The video claims that the "true communism" existed in Paris for a few months. It existed through voluntary cooperation by the people, through democratic decision making. Could it have persisted? Would it not, step by step, had turned into a free market, with private propery rights? --> Capitalism, based on voluntary cooperation? Would people forever just have shared their items? Or, would a strong state have been necessary at that time, to keep the property shared?
1.) Capitalism is not based on voluntary cooperation. Because the means of production are monopolized by a select few through private property, workers are forced under economic duress to participate in the capitalist system. Voluntary cooperation can only occur under socialism (worker control of the means of production).
2.) On the contrary, a strong state is required to uphold private property, which is a state sponsored monopoly on the means of production. To maintain private property, force must be maintained against those who attempt to occupy and use the means of production, hence the role of the state.
3.) Ownership of a commodity that is not a means of production is not exploitative and would be considered possession. People do not share everything under communism. They merely offer up the product of their labor and in return procure their needs and wants from others in association.
I have a suggestion for all of those who believe that communism is the way. Get a large group of friends of different income levels and ethnic backgrounds and move into a house together. Something big so you have plenty of room. Then each month put all of your money into a "pool" and have a few of the best and brightest decide how its spent for the good of the house. I am curious what will happen. IT IS KEY THAT YOU HAVE DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS! Let me know how it goes.
@magnusscott I have done that several times myself when staying in a house in constantinople for my studies (I still live there). To be honest it works fine. Of course there is always a fuckwit bitching about sharing. But we just kick that kind of self-important bourgeois son of a bitch and call a friend who is more open to communal life. We do not have enough money to pay our rent and thats why we are living 5 person in a flat.
@magnusscott But let's get back at your request your suggestion or what the fuck ever it is. First, why the fuck people with different income levels would share a flat? Because if you have different levels of income it means you are living in a capitalist society and commune in a capitalist society is just fucking wrong. It just doesn't work because obviously the guy who brings more money will demand more. Secondly, why the brightest decide? Is this a fucking monarchy? Just doesn't make sense...
Yes, let's pretend capitalism doesn't have those things to a much worse degree. If you live in Brazil, you must be blind or dense to only criticize communism as "corrupt" and as conducive to poverty.
You're a fucking moron. All those who claim that communism is ok and capitalism is bad must be really stupid. You wrote your silly comment on a computer which was build thanks to capitalism. You are not hungry because on your street you have shops with food where you can buy almost anything. Mp3 player that you use from time to time was also built by people what wanted to earn money. Your boots, hat, coat, books, pencils, watch, radio, tv that you have were made by capitalists.
@BGFGR I don't claim that communism is ok, I claim that its bad if not worse than Capitalism. And yes Capitalism has given me a lot of material crap largely at the expense and subjection of those in other countries, the west fucks Africa for its natural resources which they then send to east Asia or Lain America to fuck them for cheap labor all so I and the west can have their luxuries.
@bapyou If you hate capitalism so much why don't you go to North Corea? Sure that it isn't communistic, but for sure it has less capitalism!
I wonder why years ago in Russia people didn't hear about computers while in USA people had it all. People in USA had large shops where they could buy almost everything while in Russia people had to stay in a long queues in order to get things which average USA citizen would not even want to look at. Why workers in Russia didn't make all those things?
@BGFGR " If you hate capitalism so much why don't you go to North Corea?"
If you love capitalism so much, why don't you go to China and see first hand the conditions under which the Chinese work to make that cheap pair of pants you buy at Walmart.
Or go live in Egypt under the US-backed dictator Hosni Mubarak.
"People in USA had large shops where they could buy almost everything"
If you have the money. Most things made today are crap and made to wear out so you'll buy another one.
@bapyou Those who live in China who made products for USA have better living condition than those who live in non-capitalistic North Corea.
"Most things made today are crap" tell it to North Corean people that don't have a shit and would not believe that there are a people that have that kind of products which they will not even dream about. You wrote this comment on a pc, you may be suprised, but most of people in North corea don't have it. Go there and check for yourself!
Commune in Paris sounds much like Anarchist Spain in 1936. I do believe in the future we might have a high Tech Star Trek libertarian socialist type world.
@Spillers72 so do I, but I don't our children's children will live to see that... well .. maybe the children's children in their old age if lifespan greatly increases...
@SuperSuperfan let us not loose sight of objectvity... as I said in a comment on a previous video, capitalism and democracy are the best systems of economy and society that ahve ever exsited... it is mostly because all the others that exist/existedwere utter crap....there's a hell of a lot to improve.... but let us not demonize them;
@bbphnix Sure I'll admit democracy has been the best system we have constructed so far, but I still think its the wrong way to structure society. But for Capitalism... you can't really say we've had really existing Capitalism with free markets, government intervention and government protection of business interests has taken away any real notion of Capitalism and helped form the big corporate powerhouses of today and fostered economic exploitation.
@jjenkov you are just ignorant as fuck to post such a comment on videos wich represent how Marx would think about the capitalist society and so on. Do you actually watch them or just mute them so you can put out your ignorance, stupidity and frustration in a comment wich is 100 times explained?
@jjenkov I'm not denying it is. Communism is a utopian dream that has never been achieved and can never be achieved, but the states that have called them self communist essentially had slavery and ignorance.
Your entire scenario is Utopian because it assumes that you can some how turn all men into angels. If that were possible we would have done so LONG ago.
Capitalism uses a lowest common denominator to motivate all people regardless of their morality; Money. It doesn't matter if you are an angel or a devil, money will motivate you because you can do anything with it, from helping the poor, to binge drinking. Your utopia is built only to house saints, it's not realistic.
"Just let people belive what they want to believe"
If it was only a simple belief I would but your belief would systematically destroy human society if it was allowed to. If you want something to believe in use something that is harmless like Buddhism.
"were they ever communist or did they just claim to be it"
They both tried to be, but since Communism isn't possible for a large nation, or any nation for a meaningful time they degraded into THE WORST SYSTEMS KNOWN TO MAN, lol.
"Yes but Capitalism was a cult persay once and so was Christianity and Judaism "
Lol, capitalism is, and has always been, an economic system. How could it be a cult? And yeah, Christianity and Judaism were/are cults.
There is a Difference between Stalinism and Maoism but again is there a difference
Capitalism was a cult persay when it first came around
also worst system ever is a matter of opinion but which would you trust a college taught economist or a man with whos been broken and been told what ever is good for the capitalist system is good for you?
i would honestly i'd prefer monarchy at least you own the means of production
"Capitalism was a cult persay when it first came around"
Definition of Cult:
"a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents"
So yeah, you are just simply wrong.
"would you trust a college taught economist or a man whos been broken"
The economist obviously, and they agree that capitalism is the way to go. Also, you can insert ANY system where you said capitalism there, it wouldn't change a thing.
In comparison to Capitalism? To be honest i don't pefer it. its just despite the reputation of oppression you'd own the means to produce. Perhaps i'm wrong perhaps its you rented it rather than own it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL, the Commune de Paris WAS a form of government, and even then it only lasted 2 months.
And look at the glorious laws the enacted; Free admission to theaters! Shorter work hours for bakeries (who cares if the bakers wanted/needed to work more hours)! Forgiveness of debts (Why should you have to pay back money you borrow? lol)
I'd like to argue against that; The Commune was far more than any government, it was the rise of the proletariat. The rise of individuals, individual thinkers. The Commune was constructed of individuals, and these individuals focused more on cooperation rather than competition. Now, the laws: Free admission to theaters was important because it was a form of cultural education. Do you think that half the proletariat ever saw one play prior to the creation of the commune?
When two people trade something, it might be hard to understand this, they are actually creating value because they are BOTH benefiting at the same time. Without a monetary system our world wide system of trade would immediately crash and a huge source of the world's wealth creation will have been thrown out the window. To suggest such a thing shows how little you understand modern economics.
