So you use an example. 10,000 dollars in labor for a capitalist to make 100,000 dollar salary. For one if it is a business it is not a salary the owner has but profit. The laborers are not forced to take that job and work at that wage. Then add in equipment/tools cost, electricity, manufacturing overhead and all the other costs attached to selling that product. The value from that product is not given by the laborers but by the allocation of the capital. (cont)
If after all that he can sell it per unit above the total manufacturing cost he can make profit. But if the idea is bad he will lose money but the laborers will still get paid. The point is their is an objective factor in if a capitalist profits or has losses. Losses being attached to an owner are very important because it fixes the allocation of the resources to a more economically efficient area. (cont.)
@matt4787 If the government doesn't tell you where to work as you say. If the government doesn't tell what resources need to be made and the prices of said products (which is impossible). Then how do I work? How does society ensure I am a productive citizen instead of a burden. What if everyone wants an easy job and no one wants to put in the work to be an engineer or a doctor? How would your communism handle that? Also a simple question. Define a need.
So a person invests 10,000 in labor and additional money in equipment/tools and also the means to sell this item they are creating. They are creating value. The laborers are doing a job and a lot of times they are also trained for that job. They are a piece of the role but they are not the major piece. The major piece in the capital itself that is allocated to the project. It the project/business is efficient then the owner profits. If not they have a loss and the laborers are still paid.
Communism does not have an established government, what you are referring to is socialism. Where in the original concept of communism is the absolute goal of socialism. By peaceful removal of government can a true communist utopia flourish. Moreover, a Socialist democracy would have to be formed in the united states before communism to set the ground work. Also toting around the hammer and sickle will only continue to perpetuate misconceptions you are trying to extinguish.
I'm thankful that people are smart enough to realize that communism is not equivalent to dictatorship. Democracy and communism are not mutually exclusive. Mismanagement of resources and the disastrous dictatorships killed those people (Mao, Stalin etc), not communism. Too many people read NO history and get their information from TV.
The fact that you call anyone who doesn't agree with you ignorant, stupid or any other derogatory term or even their thinking referred to as these derogatory terms is EXACTLY why communism won't work. Not to mention the fact that you think communism is a form of economy. It isn't.
hey guys could some one explain how a Communist economy would operate without free enterprise. Like is everday commoditys centalized and run by an administration or what?
I like how your username is sovietcomrade, but you do nothing but bash the USSR. 1st: the USSR WAS democratic. The word soviet means council, and those soviets, or councils, were democratically elected, all the way to the national soviet. 2nd: Every country has corruption problems, and the USSR was no exception. You are right about democracy and communism.
@ninjapirate0507 Soviet should not be linked to just the USSR. A Soviet is a revolutionary council within the workers. USSR was not democratic it was communist! A revolution caused the Soviet Union, not the party being elected. Lenin had the right idea, he was a great leader but when Stalin came into power it spiraled down from there.
@ninjapirate0507 Yes the ussr stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. All i am saying is how soviet refers to a council within the workers. Although this word is commonly linked to the USSR. Comrade I am not here to put you down i just simply have a slightly different idea of the word soviet.
@dfg93353 Socialism is the foundation of communism, that strips away integrated inequality and poverty. Communism. Communism and socialism are so interlinked however, that speaking GENERALLY about one is more or less interchangeable with the other.
@cappsoutlaw Yes, that is why in communism, the most a government could ever be is a forum for enacting order, without any real power. They'll still be corruption yes, but it would be so limited by that lack of power and unbeneficial because of standard of wealth that it'll be heavily negated.
It seems awfully strange to me that you try to tell of the benefits of "communism" and you have a name like "Sovietcomrade232". In the video you seem to suggest that the Soviet Union was not a very good example of communism but use Soviet in your name. WHY if it is such a great economic system is it always? combined with a DICTATOR like Stalin, are there any examples of communism WORKING.
Why are there few freedoms like press, religion and speech allowed in all the ACTUAL examples of COMMUNISM!
