", and essentially spreads poverty around. It has never worked, never will work, and is a facade predicated upon the people by international bankers and politicians that want to siphon off money from the people. The whole notion of the proletariat being oppressed is outdated.
I'm sure you don't think egalitarianism is evil? Or that Plutocracy is evil? Or aristocracy? They are political philosophies, nothing more. That's why it's funny.
Communism, to put it simply, is a society with no class or state. Try reading Das Kapital so you'd understand how communism came out of socialism and socialism out of capitalism. People get it wrong often on what Marx was arguing for. Especially Americans for some reason.
@mistrysherlock I guess you call it "income" when you earn it, and then after you spend it it becomes "property". Its all the same thing. If they tax your income, they take away your property
Thus boureoise property is not the private property of the working class.
All these are from a Marxist viewpoint.
I am not a Marxist nor a Communist. But a theory is a theory and should be approached based on its historical development and its true ideas.
The guy in the video was criticizing the Soviet Union, which was an authoritarian government with a centralized planned economy. Thats not communism, thats not what the Manifesto talked about.
Private Property refers to the means of production (capital, land for farming etc) used in the production process and owned by capitalists. Its a socialist/communist term that was used heavily in the 19th century. It does not refer to personal property, but only to the means of production.
This guy doesn't understand a thing about the Communist Manifesto.
From a practical stanpoint, there s no differnce between the types of property you are discussing and Marx not only specifically denounce private personal property repeatedly but in the Manifesto itself, demands the elimination of "boureoise property" which he specifically defines as private property without regard for whether it is used as a means of production.
You simply have no clue what you are talking about.
I responded specifically in the context of the theory. There is no real distinction (in either theory OR practice) between the types of property that you are trying to make. Marx's theory of "exploitation" is utter nonsense debunked 100 years before he published the Manifesto. Neither the labor theory of value or Marx's view of history survive more than two seconds of competent scrutiny and were long debunked.
The erroneous fashion in which Marx viewed the world is precisely the problem.
It is. But my criticism was not on whatever Marx's ideas were correct, (in which case I tend to disagree largely with Marx on all the points you mentioned), but on the fact that Mr. Badnarik does not understand Marxist ideas, thus not the manifesto itself.
If you cannot realize the difference between private property and personal property from a left point of view, there is no way to continue discussing Socialism/Communism with you.
Now I see where you're coming from; the problem is different than you suggest. The distinction between private property (in the context of personal property) such as a toothbrush and property that is a "means of production" such as a factory is one frequently espoused by modern socialists, particularly anarcho-syndicalists and even among those who CALL themselves "Marxists", but they were actually NOT distinctions that Marx actually made (which is a common probem for self-described Marxists).
The Communist Manifesto is a controversial text with its terminology being confusing and out of date. It was written for the First Socialist International by Marx and Engels, thus it is not simply a Marxist text - Its a socialist/communist one as well.
I will consider your claim that Marx did not actually make these distinctions, and do my research on the subject.
pg 109, Ch on Socialism, Political Ideologies, Andrew Heywood.
-"...institution of private property, by which they usually mean productive wealth or 'capital' rather than personal belongings such as clothes, furniture or housing."
pg 110, Ch on Socialism, ABC of Anarchism Dover Ed, Berkaman.
"Private possession of things which humanity cannot exist without must cease. Means of production...become public property."
Faulty logic on many levels. The first thing I would to call you out on. "Private possession of things which humanity cannot exist without must cease. Means of production...become public property."
So what your saying is that we can live without homes. Yep no one needs shelter right. So you are saying homes are not included because they are not needed?
Socialism/Communism are based on the idea that the organization and the means of production of goods and services should be controlled and owned by the workers themselves. Thus the workers would produce what is needed for the people, without being exploited by the Boureoise - the owners of the means of production, that pay them to do the labour needed but giving them nothing of the profits.
So yes, housing would be provided by the workers to the people.
The most important problem with the marxist theory is it never gets past the dictator ship point. However little this no name proff. From his no name College thinks dose not just make it so. I know a few Proff. to. All have writen books. None however would be considered authorities or expert in the feild they wrote in. From checking neither is your source.
I agree about the dictatorship of the proletariat. I reality, a dictatorship of a class cannot be established, for the people who gain power over the state end up becoming the new exploiting class, the new ruling class, thus not the dictatorship of the proletariat Marx described. Its a silly thought. Thats what happened in Russia with the Bosheviks.
But Andrew Heywood's book is highly recognised and is used to teach Politics on an A-level qualification level, which is an international examination. So allow me to trust my sources.
You dont need professors to study ideologies. I don't study from other books but the books written by the creators of ideologies themselves. (Marx, Lenin, Bakunin,Mussolini,Stirner etc)
They were just the easiest books to quote right now.
@spartan2600- Karl Marx, wrote for the New York Daily Tribune for a profit. When the newspaper refused to give him a raise, he decided to come up with the Communist Manifesto. So, why should we all believe his way is the right way to live, when he just wrote that out of anger in not getting his own way of wanting more money? His whole idealism is a bunch of bulloney, and he brought alot of people along for the ride. Communism is a scam.
The only reason Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto papers, was because he was upset at the New York newspaper who refused to give him a raise. He wanted more money, he was denied. He left America, went back to Communist Russia, wanted to find out if the pen is mightier than the sword. It is all about the money. Marx wanted more, he didn't get it, he figured out a way to get it from everybody. Communism at it's best. Your money is my money.. I have not read the Communist Manifesto, I willnow
You are either lying, or making all of that up about Marx. He never worked for a "New York newspaper," and he died in 1883, when Russia was still under the Czar, so there is no way he ever went "back to Communist Russia."
Communists do not want to take away the bed you sleep on. There are 2 kinds of property, the kind that a human owns and immediately uses, and the kind that he owns on papers. For example- a banker in New York that owns a factory in Beijing. This is what's wrong.
so by that logic if you have no property then you have no rights. and is that ok? The volunteers of communism are the enslaved and this guy mocks them as imbeciles or suckers.
@spartan2600 why would you agree to take away someone's property? Our first ever property is our body, that is what property is about. U support losing all property? Teach children it is okay to have no say over any property. I will read the Communist Manifesto, he only wrote it because he was sore at the New York newspaper who refused to give him a raise. He left the paper, went back home to communist Russia, which by the way is no longer communist. He was a sore loser wanted more money for him
I am a council communist, so nobody has to live with me if they don't want. My goal is to destroy the state, then destroy property, 2 things that go hand in hand. However, what I mean by property are those things that someone owns on paper, but never uses. The investor who owns sweatshops in Haiti, or the banker who has stock in some oil corporation in Russia. This is what is morally wrong. What I don't want people to lose is the clothing on their back, the food they eat, etc.
In fact, this is what I'm fighting for- I believe every human being has a *RIGHT* to food, clothing, shelter, and a job. No one should have to earn a right to live- to believe that is immoral.
@spartan2600 He worked for the New York Daily Tribune. 487 articles written by Karl Marx (125 of them written by Engels) The Editor of the NYDailyTribune was Charles Dana. Check it out. I believe his ideals were taken out of context, no matter how you divide it up, people need money to survive. Who ever's money is it is, should have the say on how it is spent, used, etc.. Any state, should have no right, to take my earned anything, to give to someone else. He was from Germany, lived in England
Ok, I stand corrected, Marx did work for a New York newspaper. However, if you think he wrote the Communist Manifesto because he couldn't get a raise, then you do not understand the significance of and the research that went into forming that pamphlet.
What do you mean "his ideals were taken out of context?" What do you mean when you say "people need money to survive?" Humans have existed for that vast majority of our existence without money- I'm sure you realize this.
Wrong sgs, American libertarianism has nothing to do with communism, actually American libertarianism can be more closely defined as "anarcho-capitalism". Libertarian is a very broad term and can refer to people who are either on the "far right" or the "far left". While there are certainly anarcho-communist or "communalists" who identify themselves as libertarians and are against the concept of private property, "Libertarians" in the U.S are far more likely to be hard right defenders of pp.