Actually; your completely wrong, and sorry I have to point this out, but you forget that there would be no property, and everyone would take what they need to sustain themselves. Not trade. Your 'modern economics' is dishearteningly regressive.
LOL yeah right. I'm sorry but the shirt on my back is my property no matter what anyone else says (unless I stole it). You are not living within reality if you truly think you can just throw the concept of property out the window. Besides, look up the "tragic of the commons" concept. Public property works TERRIBLY!
You need to work on your economic back ground, I suggest reading Hayek and Rothbard.
You are wrong, the concept of property is stupid. there are people who live without it now, people who would hand the shirt off they're back if another person needed it... and tell me, whose happier, them or you?
"people who would hand their shirt off they're back if another person needed it... and tell me, whose happier, them of you?"
Me, because I would be cold without a shirt on... LOL!
But seriously, I've earned what I wear and if I WANT to give my shirt to some one else that is my decision. Having property doesn't make me cold hearted. And property is NOT a stupid idea. I own my computer and it would be stupid for some one to think they can just take it from me.
What about the people who are unable to 'earn' a shirt? And who said they would rip it off your back? Obviously, that would be a massive breech in proper communist conduct. I share my computer with people, though I paid for it. I give away my processing when my computer is on for research.
If they aren't able to take what is yours than it is your property, lol.
"What about the people who are unable to 'earn' a shirt?"
Depends on their situation. Are they healthy adults in the US? If so they CAN earn their shirt. Other people are possible exceptions. Property still exists though.
"I give away my processing when my computer is on for research. "
How do you do that? I honestly would be happy to do that. It doesn't hurt anything?
I didn't say they had the inability to rip it off your back; they sure is hell could... but they wouldn't because you, like them would be cold. It would be in the name of self-gain to take the shirt from you. One person is already using it, so why fight over it?
"One person is already using it, so why fight over it?"
Because in our world many people (and I would say all people, but that's a different argument) are selfish. Without protected property rights any brute could do as he pleases. And who determines what is NEEDED? If I go off and pick some grapes and Im walking down the road eating them for lunch can some slouches come up and take 3/4s of them because they are hungry but didn't feel like picking some grapes?
To be honest, you're really missing how this works... it's a circle, one thing effects another. First, nobody would be selfish, because everyone would be equal. And in this day and age, not all people are selfish. 'any brute' would have no reason to do as he pleases because wrongdoing and crime would benefit no one. Now, as far as the grapes, again same thing applies, if there were grapes to be picked, then they would go get some.
"First, nobody would be selfish, because everyone would be equal."
Right there, you are dead in the water before you even get started. It is impossible for humans to not be selfish or equal. Everyone has different attributes first off, and then it would be impossible to make all material wealth equal because you'd have to keep everyone fo exchanging anything. The first time some one offers to give some one a hair cut for the pie she's baked you have your equality ruined.
"And in this day and age, not all people are selfish"
President Lincoln agrees with me. He once helped some piglets at the side of the road who were stuck in the mud and squealing for help. When it was suggested that his action was unselfish he said on the contrary that his actions were selfish because he couldn't stand the idea of those piglets suffering like that. Selfishness regularly motivates positive actions and everyone IS selfish.
"'any brute' would have no reason to do as he pleases"
Except that IS what he pleases. If you have no state to enforce law and property rights than he is no criminal anyways. If you set down a flashlight you were using some one can just walk up and take it and you can't do anything about it because it wasn't your property. Besides, just look at the "tragedy of the commons", it's a well known economic problem that plauges all public proerty. Your scenario would be disastrous!
"Now, as far as the grapes, again same thing applies, if there were grapes to be picked, then they would go get some."
Why would they do that instead of taking yours? They could just accuse you of taking the choicest ones, never mind that you woke up early and got there before anyone else, all they care about are end results. You completely ignore that some people work harder/smarter than others, there SHOULD be material benefits for that!
And, there are people here who cannot earn a shirt. As you pointed out, people with pre-existing medical disorders, or people who aren't here legally. And America isn't the whole world, we are but a fraction of it... what about the other countries (and mind you, 80% are capitalist) you know, like the poor ones, i.e. Indonesia, India, Nigeria, Mexico... and yes, property does exist... and that's the problem.
"what about the other countries [...] you know, like the poor ones"
Without exception any country that adopts free market capitalism and the rule of law will show dramatic improvement withing 3 decades at the very most. India, Bangladesh, China and Chile are all great examples of this happening recently. Some countries like Russia go through a difficult transition but even they are now rebounding swiftly and are expected to become a big player again soon.
Actually, that isn't capitalism, rather the democratic struggle of the people against capitalism. America was at one time a third-world country; but through the efforts of the proletariat, the minimum wage was set, hours were shortened etc. The bourgeoisie - the capitalist elite fights against democracy.
And yes, you can lend your processing to certain companies without damaging anything. The company simply runs off of a collective of processing; it uses a minimal amount from each computer, and has a low priority... therefore when you need the processing back to do tedious work; i.e. downloading, then the company's priority is outweighed by your own.
The theater was a source of entertainment and a source of education, and it was for the rich.
The problem concerning the bread: There wasn't any for the peasants; I haven't time to explain it to you but if you are genuinely interested, I'd suggest researching it.
As for as not needing a monetary system, your completely wrong. the monetary system is a regressive idea. It is nothing about doing with or without, it is ethically wrong. Your metaphor was completely inaccurate.
Well, even if you are correct, Britain didn't have a revolution resulting in a commune.
I could go on for days explaining why a monetary system is ethically wrong. It is simpler to just look at the large picture: look at the crime, and corruption, and killing, and war, and governments, and countries that wold kill their own citizens, or blow up their own buildings and blame it on alleged 'terrorists.' All those things are a result of the monetary system. All.
"look at the crime, and corruption, and killing, [...] All those things are a result of the monetary system."
So if I can draw up a reasonable scenario for some one doing one of these things in a society where money doesn't exist it would prove you wrong, right?
Here's my example: A man finds his wife sleeping with another and he kills them. No money involved. People will also do all those things out of greed or ambition, neither of which require money. Watch Mad Max, lol.
"As for a solution, I previously stated that we abolisch the monetary system and capitalism."
Currently the use of money and free trade is our only way to correctly allocate society's resources to satisfy the wants of the people. Governments have attempted to replace the market in this function several times in the past and have ALWAYS failed. What better solution to solving this problem could you have? Your "solution" brings up more problems than it hopes to resolve!
drunk or sober i think a mixed economy is best and the more market orriented the better i would say that the best example of combining market forces and socisl democracy(socialism?) would be denmark,
Once our possibilities of a new system are almost infinite, I guess the only reazon we don't start attempting new possibilities is our fear for failure.
We like the known, we are used to the imperfect, adn take it out of fear of losing it.
We live a life we don't actually want, take a system we don't actually want out of fear of a worse one.
We don't try out of fear and have fear for we won't try...
Not all attempts are succesfull, but all succesfull ones were attemped.
About being beyond the ideology, I guess, once I changed from a fascist I was 5 years ago, by myself, into the marxist I am now, I have been for at least a small time free from ideologies...
Nowadays, quitte hard to answer, but I keep studing. Thats why I read a right wing and a left wing magazin, thats why I arguee in youtube about politics.
Please, enlight me: what is a "shmuck" ?
And I am affraid you didn't answer my question about returning to trotskysm...
Schmuck is most often used in American English as a pejorative or insult, meaning an obnoxious or contemptible person; one who is stupid, foolish, or detestable.
Schmuck entered English as a borrowed pejorative from the common Yiddish insult, where it is an obscene term for penis. In his cultural lexicon, The Joys of Yiddish, Leo Rosten lists the Yiddish schmuck as related to the Slovene word, šmok, meaning "a fool, an innocent, a gullible dolt".
Then you must have hope of a possible utopia, you just has a "fear" that it is unachievable, am I right?
But do you think we must follow another model from the present/past? We may create a new one. Try out something never tried before.