@dillondan63 It's because I have respect for what the Soviet Union could of been, what should have been. To answer your question its because your confusing economics with government. They are many capitalist economies that are dictatorships as well. But do I associate capitalism with dictatorship? No, it makes no since to. I reason for most being dictatorships is because of the counties that became communist were corrupt to begin with, and kept hijacking the revolution.
@studioXforum No, it withers a way with time, but there is government early on. Yes I am speaking of socialism, as socialism is the stepping stone to communism. Only by changing the economic system can culture develop towards communism. That's why revolution is necessary in the first place.
Be careful with the word "exploitation": Marx uses it to describe the difference between the wage you give to someone offering his workforce and the money you earned from the result of his work.
Also, it is important to understand the societies in which communism implanted itself, as they usually were soc.s where individualism was less prevailing (esp China)
And finally, good luck clearing in 4:00 misconceptions that built themselves during an entire century. :D
this video is such bullshit. Sovietcomrade232 you dont know jack about communism. did you know that communism has killed more people than any other form of government in the world. 20,000,000 in Russia, 80,000,000 in China, 2,000,000 in Vietnam and almost 20,000 in Cuba. Fuck Communism
You get arrested for killing your wife, because it's your gun, therefore is your crime.
Communism wasn't the result of all those deaths, the leaders were. Besides, Russia/China/etc don't display Pure Communism. They have their own forms of it.
I guess I could say you don't know jack about supporting your opinion with correct facts and not biased associations.
@kaleb3390 Did you also know that Capitalism has killed a relatively high amount of people over oil and minerals as well? Did you also take into account that a Capitalist would support giving money to Wal-Mart in their hard times, but refuses to give a war vets money for what disease or injury they come back with, because the war vet didn't give them -as much- money? Fuck Capitalism.
@kaleb3390 First off, communism is not a government, its an economic system. Second I can say the same about capitalism using the same criteria. Thirdly, I suggest you following the sources on those numbers. Go ahead follow the US biased sources it you like. You's be surprised by what you find when you follow them back and find they were for the most part speculation at best. Or have you ever look up the sources for that data? Sure that data is everywhere. But where are the sources?
@NeedWarForPeace Then it sounds like you want Communism. In capitalism, you could do double the work of your companies CEO, and get paid 1/100th of the amount they do. In Communism, you will never have to worry about losing your home, or having to feed your family. In true Communism, there most likely will be no need for money. The harder you work, or the more needful you are, the more resources will be divided to you.
@ComradeLer i like the way u powder coat it and make it sound so dandy and amazing. the reason u do double the work of ur CEO is because they earned the position before you did. if u wanna make more then WORK!
@Halflifefan264 Bourgeoisie don't work harder. A Bourgeois Capitalist might work 2-4 hours a day, doing just about nothing, while sipping expensive liquor. How did he get there? His daddy was a billionaire.. A Sweat shop working for said capitalist works some 16 hours a day, in terrible conditions, sleeping next to his workplace, every day for tens of years. Now, according to capitalism, that sweatshop worker should be rich. But he isn't. Not at all. And he never will be. Is that really fair?
@Halflifefan264 The way Capitalism works, for one person to be rich, 10'000 need to be poor. And many of them in Poverty. Communists don't think that is fair. Communists believe everybody should live happily, without ever needing to worry about whether they will lose their house, or if they can feed their family. Capitalists believe 'My daddy was a billionaire, therefore, I worked HARD FOR MY MONEY! So all of you poor people can just starve for all I care!'
i see how communism can work theoretically, but in reality? i can't picture it. humans will always be levelled against each other. how is it viable when things such as intelligence and job status come into play? should a criminal be 'equal' to an intelligent and prospectful member of society? what about disability? hmm this is interesting.. haha
@iliB92 Can you please explain to me what you believe communism is? Because if I understand you correctly, you seem to believe the same messed up idea of what communism is that most other believe.