When we speak of "Libertarianism" we are talking about the small government constitutionalism of our former American republic which is basically the direct opposite of marxist communist. The two concepts are irreconcilable.
The problem is that many political terms in the US mean something entirely different in the rest of the world, and through the rest of history. For example, the modern "conservative" as it is used in US politics today is an American invention from ~40 years ago.
There is not one political scientist, or anyone with an education who believes that Nazism was "leftwing." Please educate yourself on what these terms mean.
You've offered no arguments. Just the usual logical fallacy (appeal to authority). It doesn't *matter* what a political scientist says. They aren't scientists because politics is not science. It's a pseudo science. To know whether Nazism is "left" or "right" is to determine whether the left have no anti-semitism, militarism, nationalism, authoritarianism, central government, slave labor camps, genocide and so on. Obviously, they do.
There is *nothing* specifically right wing about Nazism.
Politics is not a 'hard science,' but it doesn't make any sense to call it "pseudo science." If you think Nazism isn't right wing, then you are inventing your own concept of the term. I'd rather go with right-wing as defined in the academic world. And if you think all formal education is just "leftist indoctrination," then that explains everything anybody needs to know about you. You believe 'the first link on google' is more credible than what they teach at university?
In order to know why Nazism was more leftist than "extreme right wing" you need reasoning and dissecting skills, instead of parroting what a bunch of self-declared "experts" at leftist indoctrination camps like colleges say.
But if you want to see some well researched stuff on why Hitler was a leftist, google for "Hitler was a socialist" and pick the first link.
Here, I did the 'first link on google' thing like you said.
Fascism; "ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right"
Right-Wing; "support for preserving traditional social orders with hierarchal or private control of wealth."
Hitler was radically conservative, he wanted to stop the "perverting" forces of Judaism, Socialism, Communism, and cultural liberalism.
The same *conservative* trend exists in all Fascist governments, from the military Junta in Brazil, to Augusto Pinochet, Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy, and so on. If you don't think Nazi's and Fascists in general were right-wing, then you don't know anything about Fascism. Please read a book about any one of these regimes by a serious scholar. If I can, I'd suggest reading "The Battle for Spain" by Anthony Beevor.
Prior to the Night of Long Knives, there was a faction of National Bolsheviks more socialist than Hitler. Hitler crushed them in order be the undisputed leader of the NSDAP. The Nazis eventually received most of their support from conservatives and the "Right", naturally, as they were promoting themselves as saviors from Communism. This says nothing about the actual policies promoted or carried out which were what can be uselessly labeled as left- and right-wing authoritarian moves.
Left, Right, Middle. "academics" can change the name all they want. Fascism/Nazisim/Communism are all collectivist ideologies. One favors national socialism and the other international socialism.One wants to OWN the means of productions and the other to DIRECT the means through regulation.Both agree the goal is towards the state/community.Look at the similarities of the progressives/neocons and fascist ideologies.very similar.Far right in the modern sense is Classical Liberalism or Libertarians.
That comment expresses a careless disregard for facts and history. Fascism has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism-if nothing else- means the workers control the means of production. Fascism is the *private* control of the means of production where the capitalists (bourgeoisie to Marxists) work jointly with government. Fascism also requires radical nationalism combined with culturally conservative and often racist ideology.
Read my comment again. I wrote, "Fascism/Nazism/Communism are all collectivist ideologies."That means the STATE comes first, the individual last. In a liberal society,the individual comes before the state.You understand? Your definition of fascism is correct.Mussolini stated what he means by fascism.Government is always gonna be the senior partner.Who do these fat cats turn too to bail them out?and of course these bailouts come with strings attached.
You ought to also note that Humans have lived in collectivist societies for the vast majority of our existence. Indeed, Marx himself was a student of anthropology and used man's experience in these collectivist societies to help form his idea of communism.
There are many "labels" since there are many different kinds of ideologies on the left. You probably would be insulted if I grouped you and neo-cons and neo-liberals all together as "rightists."
Neo-Cons? do you even know their political history? research where Neo-Cons came from.our current president is a Neo-Con! Neo-liberal i would accept. they are the classical liberals, but apply the ideology in a modern way.I've taken globalization in college, we talked about this quite a bit.
Another thing, many, maybe most communists do not advocate for a state. You are assuming that all communists are Marxist-Leninists, and this is clearly not true. It was the libertarian socialists (true libertarians, aka anarchists) who voluntarily fought Fascism in Spain while capitalists in the US and Britain were getting cozy with the Nazis and other fascists. Russian anarchists and council communists fought the Leninist coup in Russia long before the US cared.
Yeah yeah. its an EVOLUTIONARY process.This also saddens me that you want to destroy social institutions that protect private property and individual rights.Libertarian socialist. how many labels do you leftist create for yourself?holy crap. I prefer to call myself a liberal actually. Wow, so you do accept that the American intellectuals were very fond of fascists before the war.I agree there.
No, communism doesn't inherently value the state first. Marxist-Leninists do, but not all communists are Marxist-Leninist, far from it in fact. Please re-read my comments as well.
There are council communists, they believe in dissolving the state entirely.
I don't idolize any man, though I may idolize their ideas.
Please look up the meaning of "collectivism." It has nothing to do with the state.
I don't care about "private property," what I care about are humans and their needs.
community, village, groups, and the STATE comes before the individual. That is collectivism. That is the underlying principle of fascism, communism, socialism, nazism. all these little left wing labels you're saying all have these in common. why cant you comprehend this? the definition is all over the internet.
Communism is a JEW SCAM, only Jews and the dumb goyim would be for it.
"Some call it Marxism — I call it Judaism." (The American Bulletin, Rabbi Stephen. Wise, May 5, 1935).
THE LONDON JEWISH CHRONICLE, 4-4-19:
"...there is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism."
"The Bolshevist Revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a New Order in the world. [a New World Order - sound familiar??] What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world."
:( , I a an anarcho capitalist. so i have no bias twords communism , But im stopping this video after the "first blank" because what he said was ridiculous .(bullshit)
This dude makes me laugh, we assume since we in some way or another follow all of the "rules" of a communist government that we are communist, you forgot about all of the Capitalist functions we have. No, we are socialist at best, and this is only because Capitalism at it's purest form would fail. It's narrow minded wieners like this butt-hole who turn people in the wrong direction, Capitalism promotes a material incentive, Socialism tries to promote morality along with the material
(obviously the two can't correspond), and Communism promotes Morality. This dude needs to learn what he is talking about if he is going to make such biased remarks
For one, have you ever lived in a totalitarian society? Amazing how you dumbass whiteboys have no clue what happens in the real world.
The best example is China. It didn't start advancing as a nation until Deng Xiaoping made efforts to give the people economic freedom.
This finally led to progress and the push for political freedom is stronger than ever. Now you tell me, were the Chinese better off before the economic reforms in the late 70's?
I don't know where to start... Communism, ideologically is not totalitarian. Now that doesn't mean that China isn't because it does not follow communism in the least bit. And i don't see how this even touches on my point about morality, this lesson on history is barely relevant to anything at all that i said, morality has nothing to do with money if that's what your point is. Can i get a comment back clarifying some of what you said
Communisim ideologically requires some type of central authority to control affairs. By nature it requires one man to hold power over another. That is not promoting morality, it is simply promoting whatever the authority figures think is moral.
That is the fallacy, communism cannot and has not worked because it puts one man over another which is exactly what it was designed to overcome.
I took china as an example because it tried communism and had no choice but to change as its people advanced.
The problem with that is you are saying that communism has been adequately tried, this is the fallacy. Up until now, and history will agree with me on this, the leaders that are in control of these "communistic" countries never had real intentions of attempting the ideological version of it. Rather they exploit their country and benefit off of it (although if you were to ask me I would tell you Cuba has done pretty well). All of these traits also happen to also be a side-effect of capitalism
That is kind of what I'm saying. Communism the way you want it cannot exist because its foundation is based on on group or individual controlling another. How can there ever be some person to organize all of society for us?