The last crisis of capitalism vanished all my hopes on the system, the fact that the defenders of "free-market" don't apply free-market full, is a proff to me that they don't actually want it.
Now, what principle do we seek? If you were once trotskyst, I belive you like trotskyst's ideals, am I right?
I am not marxist beacuse of the studies Marx developed, what atracted me was his ideals, I guess the same is appliable to you...
Now, have you given up hopes of a utopia? I gave up hopes of living an utopia, but I hold belives that our fellow human beings will make it reaching it one day.
If hope is the last to die, and your hope died, I guess you'd be death.
You know, human history is too short, so that we may say we tried everithing. How can you be so sure about "the only system that works"?
I'd say capitalism is 500 years old and hasn't attempted everyting yet (Smith's free-market ideal hasn't been fully applied). Now, would you tell me that Marxism (less than 200 years old) has atempted everything?
You see or possibilities are too large for either of us to say: "the only" "will never" "will always", etc.
To have a Socialist system work the state should be social-democratic and regulate the market like in a capitalist economy.
If the State is not democratic the system from socialist becomes communist and it is at this point that it will fail, as already proved by history, to reach the objectives of general progress and prosperity.
Take a look at "Marx on communism" and you'll see that Mao and his tyrany isn't the marxist communism, the commune de Paris is the best exemple of marxism you'll find in history.
I dare you point an evil aspect of it. (when compared to capitalism);
After hundreds of years? Of course, but do you know what DIDn't feed my country's people until nowadays?
Re: 500 years of capitalism;
Do you know what generated the poverty, the hunger in Africa?
Re: colonialist Capitalism;
Do you know what keeps them?
Re: (neo)colonialist capitalism;
Rich countries are rich due the exploitation of other ones, witch get poor, to erradicate poverty and hunger on earth in capitalism you'd have to colonize other ten worlds;
India is poor due capitalist exploitation in the past it is less than the systems obligation to reverse such picture. We should not thank one who fix half the shit he's made, that is his obligation.
Capitalism generated poverty and only in a few countries is fixing part of it.
Socialism must be correctely applied should you want it to work. The ONLY time it was correctelly applied, was durring the commune de Paris. There people weren't getting poorer, they were breaking capitalism.
india was poor due to 50 years of socialist mismanagement now that it has liberlized its economy its economic growth is about 8% year and in 20 years it will no longer be poor and itwill not be socialism that ends poverty it will be a market economy
India was dammaged due the british colonization witch lasted fully for 90 years and partialy for 100 years. Capitalism screws a country for almost 200 years and 50 years of socialism is the guilty for the pooverty of the country?
Socialism (the Marxist scientific one) wans't applied fully there. It may have been a "socialist party",but the party's name means nothing!
Proff: Nazism means national socialism, but wasn't socialist.
Quitte true, quitte untrue: The socialism Marx proposes wan't applied in India. For Marx, the socialism must firsth of all be global:
"workers of the world unite"
Of the world, not of india, china, russia,etc.
Second, it must give control over the means of production to the working class, not hold it at the govenment.
The capitalist jungle can, by the poorly limited exploitation of the working class, develop a lot PARTS of the society, at some quitte high cost you see.
It impacts, but actually who really make this difference is the work. The worker have productive force, and sell it to capitalism. The workers don't need capitalism, capitalism needs workers tought. The poor have all they need to get rich but:
-means of production;
-working tools;
-productive knoledge;
And neither of those requires capitalism.
About you videos commarade, the "socialist" governments in India built up a economy base that would be required to your capitalist BooM.
Indian National Congress- It is the only party to get more than 100 million votes in the past three general elections (1999, 2004, 2009).
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) is a ruling coalition of political parties heading the government of India. The coalition is led by the Indian National Congress (INC
these are the FORMERLY socialist parties..like i am a former socielist they are the elected represntatives of the people and their values remain the same
as mine does..they merely if reluctanty accept the unaviodable conclusion that socialism is impractical and cannot sovle poverty..neither can capitalism
a mixed economy that draws on the markets ability to create economic growth
I just want to know, have you made up your mind forever, or there is still a way I can convince you back, that capitalism isn't good and make you become a trotskyst back?
About what you said, capitalism and market-economy isn't needed for neither of those, the government can provide free education, and the people can control the means of production.
This hasn't been attempted yet, you can't denny. Why to belive it is impossible? Hope dies last I guess.
You didn't answered my quesition. Is there a hope for you out of capitalism? Is it possible for you to return to the ideals you once defended?
I'd like to know, I am sure it is possible, but you must be willing to attempt...
If you are as I am a "seeker of the truth", I guess it may be worth trying, perhaps when young some thougth you some incorrect things, and when they failed (obviously, due they're incorrect) you got angry and tried to forsake it?
Capitalism is basicaly a good system if you work hard and exercise discipline it will reward you. all people are NOT eqaul some a re smart and work hard
others are lazy and dishonest
i dont want to see anyone willing to work
be poor but at the same time?
i dont think its a crime to be rich.
society should not punish epople for being successfull, that is irrational
Capitalism has many manifestations, an in some of them the socialy mobility you presented doesn't exists. Here in Brazil some farms have illegal slavery.
Poeple are differen, but their chacter is different because also because their opportunities are different: Sons of rich often don't need to work hard to have succes, but sons off poor may often work hard and get almost nothing in return.
We need to create a society with full and everlasting equalty of opportunities, unreachable in capitalism
A. reynolds Jesus is just alright with me, jesus is just alright, oh yeah Jesus is just alright with me, jesus is just alright I dont care what they may say I dont care what they may do I dont care what they may say Jesus is just alright, oh yeah Jesus is just alright Jesus is just alright with me, jesus is just alright, oh yeah Jesus is just alright with me, jesus is just alright/marxists obviously don't drink enuf greetings earthlings i mean u no harm
Jesus... I don't know what he's got to do with what we were talking... I guess I don't drink enought : - )
i asked you before, and you didn't anwered me, are you willing to, in a new search for the truth, consider it coming back to socialism/ trotskysm/ marxism?
About what I said before, rich countries are NORMALLY rich, due the exploitation of other countries. I forgot this word and it changes a lot the meaning of the statement.
But in capitalism, one can ONLY get really rich due the exploitation of other's labour. That is on e of the things Marx proved in his books, witch are until nowadays the base of the economy understanding.
Deregulate economy is good on the short term and bad on the long one.
The best way to proff what I said is: The rich countries don't apply the "free-market" ideals in their countries. They want the rest of the world to do it, but they will only do it if they can for sure keep control over the situation.
Take a look at the event Embraeer vs Bombardier:
Embraer (BR) was controlling the aircraft industrie in Canada, then Canada used barriers agaist embraer to portect their company.
They want us to let them rule us, not "free-market".
About your capitalism I can point you a reason to dewslike it: In capitalism, durring the prosperty few get millionaire and all get a little richer, during crisis those few lose a few millions (but it makes no difference in their life standart) and almost all get poorer.
The gains are mostly private, while the losses are socialized.
Capitalism is very good hiding its own failures and very good promoting its good aspects. Beware : medias work for capitalism don't trust them blindely.
The commune lasted 33 days officially, following my last research, but the revolt that created it started 8 days before. 41 days form victory to death, that is how long it lasted.
Indeed the commune was cool, but not easy to be appied, but are you willing to try? That is the question.
I'd like to know what is your conspetions on socialism, marxism, etc. Knowing them it will be easier to talk to you.
Have you ever imagined: A world with no countries, no borders, no armys, no nuclear weapons, no wars, no classes, no differnces, with equalty, justice, freedom, etc?
I am sure you have. Now I tell you: anything is possible. Listen to "imagine" by Lenon.