@Sovietcomrade232 um ok, thanks for suggesting my ideas are 'messed up'. i watched your video which raised these questions so i guess you havnt explained it well enough and r judging me for your insufficient explanation. would u be so kind as to tell me than what communism is, then? my questions were to you. sorry if u mistook them as rhetorical.
@iliB92 That's because its part of a series that I haven't finished because I'm lazy >_<. Communism is just a theory explaining who society has developed and will develop. It has little to do with economics in the since of the Soviet Union. It stress economics as the driving force, but I did nothing to say how it would manifest when communism was achieve. This "command economy" that the USSR used was there way of applying communist theory. Problem is that (see post 2)
@Sovietcomrade232 (post 2) communism is so vague, there's no specific way is implement it. The Soviets tried to bring about communism early rather then allow it to develop. Speed up the process so to speak. But when building an economy to achieve the set of principles that communism should have (equality, to each according to need etc) there's no one way to do it. They tried a state controlled command economy. That didnt work. But thats not the only way to do it.
@Sovietcomrade232 Any true communal life would be everyone working together for the same cause' however what is any cause, any equality can only be earned within having any and all respect for every position which helps to maintain any and all human subsistence, however' unlike other species we use up natural resources which within any expansion will exponentially consume natural resources because we have lost any ability to live as free range foragers due to any and all technological evolution
You can see Animal Farm as a guidebook on why the Soviet Union wasn't a communist society and on what not to do during a communist revolution. I'm sorry you weren't properly introduced to this book prior to reading it. I'm afraid you'll have to read it again keeping these things in mind ;)
The point of the book was to denounce the Soviet Union as a new form of class rule: it wasn't a real socialist society as it claimed because the revolution didn't really put the animals/workers in power, rather people blindly followed unscrupulous leaders who created a new ruling class, instead of taking matters into their own hands.
@Scimitar89 I hope you are aware Orwell himself was a communist, though; he even fought in the Spanish Revolution and praised the communist parts of Spain in his novel Homage to Catalonia. If you think the message of Animal Farm is that the workers (symbolized by the animals) should remain good and docile servants of their capitalists (humans) and do everything their masters say then I'm afraid you terribly missed the point.
@Scimitar89 "humans as people like to make profit" Wrong, there are societies that live in regions of the world where their culture and economic system is dependent on living in a rainforest and hunting or herding animals in an open savannah.
I recommend you reread Animal Farm because you obviously failed to understand the message Orwell was giving. First of all, Orwell was a socialist. Animal Farm wasn't a critique of communism, but of the Bolshevik revolution. In the end the pigs replaced the humans as the new bourgeoisie. The pigs, like Stalin became the new capitalists controlling the workers. One oligarchy (the humans) was replaced with another (the pigs). Re-read the book and understand it before recommending it.
@Scimitar89 Actually, I've just read it a month ago. Good book. And a very good example of how lack of democracy kills a nation, and how soviet communism was ridiculous.
@Scimitar89 No, that's how the Soviets decided to do things. If you read the communist manifesto, you would realize there is nothing about how to run the economy there. Communism is really a very broad idea. Although that is how communism would be if done the Soviets way, there are many others that could be done.
i wonder how this solves the problem of working hard. If hard work offers no reward; then no one will work hard. But if hard work does reward, then society will be separated into upper and lower classes eventually based on the hard working getting rich, while the lazy remain poor. Thus I don't understand how you can have a society where everyone is economically equal.
@CrazyManMusicVideos "But if hard work does reward, then society will be separated into upper and lower classes eventually based on the hard working getting rich, while the lazy remain poor." - If you really believe that's how it works right now I'm sorry to tell you you've been brainwashed by capitalism. In the real world capitalist system the hardest working people are usually the poorest, like the people who work 14 hours a day 7 days a week in factories survive on $2 a day ...
while the Wall Street financiers are the ones who skim off billions from pillaging the world economy. It's never been about hard work, if you want to become rich don't waste your time working hard, you just have to be born in a position of wealth and power and plunder the world.