I disagree with your capitalism argument. In a capitalistic system (I would say a good example is the US in the 19th century) you had a period of very small government and the most prosperous hundred years in world history. Capitalism provides the incentive to grow.
19th century U.S. was a terrible time for anyone below the middle class barrier (which then was a substantial amount of the population). But besides that it could work, but it has to be a proletariat revolution just as Marx had stated clear back in the mid 19th century.because only they would have the majority of the incentive. This also leads to problems with socialism but that's a discussion for later. If only we were able to see that we are exploited every day... god damn patriotism
Anyone below the middle class barrier always has a terrible time... In the 19th century there was a decrease in teh number of people in this group. That century had a higher rate of elimosinary activity than any time before or after. This is also where the foundations of our relatively high standard of living were formed.
People have lived in tyranny for the majority of human history. It is only in the past few hundred years with the onset of capitalism have we seen the common man advance.
but these advances have been purely superficial and only beneficial to the individual. What i would like is for humanity to advance not just the common man. With capitalism only the people at the top are able to experience this shallow happiness while all at the same time there is little advancement in the world.
And why settle with the majority able to afford the necessities it should be universal.
Also at this time the U.S. hadn't even experienced its industrial revolution.
and we were at the point where the U.S. was actually making and exporting resource rather than importing everything. Which is another flaw with capitalism it is never sustainable because there is only so much raw resource in a country. All this is moot to me though because it seems all just a waste of time. The majority of the workforce is put into useless jobs that keep the system afloat. They could be put to great use and we as a world could advance to achieve greater things
"And why settle with the majority able to afford the necessities it should be universal."
I guess that is where we differ. I believe the path to achieving this is through giving the people at the bottom the opportunity and freedom to reach their desired destiny. Only in a free market can you give the man at the bottom a chance to enjoy the same luxuries as the rich.
"Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant little to the wealthy. The rich in ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing — running servants replaced running water. Television and radio — the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets — (quote cont'd)..
(quote cont'd)-- all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life. They would have welcomed the improvements in transportation and in medicine, but for the rest, the great achievements of western capitalism have rebounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful."
If it did work that way, i would still maintain that it is all just a waste of time. A game that everyone plays each day they go to work. Also there is no man at the bottom or at the top and no luxury (people obtain their happiness from their surroundings not external inanimate objects that this country revolves around.
And as for the quote i believe that the reason the poor achieved those improvements in life is because the upper class needed to keep them happy to maintain power.
Again, you believe that all Communists are Leninist-Marxists. Leninists have historically been a minority among communists. Opposing them are anarchists and council-communists, and others.
Kennedy talks about Karl Marx in his speech the president & the press.. Kennedy, was to abolish the fed & return to interest free silver certificatres Kennedy tried & he died!
AWSOME - This makes me understand how the free countries slip to dictatorship and how ignorance is the best tool of those who want our country to be enslaved...
You talk as if Americans were the stinky rich and powerful people who govern them. Yet, most American citizens are not even near that. Who do you think you talk to, really? Only to the "privilidged few"? If that is the case.. Then Yes! You are absolutely right for they certainly have to fear of Communism taking away much of their wealth!
Not in a moral Society, ie communism, Quag7, and please dont bring up the human nature bull shit, intelligence makes human nature obsolete. Morality motivates it's leaders and followers to do what's best for it's community, and with time the leaders become unnecassary and the mass leads itself. With morality corruption is impossible.
What is capitalist propaganda? This video? How? He is saying that communism is evil and how it is alive today in our supposedly capitalist and FREE country.
Oh I get what you mean. Yeah that Obama guy is one shady character. I heard that he used to be against gun control but now he is changing his mind. Same with Hillary Clinton.
alleeenterprise, please don't offend my intelligence. I did nothing to earn that remark, except give a criticism of someone you view highly. I called him a bigot because he is convinced of the superiority of his opinion and is prejudiced against those who disagree. I say this because he didn't even take the time to learn what Marx was talking about properly before attacking him.
alright ill point out a few of mr. badnarik's mistakes
1. No one ever asked Marx what he would need if he wanted to "start a communist government from the ground up." In fact Marx leaves very little information of what of how a communist government would be organized, which is why there are so many fucked up interpretations, namely the USSR, but i digress.
Although it doesn't have to do with directly showing Mr. Badnarik's mistakes, I will explain in a short response. There are many things that the USSR did wrong. They were not communist at all, they were a totalitarian regime with terrible dictators that oppressed the individual instead of allowing him to develop freely and to their full potential. The USSR stood for oppression with a misplaced communist facade.
In the USSR all modes of production were seized for use by the people, correct? Instead of production and distribution being handled by a totalitarian regime, who should have handled it?
They were not seized for use by the people. C'mon you're not that dumb. Thats a lie they spread so that they government could have more control. In socialism (Marxist socialism) the workers would have control of their modes of production, so what they produce, goes to help themselves, and not some factory owner that gets fat from surplus value.
im actually spending time formulating responses to the comments you make. I honestly care and I'm trying to make you understand what Marxism really is, but if you're just taking my comments and trying to disprove a theory that has had years of support by educated, scholarly men through a "discrepancy" you find here and there, then I'm going to stop replying. Do you really think that one of the most brilliant minds of the 19th century didn't think of all the things you're asking?
I have a friend who is Marxist but he never adequately explained certain things. I can't ask Marx himself so that leaves you. Now, you have told me that factories would be taken from their owners so that the factory workers could enjoy all of the profits themselves. I'd like you to please expand on that by telling me how new factories would be constructed once the owners of the old factories are gone and factory ownership is forbidden. "Marx was a smart economist" isn't good enough.
ok let's build one. done the same way in our system, except and individual builds it. he is no different in that he is just responding to a community need. He's driven by the demand of the local people (market demand), just like I would it imagine it would be in a Marxian system.
You really don't think that a man that contributed an astounding amount to modern economics made an incredibly flawed and stupid system? Of course not! He's not an idiot. These stupid little arguments you make have simple answers, but every time I try to give you one, you ignore it an go to something else, completely disregarding what I said previously.
The main problem with him even talking about setting up a communist government highlights his ignorance of the subject. No one organizes a communist government, because it is shaped by the proletarian revolution. They decide what is going to be set up and it is very specific to each scenario.
I understand why you would say that, because from what I posted, you could interpret that. What I am trying to say is that it is ultimately up to the proletarians to decide where they would go. It is completely democratic. I know that sounds really strange, but it takes more explanation that I can fit in 500 ish characters so message me if you're interested and I'll be happy to explain. Remember that this still shows how Mr. Badnarik does not understand communism.
In fact, Marx discourages anyone from pushing the workers into a communist society by "setting one up", because they need to develop class consciousness before their consciousness can progress to the next historical stage of socialism.
2. The Communist Manifesto is not a response to that question at all. 2 seconds of research would tell you that the Manifesto was published as a pamphlet that all workers could keep in the back of their pockets to motivate them and encourage them to gain a better understanding of the situation they're in. It is not a guide of any sorts about how to set up, or really even all the traits of what a communist society (note i use society not government) would even have.
Less than 30 seconds in and you can see that he has a poor grasp of the basic tenants of Marxism.
also, property is not the source of your rights. there are many, MANY schools of thought that show where rights come from, for example, Kant. The UN has a Kantian view of rights that say rights are an inherent part of humans. you dont need some material thing to tell you that you have rights.
"you dont need some material thing to tell you that you have rights."
Slight misunderstanding about property rights. One does not gain rights by gaining possessions. It's the other way around. A free person has the right to own possessions, starting with his body. To own something means that he and he alone may decide what to do with that property. A person who does not have this right is a slave because he has no control over his own life.
I never said that you gain more rights by gaining more possessions. I was simply noting that Mr. Badnarik implies that rights only come from property when he says "no property, no rights," as if there is no other thing that grants you rights. I was just showing that opposite of what he implied for other readers.
Also, when Marx says that he wants to remove private property, he isin't talking about removing your rights to your personal items, such as your car, tooth brush, tv, or house.