It is no wonder why they didn't teach us about what real communism is like the Commune De Paris in school or what real socialism is, there would be enough young communists and socialists to overthrow the capitalist system. All we were taught about communism is how Stalin killed millions, China under Mao was full of starving people, and we learned that hitler was a socialist. They were fascist dictators!!! We must do our part and spread the word about real communism and socialism! WOWU! ☭
Marx was wrong it (the comune de Paris) was not the first version of a Marxist state. In my country (Ireland) in 1831 for a few months in local towns communes where set up and people lived with equal wealth
My good god (if you really exists I mean), what a Amazing video!!! 5/5 and favorite!!!
A voice that whit irony shows the world some truths it doesn't want to see, that is Karl Marx II ( ;- )), we must make it be seen by as many as we can!!!!
The Commune shows what the people can do when there is a strong civil society and when the people do not look to messiahs to solve all their problems but instead work together.
Why the fuck does Marx sound Dutch/Swedish?
joe1joe1 7 months ago
Wherein lies my ignorance?
The video claims that the "true communism" existed in Paris for a few months. It existed through voluntary cooperation by the people, through democratic decision making. Could it have persisted? Would it not, step by step, had turned into a free market, with private propery rights? --> Capitalism, based on voluntary cooperation? Would people forever just have shared their items? Or, would a strong state have been necessary at that time, to keep the property shared?
jjenkov 8 months ago
@jjenkov
1.) Capitalism is not based on voluntary cooperation. Because the means of production are monopolized by a select few through private property, workers are forced under economic duress to participate in the capitalist system. Voluntary cooperation can only occur under socialism (worker control of the means of production).
shupariusshah 7 months ago
@jjenkov
2.) On the contrary, a strong state is required to uphold private property, which is a state sponsored monopoly on the means of production. To maintain private property, force must be maintained against those who attempt to occupy and use the means of production, hence the role of the state.
shupariusshah 7 months ago
@jjenkov
3.) Ownership of a commodity that is not a means of production is not exploitative and would be considered possession. People do not share everything under communism. They merely offer up the product of their labor and in return procure their needs and wants from others in association.
shupariusshah 7 months ago
Sounds to good to be true, are there any example of more recent societies like this?
SwePw 10 months ago
@SwePw 1936 in spain during the civil war would be one. Or 1917 in ukraine. Although they were more anarchist influenced.
kurzschlusskuh 9 months ago
There a DIFFERENCE btw COMMUNISN and STATE CAPITALISM = Korea cuba china vietnam etc
SoviMusic 10 months ago 4
I have a suggestion for all of those who believe that communism is the way. Get a large group of friends of different income levels and ethnic backgrounds and move into a house together. Something big so you have plenty of room. Then each month put all of your money into a "pool" and have a few of the best and brightest decide how its spent for the good of the house. I am curious what will happen. IT IS KEY THAT YOU HAVE DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS! Let me know how it goes.
magnusscott 1 year ago
@magnusscott I have done that several times myself when staying in a house in constantinople for my studies (I still live there). To be honest it works fine. Of course there is always a fuckwit bitching about sharing. But we just kick that kind of self-important bourgeois son of a bitch and call a friend who is more open to communal life. We do not have enough money to pay our rent and thats why we are living 5 person in a flat.
TheBlindPowerslave 1 year ago
@magnusscott But let's get back at your request your suggestion or what the fuck ever it is. First, why the fuck people with different income levels would share a flat? Because if you have different levels of income it means you are living in a capitalist society and commune in a capitalist society is just fucking wrong. It just doesn't work because obviously the guy who brings more money will demand more. Secondly, why the brightest decide? Is this a fucking monarchy? Just doesn't make sense...
TheBlindPowerslave 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We all hate communism. If you think it was 'cool' you must be truly an idiot. communism killed more than 100 mln people.
BGFGR 1 year ago
This is such an inspirational play.
EinsteinPlanck 1 year ago
Karl Marx is always portrayed as an old man raving on about the same thing...this is a capitalist view.
dethbed77 1 year ago
They = The Draconian order!
cris750 1 year ago
@cris750=the moronic order of people that need sex
iownage4youi 9 months ago
uhauhuhahuauhauhuahuahuauahhuahuahuhuauhahuh
comunism did teach to the world poverty, unhappiness, corruption, spiritual emptyness and all type of bad things.
I just don't understand why so many people still believes in this great lie!!
ChayaVideo 1 year ago
@ChayaVideo
Yes, let's pretend capitalism doesn't have those things to a much worse degree. If you live in Brazil, you must be blind or dense to only criticize communism as "corrupt" and as conducive to poverty.
IPlayWithFire135 1 year ago
@ChayaVideo go to your room 12 year old
sudifo 1 year ago
is there a full video of this?
theaok 1 year ago
Sur le theme de la Commune, je vous invite à aller voir la pièce L'AFFAIRE D'UN PRINTEMPS qui sera jouée courant 2010.
le site internet est facile à trouver
SiwaComeOn 1 year ago
Is he saying anything that is empowering in life love and God? No all I hear is bla bla bla! from a drunken moron that has no clue.
osxmess 1 year ago
Great video! Faved!
TheWorkersUnite 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
comunism is ignorance and genocide
ChayaVideo 2 years ago
Capitalism is slavery and ignorance.
SuperSuperfan 2 years ago 34
This comment has received too many negative votes show
comunism is slavery of you own ignorance, and genocide
ChayaVideo 2 years ago
your posts represent ignorance and are equivalent to genocide
Deerwalk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
my posts represents inteligence, but the history os comunism and it's facts represents genocide and ignorance.
ChayaVideo 2 years ago
wrong, refer to my post for further details
Deerwalk 2 years ago
sorry, i don't speak inglish, but in portuguese (i'm brasillian), i have destroyed some communists with arguments.
ChayaVideo 2 years ago
i forgive you, may communism turn you into a superhero
Deerwalk 2 years ago
@ChayaVideo
may communism teach you english
theaok 1 year ago 2
lol, how retarded must you be loser........
BGFGR 1 year ago
@BGFGR Why?
SuperSuperfan 1 year ago
@BGFGR why?
SuperSuperfan 1 year ago
You're a fucking moron. All those who claim that communism is ok and capitalism is bad must be really stupid. You wrote your silly comment on a computer which was build thanks to capitalism. You are not hungry because on your street you have shops with food where you can buy almost anything. Mp3 player that you use from time to time was also built by people what wanted to earn money. Your boots, hat, coat, books, pencils, watch, radio, tv that you have were made by capitalists.
BGFGR 1 year ago
@BGFGR I don't claim that communism is ok, I claim that its bad if not worse than Capitalism. And yes Capitalism has given me a lot of material crap largely at the expense and subjection of those in other countries, the west fucks Africa for its natural resources which they then send to east Asia or Lain America to fuck them for cheap labor all so I and the west can have their luxuries.
SuperSuperfan 1 year ago
@BGFGR "You wrote your silly comment on a computer which was build thanks to capitalism."
No. It was built thanks to workers.
"You are not hungry because on your street you have shops with food where you can buy almost anything."
What does the fact that products are in stores have to do with your access to them?
"Your boots, hat, coat, books, pencils, watch, radio, tv that you have were made by capitalists."
No. They were made by workers.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou If you hate capitalism so much why don't you go to North Corea? Sure that it isn't communistic, but for sure it has less capitalism!
I wonder why years ago in Russia people didn't hear about computers while in USA people had it all. People in USA had large shops where they could buy almost everything while in Russia people had to stay in a long queues in order to get things which average USA citizen would not even want to look at. Why workers in Russia didn't make all those things?
BGFGR 1 year ago
@BGFGR " If you hate capitalism so much why don't you go to North Corea?"
If you love capitalism so much, why don't you go to China and see first hand the conditions under which the Chinese work to make that cheap pair of pants you buy at Walmart.
Or go live in Egypt under the US-backed dictator Hosni Mubarak.
"People in USA had large shops where they could buy almost everything"
If you have the money. Most things made today are crap and made to wear out so you'll buy another one.
bapyou 1 year ago 3
@bapyou Those who live in China who made products for USA have better living condition than those who live in non-capitalistic North Corea.