The "you too can become rich if only you work hard" stuff that you hear in the corporate media day and night is just what those on top tell you to make their rule seem fair but you don't need to take everything they say seriously, you have to think for yourself too.
Good points. Not only are democracy and communism compatible, but democracy is a prerequisite for communism and communism is a prerequisite for democracy.
This is naturally the ideal, but the many actual activities necessary to reach it is the problem.
In talking about the Soviet Union, please note not only the negative aspects, but consider the positive aspects too. For example, there was a tremendous rise in the standard of living and education over the 68 years and many achievements.
Ok, I will. You left out the fact that Communism would be entirely stateless and moneyless. I would've mentioned that Communism is, how Marx put it, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Also, the abolition of private property is a pillar of Socialism/Communism. The Soviet Union didn't "ban" private property because it was a threat to the Government. They seized it because private property doesn't exist in Socialism and Communism.
As I thought, I just misrepresented myself. Especially in the private property part. I by no means meant that the Soviets 'banned' private property. I was referring to the extent and manner to in which they went about doing it. Now on the stateless and money less part, I more or less spaced, but I also have a difference in opinion about that part. Not the money less part, but by exactly what would be considered stateless.
So you use an example. 10,000 dollars in labor for a capitalist to make 100,000 dollar salary. For one if it is a business it is not a salary the owner has but profit. The laborers are not forced to take that job and work at that wage. Then add in equipment/tools cost, electricity, manufacturing overhead and all the other costs attached to selling that product. The value from that product is not given by the laborers but by the allocation of the capital. (cont)
matt4787 1 week ago
If after all that he can sell it per unit above the total manufacturing cost he can make profit. But if the idea is bad he will lose money but the laborers will still get paid. The point is their is an objective factor in if a capitalist profits or has losses. Losses being attached to an owner are very important because it fixes the allocation of the resources to a more economically efficient area. (cont.)
matt4787 1 week ago
@matt4787 If the government doesn't tell you where to work as you say. If the government doesn't tell what resources need to be made and the prices of said products (which is impossible). Then how do I work? How does society ensure I am a productive citizen instead of a burden. What if everyone wants an easy job and no one wants to put in the work to be an engineer or a doctor? How would your communism handle that? Also a simple question. Define a need.
matt4787 1 week ago
So a person invests 10,000 in labor and additional money in equipment/tools and also the means to sell this item they are creating. They are creating value. The laborers are doing a job and a lot of times they are also trained for that job. They are a piece of the role but they are not the major piece. The major piece in the capital itself that is allocated to the project. It the project/business is efficient then the owner profits. If not they have a loss and the laborers are still paid.
matt4787 1 week ago
Communism does not have an established government, what you are referring to is socialism. Where in the original concept of communism is the absolute goal of socialism. By peaceful removal of government can a true communist utopia flourish. Moreover, a Socialist democracy would have to be formed in the united states before communism to set the ground work. Also toting around the hammer and sickle will only continue to perpetuate misconceptions you are trying to extinguish.
Klender 2 months ago
I'm thankful that people are smart enough to realize that communism is not equivalent to dictatorship. Democracy and communism are not mutually exclusive. Mismanagement of resources and the disastrous dictatorships killed those people (Mao, Stalin etc), not communism. Too many people read NO history and get their information from TV.
XSilvenX 3 months ago
The fact that you call anyone who doesn't agree with you ignorant, stupid or any other derogatory term or even their thinking referred to as these derogatory terms is EXACTLY why communism won't work. Not to mention the fact that you think communism is a form of economy. It isn't.
jimprjayp 4 months ago
is this just Communism in general or is this Marxism? Because in the Communist Manifesto it says "the dictatorship of the proletariat"
garrysmodsroxs 4 months ago
hey guys could some one explain how a Communist economy would operate without free enterprise. Like is everday commoditys centalized and run by an administration or what?