Hypothetical question: America becomes communist next week. The employees of Factory X unanimously decide to leave the ownership of the factory as is so that they may continue to be "exploited." Would their decision be honored or would the ownership be forcibly removed by some entity?
well that hypothetical situation would never happen because there are developmental stages that would resolve said situation, but since it is a hypothetical situation, what the hell right?
if america became communist, just like that (which is a ridiculous situation, but i guess it highlights the point you're trying to make about rights being taken away) the workers would have already realized that they are being exploited and therefore would not be in this situation.
communism aims to help the individual by liberating him from the exploitative forces of capitalism. to force someone to do something they don't want to do is repressive and not liberating so, no, these people would not be coerced into giving up their current system, because that would go against the very aim of communism. you have to stop thinking about the USSR as communist. Stalin's greatest crime against humanity wasn't slaughtering millions of people, it was killing the worker's dream.
"as if there is no other thing that grants you rights."
Rights are not granted to an individual, they are inherent. You need no permission to exercise a right. A privilege is granted by a higher authority. If someone or something allows you to have a right then it is not a right, it is a privilege. And anyone who has the power to grant you privileges also has the power to take them away.
What a BUFFOON!
He misrepresents progressive taxation; as he explains it, you'd think that one would be poorer for having a higher gross income. If he doesn't realize that the "98%" was on income OVER a set amount, he should stop lecturing.
OuTofJoY 7 months ago
@OuTofJoY What a NITPICKER you are! Ok, so the average American is making $35,000 a year and you are making $150,000. We, your government think that is obscene! We'll allow you to get a normal paycheck for the first 2 months and 3 weeks. By then you will have made your first $35,000. After that, for each month for the rest of the 9 months we will take all but $250 per month. We hope you can pay your bills and feed your family on that...
Is THAT fair? Why work for the last 9 months at all?
AverageJoe2012 6 months ago
@AverageJoe2012
It's not "nit picking" - it's an important factual clarification...without which, the situation sounds absolutely absurd (it would mean someone falling into a higher tax bracket would make less than someone in a lower one - absurd, and not at all the case.)
The example you give is also misleading - it describes a situation far steeper. There weren't only two rates, y'know....geez.
OuTofJoY 5 months ago
@OuTofJoY No need to self-describe like that; the following comments make it clear. The whole point is that once that threshold is achieved, the return for work performed above that level is so small that ABSOLUTELY the individual is poorer becasue the value of his labors is far more than the amount he receives on a net basis.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
53 morons did not like the video.
CRTV1982 1 year ago
Some call it Marxism — I call it Judaism.
(The American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
We have exterminated the property owners in Russia. We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America."
(The Jew, December 1925, Zinobit) The world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our affair and will rest in our hands. This revolution will tighten the Jewish domination over all other people."
- Le Peuple Juif, February 8, 1919.
Revelation 2:9,,3:9
MsMihailescu 1 year ago
I could't agree more!! Americans are so smart!!
MoogDnB 1 year ago
@MoogDnB You know, I have seen some Brits that have a stronger love for liberty than many Americans. Those Brits that do truly love liberty have experienced a great deal of socialism in the UK. I am hoping that we can scale back the socialism in both countries so that we can experience the liberty that our founders envisioned for all.
CRTV1982 1 year ago
"if they take your property, you have no rights"
problem with this, although its true, is that in capitalist society most people (workers) do not have any private property (by this marx refers to owning the means of production etc). We have nothing but our own labour-power which we have to sell to get wages to live. So here you actually admit that workers have rights under capitalism, as they have no property.
Under communism/socialism there is property, but its collective and not private :]
scarletghoul 1 year ago
@scarletghoul
All people in a capitalist country have property, starting with their bodies and including any justly acquired stuff. And nobody has the right to take your property without your permission. That's why it's called property.
With collective property, somebody must decide if you can live in that house or eat that sandwich or get that surgery. The sad truth is that the person who decides isn't you. If you're one of the few lucky ones, you'll know the person who does.
hapspir 11 months ago
lol. Communism is evil? Hahahaha.
Nades129 1 year ago
@Nades129 Well then what do you think Communism is? Do you think it's some magical world where everyone shares everything and lives happily ever after? No, it's a government vision in which the government makes things "fair", and essentially spreads poverty around. It has never worked, never will work, and is a facade predicated upon the people by international bankers and politicians that want to siphon off money from the people. The whole notion of the proletariat being oppressed is outdated.
john41262 1 year ago
@john41262
I'm sure you don't think egalitarianism is evil? Or that Plutocracy is evil? Or aristocracy? They are political philosophies, nothing more. That's why it's funny.
Communism, to put it simply, is a society with no class or state. Try reading Das Kapital so you'd understand how communism came out of socialism and socialism out of capitalism. People get it wrong often on what Marx was arguing for. Especially Americans for some reason.
Nades129 1 year ago
@john41262
It worked in old yugoslavia ,we lived very very good.But it was not a communism like in Russia ,it was some mix with capitalism.
dzonikg 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what a load of bollocks-this guy is a clown.taxation is not taking away someones property-it is a levy on income.
mistrysherlock 1 year ago
@mistrysherlock I guess you call it "income" when you earn it, and then after you spend it it becomes "property". Its all the same thing. If they tax your income, they take away your property
fluff125 1 year ago
@mistrysherlock It sounds to me like you are the clown. You obviously do not know that income IS property.
CRTV1982 1 year ago
no property=no rights
but wait-isn't that what slaveowners would say? of course it is.
LIBERTARIANS ARE FOR DEBT SLAVERY!
mistrysherlock 1 year ago
I can sum it up in one sentence: With this gun at your head, you will work for the state, do as you're told or die.
Hows that for communism.
leaddrop 1 year ago 2
This is all bullcrap, our soldiers fight for our freedom, we are free the TV says, Obama is our savior,
Wake up people, they got you by the balls and you like it.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
golcynski 1 year ago
@golcynski I have that quote on my arm
Adrianrosariopr 1 year ago
Thus boureoise property is not the private property of the working class.
All these are from a Marxist viewpoint.
I am not a Marxist nor a Communist. But a theory is a theory and should be approached based on its historical development and its true ideas.
The guy in the video was criticizing the Soviet Union, which was an authoritarian government with a centralized planned economy. Thats not communism, thats not what the Manifesto talked about.
a199215 2 years ago
Private Property refers to the means of production (capital, land for farming etc) used in the production process and owned by capitalists. Its a socialist/communist term that was used heavily in the 19th century. It does not refer to personal property, but only to the means of production.
This guy doesn't understand a thing about the Communist Manifesto.
a199215 2 years ago
From a practical stanpoint, there s no differnce between the types of property you are discussing and Marx not only specifically denounce private personal property repeatedly but in the Manifesto itself, demands the elimination of "boureoise property" which he specifically defines as private property without regard for whether it is used as a means of production.
You simply have no clue what you are talking about.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
@FletchforFreedom
Practicality and theory at two separate things and im discussing theory.
Boureoise property is wealth created from exploitation, and thus belongs to the proletariat class.
The Boureoise class is the exploiting class according to Marx.
The historical period when the Manifesto was written was in a time when the Boureoise class was a minority and the proletariat a majority.
Remember, you are dealing with a man that saw the world in class conflict.
a199215 2 years ago
I responded specifically in the context of the theory. There is no real distinction (in either theory OR practice) between the types of property that you are trying to make. Marx's theory of "exploitation" is utter nonsense debunked 100 years before he published the Manifesto. Neither the labor theory of value or Marx's view of history survive more than two seconds of competent scrutiny and were long debunked.
The erroneous fashion in which Marx viewed the world is precisely the problem.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
@FletchforFreedom
It is. But my criticism was not on whatever Marx's ideas were correct, (in which case I tend to disagree largely with Marx on all the points you mentioned), but on the fact that Mr. Badnarik does not understand Marxist ideas, thus not the manifesto itself.
If you cannot realize the difference between private property and personal property from a left point of view, there is no way to continue discussing Socialism/Communism with you.