"Most things made today are crap" tell it to North Corean people that don't have a shit and would not believe that there are a people that have that kind of products which they will not even dream about. You wrote this comment on a pc, you may be suprised, but most of people in North corea don't have it. Go there and check for yourself!
BGFGR 1 year ago
@BGFGR People in North Korea live better than people in capitalist Ethiopia. Go there yourself.
Theoriginalpoorguy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Theoriginalpoorguy "People in North Korea live better than people in capitalist Ethiopia. " It's a proof that all communists are retards.
BGFGR 1 year ago
Commune in Paris sounds much like Anarchist Spain in 1936. I do believe in the future we might have a high Tech Star Trek libertarian socialist type world.
Spillers72 1 year ago
@Spillers72 so do I, but I don't our children's children will live to see that... well .. maybe the children's children in their old age if lifespan greatly increases...
bbphnix 1 year ago
@SuperSuperfan let us not loose sight of objectvity... as I said in a comment on a previous video, capitalism and democracy are the best systems of economy and society that ahve ever exsited... it is mostly because all the others that exist/existedwere utter crap....there's a hell of a lot to improve.... but let us not demonize them;
bbphnix 1 year ago
@bbphnix Sure I'll admit democracy has been the best system we have constructed so far, but I still think its the wrong way to structure society. But for Capitalism... you can't really say we've had really existing Capitalism with free markets, government intervention and government protection of business interests has taken away any real notion of Capitalism and helped form the big corporate powerhouses of today and fostered economic exploitation.
SuperSuperfan 1 year ago
@SuperSuperfan Is commmunism not equally slavery and ignoance?
jjenkov 8 months ago
@jjenkov you are just ignorant as fuck to post such a comment on videos wich represent how Marx would think about the capitalist society and so on. Do you actually watch them or just mute them so you can put out your ignorance, stupidity and frustration in a comment wich is 100 times explained?
iownage4youi 8 months ago
@jjenkov I'm not denying it is. Communism is a utopian dream that has never been achieved and can never be achieved, but the states that have called them self communist essentially had slavery and ignorance.
SuperSuperfan 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Marx was a piece of shit, he never did an honest days work in his life. The world would have been better off if he was never born.
xxdiogenescynicxx 2 years ago
he says the Leaders of the Commune were shot all together 30,000 nice lots of leader might aswell be all of them
pennyforyou 2 years ago 2
Your entire scenario is Utopian because it assumes that you can some how turn all men into angels. If that were possible we would have done so LONG ago.
Capitalism uses a lowest common denominator to motivate all people regardless of their morality; Money. It doesn't matter if you are an angel or a devil, money will motivate you because you can do anything with it, from helping the poor, to binge drinking. Your utopia is built only to house saints, it's not realistic.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
You can't change the people to fit your system, you have to change the system to fit the people.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
also your no martyr to the capitalists you make communists more communist
pennyforyou 2 years ago
Like Chris Crocker said
Leave the Communists alone
Just let people belive what they believe
if you don't like communist don't go on videos that are pro-communists just leave these videos the communists and communism alone good bye
pennyforyou 2 years ago
"Like Chris Crocker said"
Wow, Fail.
"Just let people belive what they want to believe"
If it was only a simple belief I would but your belief would systematically destroy human society if it was allowed to. If you want something to believe in use something that is harmless like Buddhism.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
I am Buddhist
if it destroyed or will destroy it it would of been stopped long ago by the very first Communist but why is it still around
and if it does why do people believe in it
and besides being intolerant of people you dont agree with is still intolerant not even justified at theat
pennyforyou 2 years ago
"if it destroyed or will destroy it it would of been stopped long ago by the very first Communist"
... Don't you remember the Collapse of the USSR? Even China gave up its Communist ways.
"why do people believe in it"
People are gullible, they even believe in Scientology and other cults.
"being intolerant of people you dont agree with"
Since when is civil debate intolerance? Asking people to question their beliefs isn't inolerance it is how people learn from each other.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
Ahh the USSR and China let me ask you Something were they ever communist or did they just claim to be it
and Yes but Capitalism was a Cult persay once and so was Christianity and Judaism
pennyforyou 2 years ago 3
"were they ever communist or did they just claim to be it"
They both tried to be, but since Communism isn't possible for a large nation, or any nation for a meaningful time they degraded into THE WORST SYSTEMS KNOWN TO MAN, lol.
"Yes but Capitalism was a cult persay once and so was Christianity and Judaism "
Lol, capitalism is, and has always been, an economic system. How could it be a cult? And yeah, Christianity and Judaism were/are cults.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
There is a Difference between Stalinism and Maoism but again is there a difference
Capitalism was a cult persay when it first came around
also worst system ever is a matter of opinion but which would you trust a college taught economist or a man with whos been broken and been told what ever is good for the capitalist system is good for you?
i would honestly i'd prefer monarchy at least you own the means of production
pennyforyou 2 years ago 5
"Capitalism was a cult persay when it first came around"
Definition of Cult:
"a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents"
So yeah, you are just simply wrong.
"would you trust a college taught economist or a man whos been broken"
The economist obviously, and they agree that capitalism is the way to go. Also, you can insert ANY system where you said capitalism there, it wouldn't change a thing.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
Marx was an Economist
also listen to the persay it means kinda in my book its not literally a cult just like trying something new and people are afraid of doing it
pennyforyou 2 years ago 10
"Marx was an Economist"
I never said Marxism was a cult though, I said it was for the gullible, lol. His theories were thrown out of economics circles a LONG time ago.
"also listen to the persay"
Persay isn't a word! You mean 'per se' and it doesn't work the way you are trying to use it! lol!
Aliothemage 2 years ago
Marx was way ahead of his time in economics
modern economist no matter how much they hate to admit is a viable economic system
per se persay why does it matter?
also im not making the accusation all i was saying is its not a cult as you described or what you described it as
pennyforyou 2 years ago 4
@pennyforyou monarchy is a goverment system not an economical system... but nayway. why do you prefer monarchy?
bbphnix 1 year ago
@bbphnix
Good Point
In comparison to Capitalism? To be honest i don't pefer it. its just despite the reputation of oppression you'd own the means to produce. Perhaps i'm wrong perhaps its you rented it rather than own it.
I don't know
pennyforyou 1 year ago
True communists may hate everything you say but not enough to kill you for it.
commissarusa 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
capitalism and fascism are two sides of the same barbarian coin...
workers of the world unite against the money grabbing politicians...
Long live great communist revolutions !!!
Death to fascist and capitalist corruptions !!!
workergirls 2 years ago 2
Long live the Venus Project!
RedOutcast 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL, the Commune de Paris WAS a form of government, and even then it only lasted 2 months.
And look at the glorious laws the enacted; Free admission to theaters! Shorter work hours for bakeries (who cares if the bakers wanted/needed to work more hours)! Forgiveness of debts (Why should you have to pay back money you borrow? lol)
Such a glorious example to us all, lol.
Communism is such a laughing stock.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
I'd like to argue against that; The Commune was far more than any government, it was the rise of the proletariat. The rise of individuals, individual thinkers. The Commune was constructed of individuals, and these individuals focused more on cooperation rather than competition. Now, the laws: Free admission to theaters was important because it was a form of cultural education. Do you think that half the proletariat ever saw one play prior to the creation of the commune?
Deulineum 2 years ago
"Do you think that half the proletariat ever saw one play prior to the creation of the commune?"
I don't know about Paris but in Britain everyone would go see plays all the time, it was a big source of entertainment for all the people.
"The bread crisis - need I say more about bakeries?"
Yes, or cite a good source about that as I've never read about it.
"We don't need a monetary system."
This is like saying we don't NEED cars, technically true but it would ruin society completely.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
"We don't need a monetary system."
When two people trade something, it might be hard to understand this, they are actually creating value because they are BOTH benefiting at the same time. Without a monetary system our world wide system of trade would immediately crash and a huge source of the world's wealth creation will have been thrown out the window. To suggest such a thing shows how little you understand modern economics.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
Actually; your completely wrong, and sorry I have to point this out, but you forget that there would be no property, and everyone would take what they need to sustain themselves. Not trade. Your 'modern economics' is dishearteningly regressive.