TriclipseStudio 5 months ago
I like how your username is sovietcomrade, but you do nothing but bash the USSR. 1st: the USSR WAS democratic. The word soviet means council, and those soviets, or councils, were democratically elected, all the way to the national soviet. 2nd: Every country has corruption problems, and the USSR was no exception. You are right about democracy and communism.
ninjapirate0507 6 months ago
@ninjapirate0507 Soviet should not be linked to just the USSR. A Soviet is a revolutionary council within the workers. USSR was not democratic it was communist! A revolution caused the Soviet Union, not the party being elected. Lenin had the right idea, he was a great leader but when Stalin came into power it spiraled down from there.
EnjoiDacyn 5 months ago
@EnjoiDacyn The USSR stands for Union of SOVIET Socialist Republics. Your comment is so full of ignorance, I don't even know where to start.
ninjapirate0507 5 months ago
@ninjapirate0507 Yes the ussr stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. All i am saying is how soviet refers to a council within the workers. Although this word is commonly linked to the USSR. Comrade I am not here to put you down i just simply have a slightly different idea of the word soviet.
EnjoiDacyn 5 months ago
Communism is a buzz word,meaning Jewish power moguls can''t be exposed or questioned under penalty of death.
skorzenygruppen 6 months ago
You just explained socialism /:
dfg93353 6 months ago
@dfg93353 Socialism is the foundation of communism, that strips away integrated inequality and poverty. Communism. Communism and socialism are so interlinked however, that speaking GENERALLY about one is more or less interchangeable with the other.
Sovietcomrade262 6 months ago
Great video
Bludrzl 7 months ago
all goverment is corrupt. people all goverment is ruled by people and power is the worst drug ever
cappsoutlaw 7 months ago
@cappsoutlaw Yes, that is why in communism, the most a government could ever be is a forum for enacting order, without any real power. They'll still be corruption yes, but it would be so limited by that lack of power and unbeneficial because of standard of wealth that it'll be heavily negated.
Sovietcomrade262 6 months ago
It seems awfully strange to me that you try to tell of the benefits of "communism" and you have a name like "Sovietcomrade232". In the video you seem to suggest that the Soviet Union was not a very good example of communism but use Soviet in your name. WHY if it is such a great economic system is it always? combined with a DICTATOR like Stalin, are there any examples of communism WORKING.
Why are there few freedoms like press, religion and speech allowed in all the ACTUAL examples of COMMUNISM!
dillondan63 7 months ago
@dillondan63 It's because I have respect for what the Soviet Union could of been, what should have been. To answer your question its because your confusing economics with government. They are many capitalist economies that are dictatorships as well. But do I associate capitalism with dictatorship? No, it makes no since to. I reason for most being dictatorships is because of the counties that became communist were corrupt to begin with, and kept hijacking the revolution.
Sovietcomrade262 7 months ago
Wrong! There is NO gouverment in Comunism- it is abolished.
You are talking about Socialsm.
studioXforum 8 months ago
@studioXforum No, it withers a way with time, but there is government early on. Yes I am speaking of socialism, as socialism is the stepping stone to communism. Only by changing the economic system can culture develop towards communism. That's why revolution is necessary in the first place.
Sovietcomrade262 7 months ago
Be careful with the word "exploitation": Marx uses it to describe the difference between the wage you give to someone offering his workforce and the money you earned from the result of his work.
Also, it is important to understand the societies in which communism implanted itself, as they usually were soc.s where individualism was less prevailing (esp China)
And finally, good luck clearing in 4:00 misconceptions that built themselves during an entire century. :D
systemhalodark 9 months ago
this video is such bullshit. Sovietcomrade232 you dont know jack about communism. did you know that communism has killed more people than any other form of government in the world. 20,000,000 in Russia, 80,000,000 in China, 2,000,000 in Vietnam and almost 20,000 in Cuba. Fuck Communism
kaleb3390 9 months ago
@kaleb3390 Let's theorize for a moment, Kaleb.
You own a gun.
It's your gun.
Your neighbor takes it.
Your neighbor kills your wife.
You get arrested for killing your wife, because it's your gun, therefore is your crime.