If you reject them, as I do, fine.
a199215 2 years ago
Now I see where you're coming from; the problem is different than you suggest. The distinction between private property (in the context of personal property) such as a toothbrush and property that is a "means of production" such as a factory is one frequently espoused by modern socialists, particularly anarcho-syndicalists and even among those who CALL themselves "Marxists", but they were actually NOT distinctions that Marx actually made (which is a common probem for self-described Marxists).
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
@FletchforFreedom
The Communist Manifesto is a controversial text with its terminology being confusing and out of date. It was written for the First Socialist International by Marx and Engels, thus it is not simply a Marxist text - Its a socialist/communist one as well.
I will consider your claim that Marx did not actually make these distinctions, and do my research on the subject.
a199215 2 years ago
Just looked it up and your wrong ....Sorry
jsh78mang 2 years ago
@jsh78mang
pg 109, Ch on Socialism, Political Ideologies, Andrew Heywood.
-"...institution of private property, by which they usually mean productive wealth or 'capital' rather than personal belongings such as clothes, furniture or housing."
pg 110, Ch on Socialism, ABC of Anarchism Dover Ed, Berkaman.
"Private possession of things which humanity cannot exist without must cease. Means of production...become public property."
a199215 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Faulty logic on many levels. The first thing I would to call you out on. "Private possession of things which humanity cannot exist without must cease. Means of production...become public property."
So what your saying is that we can live without homes. Yep no one needs shelter right. So you are saying homes are not included because they are not needed?
jsh78mang 2 years ago
@jsh78mang
Indeed, we need shelter, we need houses.
So the means of production of houses would be abolished and become public ownership communally owned.
I agree that communism is not a workable system.
a199215 2 years ago
@jsh78mang
Socialism/Communism are based on the idea that the organization and the means of production of goods and services should be controlled and owned by the workers themselves. Thus the workers would produce what is needed for the people, without being exploited by the Boureoise - the owners of the means of production, that pay them to do the labour needed but giving them nothing of the profits.
So yes, housing would be provided by the workers to the people.
In theory.
a199215 2 years ago
The most important problem with the marxist theory is it never gets past the dictator ship point. However little this no name proff. From his no name College thinks dose not just make it so. I know a few Proff. to. All have writen books. None however would be considered authorities or expert in the feild they wrote in. From checking neither is your source.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
@jsh78mang
I agree about the dictatorship of the proletariat. I reality, a dictatorship of a class cannot be established, for the people who gain power over the state end up becoming the new exploiting class, the new ruling class, thus not the dictatorship of the proletariat Marx described. Its a silly thought. Thats what happened in Russia with the Bosheviks.
a199215 2 years ago
And in Mao's china, Cuba etc.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
@jsh78mang
Yes, indeed! In every "communist" country.
a199215 2 years ago
@jsh78mang
Berkman was just an anarchist.
But Andrew Heywood's book is highly recognised and is used to teach Politics on an A-level qualification level, which is an international examination. So allow me to trust my sources.
You dont need professors to study ideologies. I don't study from other books but the books written by the creators of ideologies themselves. (Marx, Lenin, Bakunin,Mussolini,Stirner etc)
They were just the easiest books to quote right now.
a199215 2 years ago
@spartan2600- Karl Marx, wrote for the New York Daily Tribune for a profit. When the newspaper refused to give him a raise, he decided to come up with the Communist Manifesto. So, why should we all believe his way is the right way to live, when he just wrote that out of anger in not getting his own way of wanting more money? His whole idealism is a bunch of bulloney, and he brought alot of people along for the ride. Communism is a scam.
GrimmMylene 2 years ago 2
The only reason Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto papers, was because he was upset at the New York newspaper who refused to give him a raise. He wanted more money, he was denied. He left America, went back to Communist Russia, wanted to find out if the pen is mightier than the sword. It is all about the money. Marx wanted more, he didn't get it, he figured out a way to get it from everybody. Communism at it's best. Your money is my money.. I have not read the Communist Manifesto, I willnow
GrimmMylene 2 years ago
You are either lying, or making all of that up about Marx. He never worked for a "New York newspaper," and he died in 1883, when Russia was still under the Czar, so there is no way he ever went "back to Communist Russia."
Communists do not want to take away the bed you sleep on. There are 2 kinds of property, the kind that a human owns and immediately uses, and the kind that he owns on papers. For example- a banker in New York that owns a factory in Beijing. This is what's wrong.
spartan2600 2 years ago
so by that logic if you have no property then you have no rights. and is that ok? The volunteers of communism are the enslaved and this guy mocks them as imbeciles or suckers.
hellycopper 2 years ago
Lol what paleo-libertarians say the funniest shit sometimes.
LuchadorporLibertad 2 years ago
This guy has one good point, EVERYONE should read the communist manifesto! It should be required reading for all high-schoolers.
Everything else this guy says is bullshit.
spartan2600 2 years ago
@spartan2600 why would you agree to take away someone's property? Our first ever property is our body, that is what property is about. U support losing all property? Teach children it is okay to have no say over any property. I will read the Communist Manifesto, he only wrote it because he was sore at the New York newspaper who refused to give him a raise. He left the paper, went back home to communist Russia, which by the way is no longer communist. He was a sore loser wanted more money for him
GrimmMylene 2 years ago
I am a council communist, so nobody has to live with me if they don't want. My goal is to destroy the state, then destroy property, 2 things that go hand in hand. However, what I mean by property are those things that someone owns on paper, but never uses. The investor who owns sweatshops in Haiti, or the banker who has stock in some oil corporation in Russia. This is what is morally wrong. What I don't want people to lose is the clothing on their back, the food they eat, etc.
spartan2600 2 years ago
In fact, this is what I'm fighting for- I believe every human being has a *RIGHT* to food, clothing, shelter, and a job. No one should have to earn a right to live- to believe that is immoral.
spartan2600 2 years ago
@spartan2600 He worked for the New York Daily Tribune. 487 articles written by Karl Marx (125 of them written by Engels) The Editor of the NYDailyTribune was Charles Dana. Check it out. I believe his ideals were taken out of context, no matter how you divide it up, people need money to survive. Who ever's money is it is, should have the say on how it is spent, used, etc.. Any state, should have no right, to take my earned anything, to give to someone else. He was from Germany, lived in England
GrimmMylene 2 years ago
Ok, I stand corrected, Marx did work for a New York newspaper. However, if you think he wrote the Communist Manifesto because he couldn't get a raise, then you do not understand the significance of and the research that went into forming that pamphlet.
What do you mean "his ideals were taken out of context?" What do you mean when you say "people need money to survive?" Humans have existed for that vast majority of our existence without money- I'm sure you realize this.
spartan2600 2 years ago
why is this guy so afraid
whoisthegoose 2 years ago 2
Because he has knowledge. Try it sometime. It's frightening.
SloterMFmeyer 2 years ago
Can you say IRS?! ROFL
tra789 2 years ago
"Giovanni senza terra" means "John without land"...
This Johnwithoutland is also lacking a brain.
ValiantArrow 2 years ago
fuck you
Giovannisenzaterra 2 years ago
You know where Libertarian comes from? anarchist-communism
Actually the first Libertarian was against private property
Libertarians in America are not Libertarain
sgsfdgfsdfsdfsddf 2 years ago 2
Wrong sgs, American libertarianism has nothing to do with communism, actually American libertarianism can be more closely defined as "anarcho-capitalism". Libertarian is a very broad term and can refer to people who are either on the "far right" or the "far left". While there are certainly anarcho-communist or "communalists" who identify themselves as libertarians and are against the concept of private property, "Libertarians" in the U.S are far more likely to be hard right defenders of pp.
WorshipInTruth 2 years ago
When we speak of "Libertarianism" we are talking about the small government constitutionalism of our former American republic which is basically the direct opposite of marxist communist. The two concepts are irreconcilable.
WorshipInTruth 2 years ago
And liberals in America are not liberal.
So what's your point?
Appropriating terms is a tried and proven tactic by the left, just as it is to call a leftwing ideology with a bad rep "far right" (e.g. nazism)
What are now libertarians in America, are libertarians and what are now liberals in America are liberals. Period.