Deulineum 2 years ago
"you forget that there would be no property"
LOL yeah right. I'm sorry but the shirt on my back is my property no matter what anyone else says (unless I stole it). You are not living within reality if you truly think you can just throw the concept of property out the window. Besides, look up the "tragic of the commons" concept. Public property works TERRIBLY!
You need to work on your economic back ground, I suggest reading Hayek and Rothbard.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
You are wrong, the concept of property is stupid. there are people who live without it now, people who would hand the shirt off they're back if another person needed it... and tell me, whose happier, them or you?
Deulineum 2 years ago
"people who would hand their shirt off they're back if another person needed it... and tell me, whose happier, them of you?"
Me, because I would be cold without a shirt on... LOL!
But seriously, I've earned what I wear and if I WANT to give my shirt to some one else that is my decision. Having property doesn't make me cold hearted. And property is NOT a stupid idea. I own my computer and it would be stupid for some one to think they can just take it from me.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
What about the people who are unable to 'earn' a shirt? And who said they would rip it off your back? Obviously, that would be a massive breech in proper communist conduct. I share my computer with people, though I paid for it. I give away my processing when my computer is on for research.
Deulineum 2 years ago
"And who said they would rip it off your back?"
If they aren't able to take what is yours than it is your property, lol.
"What about the people who are unable to 'earn' a shirt?"
Depends on their situation. Are they healthy adults in the US? If so they CAN earn their shirt. Other people are possible exceptions. Property still exists though.
"I give away my processing when my computer is on for research. "
How do you do that? I honestly would be happy to do that. It doesn't hurt anything?
Aliothemage 2 years ago
I didn't say they had the inability to rip it off your back; they sure is hell could... but they wouldn't because you, like them would be cold. It would be in the name of self-gain to take the shirt from you. One person is already using it, so why fight over it?
Deulineum 2 years ago
"One person is already using it, so why fight over it?"
Because in our world many people (and I would say all people, but that's a different argument) are selfish. Without protected property rights any brute could do as he pleases. And who determines what is NEEDED? If I go off and pick some grapes and Im walking down the road eating them for lunch can some slouches come up and take 3/4s of them because they are hungry but didn't feel like picking some grapes?
Aliothemage 2 years ago
To be honest, you're really missing how this works... it's a circle, one thing effects another. First, nobody would be selfish, because everyone would be equal. And in this day and age, not all people are selfish. 'any brute' would have no reason to do as he pleases because wrongdoing and crime would benefit no one. Now, as far as the grapes, again same thing applies, if there were grapes to be picked, then they would go get some.
Deulineum 2 years ago
"First, nobody would be selfish, because everyone would be equal."
Right there, you are dead in the water before you even get started. It is impossible for humans to not be selfish or equal. Everyone has different attributes first off, and then it would be impossible to make all material wealth equal because you'd have to keep everyone fo exchanging anything. The first time some one offers to give some one a hair cut for the pie she's baked you have your equality ruined.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
"And in this day and age, not all people are selfish"
President Lincoln agrees with me. He once helped some piglets at the side of the road who were stuck in the mud and squealing for help. When it was suggested that his action was unselfish he said on the contrary that his actions were selfish because he couldn't stand the idea of those piglets suffering like that. Selfishness regularly motivates positive actions and everyone IS selfish.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
"'any brute' would have no reason to do as he pleases"
Except that IS what he pleases. If you have no state to enforce law and property rights than he is no criminal anyways. If you set down a flashlight you were using some one can just walk up and take it and you can't do anything about it because it wasn't your property. Besides, just look at the "tragedy of the commons", it's a well known economic problem that plauges all public proerty. Your scenario would be disastrous!
Aliothemage 2 years ago
"Now, as far as the grapes, again same thing applies, if there were grapes to be picked, then they would go get some."
Why would they do that instead of taking yours? They could just accuse you of taking the choicest ones, never mind that you woke up early and got there before anyone else, all they care about are end results. You completely ignore that some people work harder/smarter than others, there SHOULD be material benefits for that!
Aliothemage 2 years ago
And, there are people here who cannot earn a shirt. As you pointed out, people with pre-existing medical disorders, or people who aren't here legally. And America isn't the whole world, we are but a fraction of it... what about the other countries (and mind you, 80% are capitalist) you know, like the poor ones, i.e. Indonesia, India, Nigeria, Mexico... and yes, property does exist... and that's the problem.
Deulineum 2 years ago
"what about the other countries [...] you know, like the poor ones"
Without exception any country that adopts free market capitalism and the rule of law will show dramatic improvement withing 3 decades at the very most. India, Bangladesh, China and Chile are all great examples of this happening recently. Some countries like Russia go through a difficult transition but even they are now rebounding swiftly and are expected to become a big player again soon.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
Actually, that isn't capitalism, rather the democratic struggle of the people against capitalism. America was at one time a third-world country; but through the efforts of the proletariat, the minimum wage was set, hours were shortened etc. The bourgeoisie - the capitalist elite fights against democracy.
Deulineum 2 years ago
"America was at one time a third-world country; but through the efforts of the proletariat, the minimum wage was set, hours were shortened etc."
Minimum wage and shorter work hours aren't what make us a 1st world nation. All economists agree that minimum wage increases unemployment any ways.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
And yes, you can lend your processing to certain companies without damaging anything. The company simply runs off of a collective of processing; it uses a minimal amount from each computer, and has a low priority... therefore when you need the processing back to do tedious work; i.e. downloading, then the company's priority is outweighed by your own.
Deulineum 2 years ago
The theater was a source of entertainment and a source of education, and it was for the rich.
The problem concerning the bread: There wasn't any for the peasants; I haven't time to explain it to you but if you are genuinely interested, I'd suggest researching it.
As for as not needing a monetary system, your completely wrong. the monetary system is a regressive idea. It is nothing about doing with or without, it is ethically wrong. Your metaphor was completely inaccurate.
Deulineum 2 years ago
"The theater was a source of entertainment and a source of education, and it was for the rich."
Poor people went to the theater all the time in Britain! I've tried my best to find a citation of that but its a difficult fact to look up.
"the monetary system is a regressive idea. It is nothing about doing with or without, it is ethically wrong."
You can't just SAY that you have to explain why it is ethically wrong and then give alternatives.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
Well, even if you are correct, Britain didn't have a revolution resulting in a commune.
I could go on for days explaining why a monetary system is ethically wrong. It is simpler to just look at the large picture: look at the crime, and corruption, and killing, and war, and governments, and countries that wold kill their own citizens, or blow up their own buildings and blame it on alleged 'terrorists.' All those things are a result of the monetary system. All.
Deulineum 2 years ago
"look at the crime, and corruption, and killing, [...] All those things are a result of the monetary system."
So if I can draw up a reasonable scenario for some one doing one of these things in a society where money doesn't exist it would prove you wrong, right?
Here's my example: A man finds his wife sleeping with another and he kills them. No money involved. People will also do all those things out of greed or ambition, neither of which require money. Watch Mad Max, lol.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
As for a solution, I previously stated that we abolish the monetary system and capitalism.
Deulineum 2 years ago
It's getting late for me Deulineum, thanks for the good discussion. I'll get back to this tommarow!
Aliothemage 2 years ago
Goodnight
Deulineum 2 years ago
"As for a solution, I previously stated that we abolisch the monetary system and capitalism."
Currently the use of money and free trade is our only way to correctly allocate society's resources to satisfy the wants of the people. Governments have attempted to replace the market in this function several times in the past and have ALWAYS failed. What better solution to solving this problem could you have? Your "solution" brings up more problems than it hopes to resolve!
Aliothemage 2 years ago
The bread crisis - need I say more about bakeries? And everyone was started with clean slates. We don't need a monetary system.