Communism wasn't the result of all those deaths, the leaders were. Besides, Russia/China/etc don't display Pure Communism. They have their own forms of it.
I guess I could say you don't know jack about supporting your opinion with correct facts and not biased associations.
ThatSillySoviet 9 months ago
@kaleb3390 Did you also know that Capitalism has killed a relatively high amount of people over oil and minerals as well? Did you also take into account that a Capitalist would support giving money to Wal-Mart in their hard times, but refuses to give a war vets money for what disease or injury they come back with, because the war vet didn't give them -as much- money? Fuck Capitalism.
ThatSillySoviet 9 months ago
@kaleb3390 First off, communism is not a government, its an economic system. Second I can say the same about capitalism using the same criteria. Thirdly, I suggest you following the sources on those numbers. Go ahead follow the US biased sources it you like. You's be surprised by what you find when you follow them back and find they were for the most part speculation at best. Or have you ever look up the sources for that data? Sure that data is everywhere. But where are the sources?
Sovietcomrade262 7 months ago
i would rather live in a system were i can get what i deserve for my hard work. fuck communism
NeedWarForPeace 1 year ago
@NeedWarForPeace Then it sounds like you want Communism. In capitalism, you could do double the work of your companies CEO, and get paid 1/100th of the amount they do. In Communism, you will never have to worry about losing your home, or having to feed your family. In true Communism, there most likely will be no need for money. The harder you work, or the more needful you are, the more resources will be divided to you.
ComradeLer 1 year ago
@ComradeLer i like the way u powder coat it and make it sound so dandy and amazing. the reason u do double the work of ur CEO is because they earned the position before you did. if u wanna make more then WORK!
NeedWarForPeace 1 year ago
@sovietcomrade232
Doesn't everyone get paid the same amount?
If true some people work harder than others so I belive they should be paid more.
Please let me know if this is also a misconception as well.
Halflifefan264 1 year ago
@Halflifefan264 Bourgeoisie don't work harder. A Bourgeois Capitalist might work 2-4 hours a day, doing just about nothing, while sipping expensive liquor. How did he get there? His daddy was a billionaire.. A Sweat shop working for said capitalist works some 16 hours a day, in terrible conditions, sleeping next to his workplace, every day for tens of years. Now, according to capitalism, that sweatshop worker should be rich. But he isn't. Not at all. And he never will be. Is that really fair?
ComradeLer 1 year ago
@Halflifefan264 The way Capitalism works, for one person to be rich, 10'000 need to be poor. And many of them in Poverty. Communists don't think that is fair. Communists believe everybody should live happily, without ever needing to worry about whether they will lose their house, or if they can feed their family. Capitalists believe 'My daddy was a billionaire, therefore, I worked HARD FOR MY MONEY! So all of you poor people can just starve for all I care!'
ComradeLer 1 year ago
i see how communism can work theoretically, but in reality? i can't picture it. humans will always be levelled against each other. how is it viable when things such as intelligence and job status come into play? should a criminal be 'equal' to an intelligent and prospectful member of society? what about disability? hmm this is interesting.. haha
iliB92 1 year ago
@iliB92 Can you please explain to me what you believe communism is? Because if I understand you correctly, you seem to believe the same messed up idea of what communism is that most other believe.
Sovietcomrade232 1 year ago
@Sovietcomrade232 um ok, thanks for suggesting my ideas are 'messed up'. i watched your video which raised these questions so i guess you havnt explained it well enough and r judging me for your insufficient explanation. would u be so kind as to tell me than what communism is, then? my questions were to you. sorry if u mistook them as rhetorical.
iliB92 1 year ago
@iliB92 That's because its part of a series that I haven't finished because I'm lazy >_<. Communism is just a theory explaining who society has developed and will develop. It has little to do with economics in the since of the Soviet Union. It stress economics as the driving force, but I did nothing to say how it would manifest when communism was achieve. This "command economy" that the USSR used was there way of applying communist theory. Problem is that (see post 2)
Sovietcomrade232 1 year ago
@Sovietcomrade232 (post 2) communism is so vague, there's no specific way is implement it. The Soviets tried to bring about communism early rather then allow it to develop. Speed up the process so to speak. But when building an economy to achieve the set of principles that communism should have (equality, to each according to need etc) there's no one way to do it. They tried a state controlled command economy. That didnt work. But thats not the only way to do it.