You can't have it both ways.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
The problem is that many political terms in the US mean something entirely different in the rest of the world, and through the rest of history. For example, the modern "conservative" as it is used in US politics today is an American invention from ~40 years ago.
There is not one political scientist, or anyone with an education who believes that Nazism was "leftwing." Please educate yourself on what these terms mean.
spartan2600 2 years ago
You've offered no arguments. Just the usual logical fallacy (appeal to authority). It doesn't *matter* what a political scientist says. They aren't scientists because politics is not science. It's a pseudo science. To know whether Nazism is "left" or "right" is to determine whether the left have no anti-semitism, militarism, nationalism, authoritarianism, central government, slave labor camps, genocide and so on. Obviously, they do.
There is *nothing* specifically right wing about Nazism.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
Politics is not a 'hard science,' but it doesn't make any sense to call it "pseudo science." If you think Nazism isn't right wing, then you are inventing your own concept of the term. I'd rather go with right-wing as defined in the academic world. And if you think all formal education is just "leftist indoctrination," then that explains everything anybody needs to know about you. You believe 'the first link on google' is more credible than what they teach at university?
spartan2600 2 years ago
In order to know why Nazism was more leftist than "extreme right wing" you need reasoning and dissecting skills, instead of parroting what a bunch of self-declared "experts" at leftist indoctrination camps like colleges say.
But if you want to see some well researched stuff on why Hitler was a leftist, google for "Hitler was a socialist" and pick the first link.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
Here, I did the 'first link on google' thing like you said.
Fascism; "ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right"
Right-Wing; "support for preserving traditional social orders with hierarchal or private control of wealth."
Hitler was radically conservative, he wanted to stop the "perverting" forces of Judaism, Socialism, Communism, and cultural liberalism.
spartan2600 2 years ago
The same *conservative* trend exists in all Fascist governments, from the military Junta in Brazil, to Augusto Pinochet, Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy, and so on. If you don't think Nazi's and Fascists in general were right-wing, then you don't know anything about Fascism. Please read a book about any one of these regimes by a serious scholar. If I can, I'd suggest reading "The Battle for Spain" by Anthony Beevor.
spartan2600 2 years ago
Prior to the Night of Long Knives, there was a faction of National Bolsheviks more socialist than Hitler. Hitler crushed them in order be the undisputed leader of the NSDAP. The Nazis eventually received most of their support from conservatives and the "Right", naturally, as they were promoting themselves as saviors from Communism. This says nothing about the actual policies promoted or carried out which were what can be uselessly labeled as left- and right-wing authoritarian moves.
dreamcore 2 years ago
Left, Right, Middle. "academics" can change the name all they want. Fascism/Nazisim/Communism are all collectivist ideologies. One favors national socialism and the other international socialism.One wants to OWN the means of productions and the other to DIRECT the means through regulation.Both agree the goal is towards the state/community.Look at the similarities of the progressives/neocons and fascist ideologies.very similar.Far right in the modern sense is Classical Liberalism or Libertarians.
Libertarian71776 2 years ago
That comment expresses a careless disregard for facts and history. Fascism has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism-if nothing else- means the workers control the means of production. Fascism is the *private* control of the means of production where the capitalists (bourgeoisie to Marxists) work jointly with government. Fascism also requires radical nationalism combined with culturally conservative and often racist ideology.
spartan2600 2 years ago
Read my comment again. I wrote, "Fascism/Nazism/Communism are all collectivist ideologies."That means the STATE comes first, the individual last. In a liberal society,the individual comes before the state.You understand? Your definition of fascism is correct.Mussolini stated what he means by fascism.Government is always gonna be the senior partner.Who do these fat cats turn too to bail them out?and of course these bailouts come with strings attached.
Libertarian71776 2 years ago
You ought to also note that Humans have lived in collectivist societies for the vast majority of our existence. Indeed, Marx himself was a student of anthropology and used man's experience in these collectivist societies to help form his idea of communism.
spartan2600 2 years ago
This saddens me that you idolize a man that created a system with good intentions and ended in misery.
Libertarian71776 2 years ago
There are many "labels" since there are many different kinds of ideologies on the left. You probably would be insulted if I grouped you and neo-cons and neo-liberals all together as "rightists."
spartan2600 2 years ago
Neo-Cons? do you even know their political history? research where Neo-Cons came from.our current president is a Neo-Con! Neo-liberal i would accept. they are the classical liberals, but apply the ideology in a modern way.I've taken globalization in college, we talked about this quite a bit.
Libertarian71776 2 years ago
Another thing, many, maybe most communists do not advocate for a state. You are assuming that all communists are Marxist-Leninists, and this is clearly not true. It was the libertarian socialists (true libertarians, aka anarchists) who voluntarily fought Fascism in Spain while capitalists in the US and Britain were getting cozy with the Nazis and other fascists. Russian anarchists and council communists fought the Leninist coup in Russia long before the US cared.
spartan2600 2 years ago
Yeah yeah. its an EVOLUTIONARY process.This also saddens me that you want to destroy social institutions that protect private property and individual rights.Libertarian socialist. how many labels do you leftist create for yourself?holy crap. I prefer to call myself a liberal actually. Wow, so you do accept that the American intellectuals were very fond of fascists before the war.I agree there.
Libertarian71776 2 years ago
No, communism doesn't inherently value the state first. Marxist-Leninists do, but not all communists are Marxist-Leninist, far from it in fact. Please re-read my comments as well.
There are council communists, they believe in dissolving the state entirely.
I don't idolize any man, though I may idolize their ideas.
Please look up the meaning of "collectivism." It has nothing to do with the state.
I don't care about "private property," what I care about are humans and their needs.
spartan2600 2 years ago
community, village, groups, and the STATE comes before the individual. That is collectivism. That is the underlying principle of fascism, communism, socialism, nazism. all these little left wing labels you're saying all have these in common. why cant you comprehend this? the definition is all over the internet.
Libertarian71776 2 years ago
Communism is a JEW SCAM, only Jews and the dumb goyim would be for it.
"Some call it Marxism — I call it Judaism." (The American Bulletin, Rabbi Stephen. Wise, May 5, 1935).
THE LONDON JEWISH CHRONICLE, 4-4-19:
"...there is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism."
thirdeyewise2 2 years ago
"The Bolshevist Revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a New Order in the world. [a New World Order - sound familiar??] What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world."
-THE AMERICAN HEBREW, September 10, 1920
thirdeyewise2 2 years ago
@sgsfdgfsdfsdfsddf
Anarcho-communists should not steal peoples' property. They should aim to make best collective use of what is available via mutual consent.
PersianPaladin 1 year ago
:( , I a an anarcho capitalist. so i have no bias twords communism , But im stopping this video after the "first blank" because what he said was ridiculous .(bullshit)
spawk1993 2 years ago
I agree! EEEvil >:-| Aaagh!
The 98% during WW2 is more like drafting corporations. They never looked back after WW2, it was the start of an unprecedented boom.
aiyic 2 years ago
plank.
How is it bullshit? the planks are numbered in the communist manifesto.
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago
spawk, as a supposed "anarcho-capitalist" you should listen very closely to what he was say. Ridiculous? No....
WorshipInTruth 2 years ago
This guy is stupid
Orgyfan6 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
This dude makes me laugh, we assume since we in some way or another follow all of the "rules" of a communist government that we are communist, you forgot about all of the Capitalist functions we have. No, we are socialist at best, and this is only because Capitalism at it's purest form would fail. It's narrow minded wieners like this butt-hole who turn people in the wrong direction, Capitalism promotes a material incentive, Socialism tries to promote morality along with the material
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago
Comment removed
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago
(obviously the two can't correspond), and Communism promotes Morality. This dude needs to learn what he is talking about if he is going to make such biased remarks
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago 2
Morality? I don't know where to start...
For one, have you ever lived in a totalitarian society? Amazing how you dumbass whiteboys have no clue what happens in the real world.
The best example is China. It didn't start advancing as a nation until Deng Xiaoping made efforts to give the people economic freedom.