Deulineum 2 years ago
Beautiful, that commune was the beginning.
Freethinker94 2 years ago 2
god is a concept by which we measure our pain
billyysands 2 years ago
I didn't get your idea about god...
Can you explain it a litte better? I mean "concept by witch we measure our pain" doesn't sais much to me...
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
tell me all your thoughts on god?
cause I would really like to meet her.
And ask her why were who we are.
Tell me all your thoughts on god,
Cause I am on my way to see her.
So tell me am I very far -
Am I very far now?
billyysands 2 years ago
are you irish?
i only ask because
after a botte lof jamesons
i think that might help you understand god...
billyysands 2 years ago
Humm... No I'm not irish, but I may try alchool to try to understand god...
That just doesn't fit mein ideas thougth. I put reason before drunk toughts.
God (if he exists), for me is too complex to be understood before we understand ourselves and the society we live in.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
i'd like to apologize to you
i become very strange when i drink
i really should leave the computer off
drunk or sober i think a mixed economy is best and the more market orriented the better i would say that the best example of combining market forces and socisl democracy(socialism?) would be denmark,
billyysands 2 years ago
Once our possibilities of a new system are almost infinite, I guess the only reazon we don't start attempting new possibilities is our fear for failure.
We like the known, we are used to the imperfect, adn take it out of fear of losing it.
We live a life we don't actually want, take a system we don't actually want out of fear of a worse one.
We don't try out of fear and have fear for we won't try...
Not all attempts are succesfull, but all succesfull ones were attemped.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i love you i love humanity
want to know a secret??
marx was a shmuck
billyysands 2 years ago
About being beyond the ideology, I guess, once I changed from a fascist I was 5 years ago, by myself, into the marxist I am now, I have been for at least a small time free from ideologies...
Nowadays, quitte hard to answer, but I keep studing. Thats why I read a right wing and a left wing magazin, thats why I arguee in youtube about politics.
Please, enlight me: what is a "shmuck" ?
And I am affraid you didn't answer my question about returning to trotskysm...
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Schmuck is most often used in American English as a pejorative or insult, meaning an obnoxious or contemptible person; one who is stupid, foolish, or detestable.
Schmuck entered English as a borrowed pejorative from the common Yiddish insult, where it is an obscene term for penis. In his cultural lexicon, The Joys of Yiddish, Leo Rosten lists the Yiddish schmuck as related to the Slovene word, šmok, meaning "a fool, an innocent, a gullible dolt".
billyysands 2 years ago
Then I'd have to say that your secret isn't true. The bourgoisie certainlly would call him such, but only one of their puppets would agree with them.
Marx is until nowadays, a base of economy, sociology and history at universities. Certainly, he wans't stupid.
Marx was one of the mostly intelligent persons of his time, had some "dangerous" ideas and was casted out of his own country.
Take a look at "does capitalism work?" by buddhagem. Very nice video.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Then you must have hope of a possible utopia, you just has a "fear" that it is unachievable, am I right?
But do you think we must follow another model from the present/past? We may create a new one. Try out something never tried before.
The last crisis of capitalism vanished all my hopes on the system, the fact that the defenders of "free-market" don't apply free-market full, is a proff to me that they don't actually want it.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Now, what principle do we seek? If you were once trotskyst, I belive you like trotskyst's ideals, am I right?
I am not marxist beacuse of the studies Marx developed, what atracted me was his ideals, I guess the same is appliable to you...
Now, have you given up hopes of a utopia? I gave up hopes of living an utopia, but I hold belives that our fellow human beings will make it reaching it one day.
If hope is the last to die, and your hope died, I guess you'd be death.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
You know, human history is too short, so that we may say we tried everithing. How can you be so sure about "the only system that works"?
I'd say capitalism is 500 years old and hasn't attempted everyting yet (Smith's free-market ideal hasn't been fully applied). Now, would you tell me that Marxism (less than 200 years old) has atempted everything?
You see or possibilities are too large for either of us to say: "the only" "will never" "will always", etc.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
People can't live in communes anymore. We aren't cavemen anymore.
Sponxic 2 years ago
Paris for sure wasn't a cave in 1871, commune is far more modern than any other system the world has seen so far.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
xbillyysands: The irony is that you still don't understand the difference between communism and socialism.
Communism means that means of production are state property and the state will decide what to produce, how much to produce and sell at what price.
Socialism means the workers own the means of productions and benefit from the results. The difference is in the role the State plays.
communismnothanks 2 years ago
To have a Socialist system work the state should be social-democratic and regulate the market like in a capitalist economy.
If the State is not democratic the system from socialist becomes communist and it is at this point that it will fail, as already proved by history, to reach the objectives of general progress and prosperity.
communismnothanks 2 years ago
In an efficient Socialist system Democracy rules!!!
communismnothanks 2 years ago 2
Democracy like in the USA, where once in while yoou "choose" between two identical options?
Or do you mean an other kind of democracy?
Semidicht 2 years ago
they are hardly identical
the democratic party is pretty socialist look at it go now
billyysands 2 years ago
yeah
billyysands 2 years ago
the irony is that under mao and the cultural revolution(real comunism) one million starved
and when china decollectived the land in 1979-80 algricutural production doubled
capitalism has a provven track record of
eliminating poverty (asian tigers)
and socialism has a proven track record of famine (stlins forced colectivization of the ukraine)
billyysands 2 years ago
Take a look at "Marx on communism" and you'll see that Mao and his tyrany isn't the marxist communism, the commune de Paris is the best exemple of marxism you'll find in history.
I dare you point an evil aspect of it. (when compared to capitalism);
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
there is no REAL communism
its nothing but pie in the sky
billyysands 2 years ago
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I am not the only one"
Communism is a dream so far, but isn't impossible. We'll achieve it ! Even f it takes 1000 years for such!
Now, if you said there is no real communism, why had you said:
"... Mao and the cultural revolution(real communism) ..."
You just disagreed whit yourself, dennied your first affirmation... : - )
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
google the french radical socialist parrty
parti radical Parti radical valoisien
that patterns my political atitude
the irony of marx is he is taking about starving peasents, what fed french peasents? economic growth under capitalism
billyysands 2 years ago
After hundreds of years? Of course, but do you know what DIDn't feed my country's people until nowadays?
Re: 500 years of capitalism;
Do you know what generated the poverty, the hunger in Africa?
Re: colonialist Capitalism;
Do you know what keeps them?
Re: (neo)colonialist capitalism;
Rich countries are rich due the exploitation of other ones, witch get poor, to erradicate poverty and hunger on earth in capitalism you'd have to colonize other ten worlds;
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
that isnt true look at india the unprecedented economic growth experienced since deregualtiing its economy has lifted ten of millions out of poverty
i used to be a socialist
it doesnt alieviante poverty it aggravates it
socialsim makes everyone equally poor
and sometimes it doesnt even do that
a few elites live priveledged lives
look i will send you a video
the congress party in india is the center left party
and ruling party for years
it was resposible for dereulation/privatization
billyysands 2 years ago
India is poor due capitalist exploitation in the past it is less than the systems obligation to reverse such picture. We should not thank one who fix half the shit he's made, that is his obligation.
Capitalism generated poverty and only in a few countries is fixing part of it.
Socialism must be correctely applied should you want it to work. The ONLY time it was correctelly applied, was durring the commune de Paris. There people weren't getting poorer, they were breaking capitalism.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
india was poor due to 50 years of socialist mismanagement now that it has liberlized its economy its economic growth is about 8% year and in 20 years it will no longer be poor and itwill not be socialism that ends poverty it will be a market economy
billyysands 2 years ago
India was dammaged due the british colonization witch lasted fully for 90 years and partialy for 100 years. Capitalism screws a country for almost 200 years and 50 years of socialism is the guilty for the pooverty of the country?
Socialism (the Marxist scientific one) wans't applied fully there. It may have been a "socialist party",but the party's name means nothing!