This finally led to progress and the push for political freedom is stronger than ever. Now you tell me, were the Chinese better off before the economic reforms in the late 70's?
08MVPyouKnowWho 2 years ago
I don't know where to start... Communism, ideologically is not totalitarian. Now that doesn't mean that China isn't because it does not follow communism in the least bit. And i don't see how this even touches on my point about morality, this lesson on history is barely relevant to anything at all that i said, morality has nothing to do with money if that's what your point is. Can i get a comment back clarifying some of what you said
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago 2
Communisim ideologically requires some type of central authority to control affairs. By nature it requires one man to hold power over another. That is not promoting morality, it is simply promoting whatever the authority figures think is moral.
That is the fallacy, communism cannot and has not worked because it puts one man over another which is exactly what it was designed to overcome.
I took china as an example because it tried communism and had no choice but to change as its people advanced.
08MVPyouKnowWho 2 years ago
The problem with that is you are saying that communism has been adequately tried, this is the fallacy. Up until now, and history will agree with me on this, the leaders that are in control of these "communistic" countries never had real intentions of attempting the ideological version of it. Rather they exploit their country and benefit off of it (although if you were to ask me I would tell you Cuba has done pretty well). All of these traits also happen to also be a side-effect of capitalism
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago 2
That is kind of what I'm saying. Communism the way you want it cannot exist because its foundation is based on on group or individual controlling another. How can there ever be some person to organize all of society for us?
I disagree with your capitalism argument. In a capitalistic system (I would say a good example is the US in the 19th century) you had a period of very small government and the most prosperous hundred years in world history. Capitalism provides the incentive to grow.
08MVPyouKnowWho 2 years ago
19th century U.S. was a terrible time for anyone below the middle class barrier (which then was a substantial amount of the population). But besides that it could work, but it has to be a proletariat revolution just as Marx had stated clear back in the mid 19th century.because only they would have the majority of the incentive. This also leads to problems with socialism but that's a discussion for later. If only we were able to see that we are exploited every day... god damn patriotism
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago
Anyone below the middle class barrier always has a terrible time... In the 19th century there was a decrease in teh number of people in this group. That century had a higher rate of elimosinary activity than any time before or after. This is also where the foundations of our relatively high standard of living were formed.
People have lived in tyranny for the majority of human history. It is only in the past few hundred years with the onset of capitalism have we seen the common man advance.
08MVPyouKnowWho 2 years ago
but these advances have been purely superficial and only beneficial to the individual. What i would like is for humanity to advance not just the common man. With capitalism only the people at the top are able to experience this shallow happiness while all at the same time there is little advancement in the world.
And why settle with the majority able to afford the necessities it should be universal.
Also at this time the U.S. hadn't even experienced its industrial revolution.
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago
and we were at the point where the U.S. was actually making and exporting resource rather than importing everything. Which is another flaw with capitalism it is never sustainable because there is only so much raw resource in a country. All this is moot to me though because it seems all just a waste of time. The majority of the workforce is put into useless jobs that keep the system afloat. They could be put to great use and we as a world could advance to achieve greater things
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago
Bed time for me, i'll respond tomorrow though
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago
"And why settle with the majority able to afford the necessities it should be universal."
I guess that is where we differ. I believe the path to achieving this is through giving the people at the bottom the opportunity and freedom to reach their desired destiny. Only in a free market can you give the man at the bottom a chance to enjoy the same luxuries as the rich.
08MVPyouKnowWho 2 years ago
"Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant little to the wealthy. The rich in ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing — running servants replaced running water. Television and radio — the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets — (quote cont'd)..
08MVPyouKnowWho 2 years ago
(quote cont'd)-- all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life. They would have welcomed the improvements in transportation and in medicine, but for the rest, the great achievements of western capitalism have rebounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful."
-Milton Friedman
08MVPyouKnowWho 2 years ago
If it did work that way, i would still maintain that it is all just a waste of time. A game that everyone plays each day they go to work. Also there is no man at the bottom or at the top and no luxury (people obtain their happiness from their surroundings not external inanimate objects that this country revolves around.
And as for the quote i believe that the reason the poor achieved those improvements in life is because the upper class needed to keep them happy to maintain power.
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago
You are confusing Communism with Leninism. Simple as that.
spartan2600 2 years ago
Again, you believe that all Communists are Leninist-Marxists. Leninists have historically been a minority among communists. Opposing them are anarchists and council-communists, and others.
spartan2600 2 years ago
Comment removed
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago
Comment removed
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago
this guy really values his things.
Jessymandias 2 years ago
Kennedy talks about Karl Marx in his speech the president & the press.. Kennedy, was to abolish the fed & return to interest free silver certificatres Kennedy tried & he died!
alleeenterprise 2 years ago
asssssss
akumal999 2 years ago
the jews and greenspand
andrewrosso 2 years ago
We've been communist since about 1913.
freerun4lifeson 2 years ago 2
You don't understand the meaning of the term. If only we were communist!
spartan2600 2 years ago
AWSOME - This makes me understand how the free countries slip to dictatorship and how ignorance is the best tool of those who want our country to be enslaved...
God bless you Sir!
exelent62 2 years ago
The USA is no where near Communist. The analysis in this video is so flawed.
Iowa656 2 years ago
You talk as if Americans were the stinky rich and powerful people who govern them. Yet, most American citizens are not even near that. Who do you think you talk to, really? Only to the "privilidged few"? If that is the case.. Then Yes! You are absolutely right for they certainly have to fear of Communism taking away much of their wealth!
westclub4 2 years ago
America is nowhere near Communist.
chsbcg 2 years ago 2
Third way is the way.
bnprenaissance 2 years ago
THIS guy is AWESOME.
wish he had his own prime time tv show to do his lectures for the entire country to watch and learn from.
ugotpimp 2 years ago
5/5
myiqisinfinity 3 years ago
You are a stupid fool who obviously do not understand what you read. You fascist fuck!
checkunderyourbed 3 years ago
bwahahah bitter communist.
Quag7 2 years ago
mwahaha...mindless conservative
checkunderyourbed 2 years ago
Not even remotely close. But you keep that clear thinking up, comrade.
Quag7 2 years ago
Comment removed
Video0879 2 years ago
Don't worry Quaq7, you'll eventually become socialists anyway. If not you, your future generations will. :)
Video0879 2 years ago
I think you strongly underestimate the entrenched power of the wealthy in the United States to prevent that from happening.
I have no opinion, either way. All economic systems are corrupt. Someone gets the shit end of the stick either way.
Quag7 2 years ago
Not in a moral Society, ie communism, Quag7, and please dont bring up the human nature bull shit, intelligence makes human nature obsolete. Morality motivates it's leaders and followers to do what's best for it's community, and with time the leaders become unnecassary and the mass leads itself. With morality corruption is impossible.
LittlefingerSoIF 2 years ago
heh!
Quag7 2 years ago
One who calls markiegreg a friend wrote,
(uckfobama-messaged what is below to me.
"Kiss my ass motherfucker."
This person calls themself a Christian,
no Christian I know would speak those words
not even hiden from the rest of the world..
Don't let uckfobama fool you, it's the devil in sheeps chlothing.
senserdog 3 years ago
WOLVERINES!!!
DontBeObamaZombies 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Capitalist Propoganda
amsterdam78 3 years ago
What is capitalist propaganda? This video? How? He is saying that communism is evil and how it is alive today in our supposedly capitalist and FREE country.
lllMeNaCe 3 years ago 3
No, "Capitalist Propaganda" is called something else.
Its called the Corporate Media.
And right now they are telling us Socialism is good under fuhrer Obama
DontBeObamaZombies 3 years ago
Oh I get what you mean. Yeah that Obama guy is one shady character. I heard that he used to be against gun control but now he is changing his mind. Same with Hillary Clinton.
lllMeNaCe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Rubbish.
PhantomTigershark 3 years ago
alleeenterprise, please don't offend my intelligence. I did nothing to earn that remark, except give a criticism of someone you view highly. I called him a bigot because he is convinced of the superiority of his opinion and is prejudiced against those who disagree. I say this because he didn't even take the time to learn what Marx was talking about properly before attacking him.
chaosmans 3 years ago
This guy is the opposite of a bigot, you don't know much do ya chaosmans.. That's your government educated professor pin head!
alleeenterprise 3 years ago
omgomgomg
this guys is soooooooooooooooo wrong in soooooo many ways
i'm doing an independent study with a humanities professor at my school on Marxism and this guy just sounds like a bigot
chaosmans 3 years ago
Could you be more specific? I am interested to know what guidance your professor has given on this subject.
hapspir 3 years ago
alright ill point out a few of mr. badnarik's mistakes
1. No one ever asked Marx what he would need if he wanted to "start a communist government from the ground up." In fact Marx leaves very little information of what of how a communist government would be organized, which is why there are so many fucked up interpretations, namely the USSR, but i digress.
chaosmans 3 years ago
What should the USSR have done differently in order not to be f***ed up?
hapspir 3 years ago
Although it doesn't have to do with directly showing Mr. Badnarik's mistakes, I will explain in a short response. There are many things that the USSR did wrong. They were not communist at all, they were a totalitarian regime with terrible dictators that oppressed the individual instead of allowing him to develop freely and to their full potential. The USSR stood for oppression with a misplaced communist facade.
chaosmans 3 years ago
In the USSR all modes of production were seized for use by the people, correct? Instead of production and distribution being handled by a totalitarian regime, who should have handled it?
hapspir 3 years ago
They were not seized for use by the people. C'mon you're not that dumb. Thats a lie they spread so that they government could have more control. In socialism (Marxist socialism) the workers would have control of their modes of production, so what they produce, goes to help themselves, and not some factory owner that gets fat from surplus value.
chaosmans 3 years ago
I think I'm getting warmer. Okay, if factories have no owners, then how do new factories get started?
hapspir 3 years ago
look
im actually spending time formulating responses to the comments you make. I honestly care and I'm trying to make you understand what Marxism really is, but if you're just taking my comments and trying to disprove a theory that has had years of support by educated, scholarly men through a "discrepancy" you find here and there, then I'm going to stop replying. Do you really think that one of the most brilliant minds of the 19th century didn't think of all the things you're asking?
chaosmans 3 years ago
I have a friend who is Marxist but he never adequately explained certain things. I can't ask Marx himself so that leaves you. Now, you have told me that factories would be taken from their owners so that the factory workers could enjoy all of the profits themselves. I'd like you to please expand on that by telling me how new factories would be constructed once the owners of the old factories are gone and factory ownership is forbidden. "Marx was a smart economist" isn't good enough.
hapspir 3 years ago
do you need a factory here? yes.
ok let's build one. done the same way in our system, except and individual builds it. he is no different in that he is just responding to a community need. He's driven by the demand of the local people (market demand), just like I would it imagine it would be in a Marxian system.
chaosmans 3 years ago
"ok let's build one"
That could have been clearer, but thanks for the answer. I am now one step closer to understanding how communists think.
hapspir 3 years ago
You really don't think that a man that contributed an astounding amount to modern economics made an incredibly flawed and stupid system? Of course not! He's not an idiot. These stupid little arguments you make have simple answers, but every time I try to give you one, you ignore it an go to something else, completely disregarding what I said previously.
chaosmans 3 years ago
Communism is evil. The guy in the video said it right.
lllMeNaCe 3 years ago 7
Yep. Good argument.
chaosmans 3 years ago
The main problem with him even talking about setting up a communist government highlights his ignorance of the subject. No one organizes a communist government, because it is shaped by the proletarian revolution. They decide what is going to be set up and it is very specific to each scenario.
chaosmans 3 years ago
"No one organizes a communist government, because it is shaped by the proletarian revolution."
This gives me the impression that communism has no identity in and of itself but is instead the negation of whatever system preceded it.
hapspir 3 years ago
I understand why you would say that, because from what I posted, you could interpret that. What I am trying to say is that it is ultimately up to the proletarians to decide where they would go. It is completely democratic. I know that sounds really strange, but it takes more explanation that I can fit in 500 ish characters so message me if you're interested and I'll be happy to explain. Remember that this still shows how Mr. Badnarik does not understand communism.
chaosmans 3 years ago
"it is ultimately up to the proletarians to decide where they would go. It is completely democratic."
What happens to the individuals who disagree with the majority?
hapspir 3 years ago
In fact, Marx discourages anyone from pushing the workers into a communist society by "setting one up", because they need to develop class consciousness before their consciousness can progress to the next historical stage of socialism.
chaosmans 3 years ago
2. The Communist Manifesto is not a response to that question at all. 2 seconds of research would tell you that the Manifesto was published as a pamphlet that all workers could keep in the back of their pockets to motivate them and encourage them to gain a better understanding of the situation they're in. It is not a guide of any sorts about how to set up, or really even all the traits of what a communist society (note i use society not government) would even have.
chaosmans 3 years ago
Less than 30 seconds in and you can see that he has a poor grasp of the basic tenants of Marxism.
also, property is not the source of your rights. there are many, MANY schools of thought that show where rights come from, for example, Kant. The UN has a Kantian view of rights that say rights are an inherent part of humans. you dont need some material thing to tell you that you have rights.
chaosmans 3 years ago
"you dont need some material thing to tell you that you have rights."
Slight misunderstanding about property rights. One does not gain rights by gaining possessions. It's the other way around. A free person has the right to own possessions, starting with his body. To own something means that he and he alone may decide what to do with that property. A person who does not have this right is a slave because he has no control over his own life.
hapspir 3 years ago
I never said that you gain more rights by gaining more possessions. I was simply noting that Mr. Badnarik implies that rights only come from property when he says "no property, no rights," as if there is no other thing that grants you rights. I was just showing that opposite of what he implied for other readers.
Also, when Marx says that he wants to remove private property, he isin't talking about removing your rights to your personal items, such as your car, tooth brush, tv, or house.
chaosmans 3 years ago
He just wants to remove property that can be used to exploit your fellow man, such as the modes of production.
chaosmans 3 years ago
Hypothetical question: America becomes communist next week. The employees of Factory X unanimously decide to leave the ownership of the factory as is so that they may continue to be "exploited." Would their decision be honored or would the ownership be forcibly removed by some entity?
hapspir 3 years ago
well that hypothetical situation would never happen because there are developmental stages that would resolve said situation, but since it is a hypothetical situation, what the hell right?
if america became communist, just like that (which is a ridiculous situation, but i guess it highlights the point you're trying to make about rights being taken away) the workers would have already realized that they are being exploited and therefore would not be in this situation.
chaosmans 3 years ago
communism aims to help the individual by liberating him from the exploitative forces of capitalism. to force someone to do something they don't want to do is repressive and not liberating so, no, these people would not be coerced into giving up their current system, because that would go against the very aim of communism. you have to stop thinking about the USSR as communist. Stalin's greatest crime against humanity wasn't slaughtering millions of people, it was killing the worker's dream.
chaosmans 3 years ago
"as if there is no other thing that grants you rights."
Rights are not granted to an individual, they are inherent. You need no permission to exercise a right. A privilege is granted by a higher authority. If someone or something allows you to have a right then it is not a right, it is a privilege. And anyone who has the power to grant you privileges also has the power to take them away.
hapspir 3 years ago
i dont see why you are arguing with me on this point, since i agree with yout....
so would any marxist
chaosmans 3 years ago
"Communism is evil. It's not just a personal opinion. It's evil" Hahahaha
Kaiman620 3 years ago
'we've got the draw the line somewhere' - start drawing the line by refusing to pay federal taxes that fuel the war!
peacerebelgirl 3 years ago
they also fuel your roads, schools, police, national defense, social security...
yes a portion of your federal taxes go to roads and other local things
chaosmans 3 years ago
what fools the people in the US to believe they are living in a free land is the freedom to consume and get dumbed down by entertainment.
wdcsucks1 3 years ago 2