Proff: Nazism means national socialism, but wasn't socialist.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
true but what was india before contact with the west? backwards. look India tried socialism for 50 years.. it retarded Indias
developement even marx said primitive societies had to go through a capitalist period to develop right?
billyysands 2 years ago
Quitte true, quitte untrue: The socialism Marx proposes wan't applied in India. For Marx, the socialism must firsth of all be global:
"workers of the world unite"
Of the world, not of india, china, russia,etc.
Second, it must give control over the means of production to the working class, not hold it at the govenment.
The capitalist jungle can, by the poorly limited exploitation of the working class, develop a lot PARTS of the society, at some quitte high cost you see.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
india has a growth rate of 8 - 9 % a year
you dont think that impacts the poor?
billyysands 2 years ago
It impacts, but actually who really make this difference is the work. The worker have productive force, and sell it to capitalism. The workers don't need capitalism, capitalism needs workers tought. The poor have all they need to get rich but:
-means of production;
-working tools;
-productive knoledge;
And neither of those requires capitalism.
About you videos commarade, the "socialist" governments in India built up a economy base that would be required to your capitalist BooM.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
in 1991 that socialist base
COLLAPSED
billyysands 2 years ago
But wasn't destroyed. Capitalism converted that base into a base for its own exploitation and profit.
And what you said doesn't dennies that capitalism isn't needed to erradicate poverty.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
the center left party in power now the INC
Indian National Congress- It is the only party to get more than 100 million votes in the past three general elections (1999, 2004, 2009).
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) is a ruling coalition of political parties heading the government of India. The coalition is led by the Indian National Congress (INC
billyysands 2 years ago
these are the FORMERLY socialist parties..like i am a former socielist they are the elected represntatives of the people and their values remain the same
as mine does..they merely if reluctanty accept the unaviodable conclusion that socialism is impractical and cannot sovle poverty..neither can capitalism
a mixed economy that draws on the markets ability to create economic growth
yet attampt to divide social sevices
to help the poor gain skills
to participate in the economy
to get jobs
billyysands 2 years ago
I just want to know, have you made up your mind forever, or there is still a way I can convince you back, that capitalism isn't good and make you become a trotskyst back?
About what you said, capitalism and market-economy isn't needed for neither of those, the government can provide free education, and the people can control the means of production.
This hasn't been attempted yet, you can't denny. Why to belive it is impossible? Hope dies last I guess.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
forever is a long time
i think the best system combines the best qualities of capitalism and socialism together
to give an example
would be the Danish social model
billyysands 2 years ago
You didn't answered my quesition. Is there a hope for you out of capitalism? Is it possible for you to return to the ideals you once defended?
I'd like to know, I am sure it is possible, but you must be willing to attempt...
If you are as I am a "seeker of the truth", I guess it may be worth trying, perhaps when young some thougth you some incorrect things, and when they failed (obviously, due they're incorrect) you got angry and tried to forsake it?
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Capitalism is basicaly a good system if you work hard and exercise discipline it will reward you. all people are NOT eqaul some a re smart and work hard
others are lazy and dishonest
i dont want to see anyone willing to work
be poor but at the same time?
i dont think its a crime to be rich.
society should not punish epople for being successfull, that is irrational
billyysands 2 years ago
Capitalism has many manifestations, an in some of them the socialy mobility you presented doesn't exists. Here in Brazil some farms have illegal slavery.
Poeple are differen, but their chacter is different because also because their opportunities are different: Sons of rich often don't need to work hard to have succes, but sons off poor may often work hard and get almost nothing in return.
We need to create a society with full and everlasting equalty of opportunities, unreachable in capitalism
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
laziness isn't part of human nature it is a part of our society's nature: Who do we reward hard labour? Giving him the possibility of not working.
Many are willing to work in capitalism, and are poor due, despite his abilities he can get no job, that is called unnemployment.
It is ONLY a crime to be rich, if you are rich because of injust methods. Exploitation of one else's labour is an injustice for me.
We should not punish the rich, we should take back what doesn't belong to him.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
billyysands 2 years ago
Jesus... I don't know what he's got to do with what we were talking... I guess I don't drink enought : - )
i asked you before, and you didn't anwered me, are you willing to, in a new search for the truth, consider it coming back to socialism/ trotskysm/ marxism?
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
you need to ask this radical when he is sober
god is a concept
by which we measure our pain
i'll say it again
have you ever drunk a whole bottle ofirish whiskey?if you do you will be beyond ideology..
billyysands 2 years ago
About what I said before, rich countries are NORMALLY rich, due the exploitation of other countries. I forgot this word and it changes a lot the meaning of the statement.
But in capitalism, one can ONLY get really rich due the exploitation of other's labour. That is on e of the things Marx proved in his books, witch are until nowadays the base of the economy understanding.
Deregulate economy is good on the short term and bad on the long one.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
The best way to proff what I said is: The rich countries don't apply the "free-market" ideals in their countries. They want the rest of the world to do it, but they will only do it if they can for sure keep control over the situation.
Take a look at the event Embraeer vs Bombardier:
Embraer (BR) was controlling the aircraft industrie in Canada, then Canada used barriers agaist embraer to portect their company.
They want us to let them rule us, not "free-market".
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
About your capitalism I can point you a reason to dewslike it: In capitalism, durring the prosperty few get millionaire and all get a little richer, during crisis those few lose a few millions (but it makes no difference in their life standart) and almost all get poorer.
The gains are mostly private, while the losses are socialized.
Capitalism is very good hiding its own failures and very good promoting its good aspects. Beware : medias work for capitalism don't trust them blindely.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
its the only system that works
billyysands 2 years ago
For sure the commune porved you wrong at "THE ONLY" and this system's crisis proved you worng at "WORKS".
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
how long did that commune last? or catalonia in 1937 it does not work
billyysands 2 years ago
The commune lasted 33 days officially, following my last research, but the revolt that created it started 8 days before. 41 days form victory to death, that is how long it lasted.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
you know the commune was cool and so was catalonia but it isnt a practical societal model
billyysands 2 years ago
Indeed the commune was cool, but not easy to be appied, but are you willing to try? That is the question.
I'd like to know what is your conspetions on socialism, marxism, etc. Knowing them it will be easier to talk to you.
Have you ever imagined: A world with no countries, no borders, no armys, no nuclear weapons, no wars, no classes, no differnces, with equalty, justice, freedom, etc?
I am sure you have. Now I tell you: anything is possible. Listen to "imagine" by Lenon.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
It is no wonder why they didn't teach us about what real communism is like the Commune De Paris in school or what real socialism is, there would be enough young communists and socialists to overthrow the capitalist system. All we were taught about communism is how Stalin killed millions, China under Mao was full of starving people, and we learned that hitler was a socialist. They were fascist dictators!!! We must do our part and spread the word about real communism and socialism! WOWU! ☭
SocialistPartyUSA09 2 years ago 23
Marx was wrong it (the comune de Paris) was not the first version of a Marxist state. In my country (Ireland) in 1831 for a few months in local towns communes where set up and people lived with equal wealth
Peadarisback 2 years ago 3
A commune is true communism.
BobTheSocialist 2 years ago 13
My good god (if you really exists I mean), what a Amazing video!!! 5/5 and favorite!!!
A voice that whit irony shows the world some truths it doesn't want to see, that is Karl Marx II ( ;- )), we must make it be seen by as many as we can!!!!
MarxistStudant 2 years ago 2
I am a true socialist myself, so I really like Karl Marx.
BlueSapphireRanger 3 years ago
the power of the commune.
SovietSpymaster17 3 years ago
The Commune shows what the people can do when there is a strong civil society and when the people do not look to messiahs to solve all their problems but instead work together.
blackiron60 3 years ago
Karl Marx was a true socialist believer. it's a shame he wasnt around to direct the Russian Revolution of 1917
SovietSpymaster17 3 years ago 5
its a shame he wasnt around after lenins death to avoid Stalin taking over:/
Erech01 3 years ago 2