Sovietcomrade232 1 year ago
@Sovietcomrade232 Any true communal life would be everyone working together for the same cause' however what is any cause, any equality can only be earned within having any and all respect for every position which helps to maintain any and all human subsistence, however' unlike other species we use up natural resources which within any expansion will exponentially consume natural resources because we have lost any ability to live as free range foragers due to any and all technological evolution
DrFruedienslip 3 months ago
@iliB92 Communism has worked for centuries until people started lording over others with their wealth. There hasnt been a communist country since.
jediknight36 1 year ago
You can see Animal Farm as a guidebook on why the Soviet Union wasn't a communist society and on what not to do during a communist revolution. I'm sorry you weren't properly introduced to this book prior to reading it. I'm afraid you'll have to read it again keeping these things in mind ;)
PavedStones 1 year ago
The point of the book was to denounce the Soviet Union as a new form of class rule: it wasn't a real socialist society as it claimed because the revolution didn't really put the animals/workers in power, rather people blindly followed unscrupulous leaders who created a new ruling class, instead of taking matters into their own hands.
PavedStones 1 year ago
@Scimitar89 I hope you are aware Orwell himself was a communist, though; he even fought in the Spanish Revolution and praised the communist parts of Spain in his novel Homage to Catalonia. If you think the message of Animal Farm is that the workers (symbolized by the animals) should remain good and docile servants of their capitalists (humans) and do everything their masters say then I'm afraid you terribly missed the point.
PavedStones 1 year ago
@Scimitar89 "humans as people like to make profit" Wrong, there are societies that live in regions of the world where their culture and economic system is dependent on living in a rainforest and hunting or herding animals in an open savannah.
humanpotential7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Scimitar89:
I recommend you reread Animal Farm because you obviously failed to understand the message Orwell was giving. First of all, Orwell was a socialist. Animal Farm wasn't a critique of communism, but of the Bolshevik revolution. In the end the pigs replaced the humans as the new bourgeoisie. The pigs, like Stalin became the new capitalists controlling the workers. One oligarchy (the humans) was replaced with another (the pigs). Re-read the book and understand it before recommending it.
insaniac82 1 year ago
Comment removed
insaniac82 1 year ago
@Scimitar89 Actually, I've just read it a month ago. Good book. And a very good example of how lack of democracy kills a nation, and how soviet communism was ridiculous.
Sovietcomrade232 1 year ago
@Scimitar89 No, that's how the Soviets decided to do things. If you read the communist manifesto, you would realize there is nothing about how to run the economy there. Communism is really a very broad idea. Although that is how communism would be if done the Soviets way, there are many others that could be done.
Sovietcomrade232 1 year ago
I learn' t something new today. =)
380800 1 year ago
i wonder how this solves the problem of working hard. If hard work offers no reward; then no one will work hard. But if hard work does reward, then society will be separated into upper and lower classes eventually based on the hard working getting rich, while the lazy remain poor. Thus I don't understand how you can have a society where everyone is economically equal.
CrazyManMusicVideos 1 year ago
@CrazyManMusicVideos I've just sent you a message that would give you an idea of how it could work. Let me know what you think.
Sovietcomrade232 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrazyManMusicVideos "But if hard work does reward, then society will be separated into upper and lower classes eventually based on the hard working getting rich, while the lazy remain poor." - If you really believe that's how it works right now I'm sorry to tell you you've been brainwashed by capitalism. In the real world capitalist system the hardest working people are usually the poorest, like the people who work 14 hours a day 7 days a week in factories survive on $2 a day ...
PavedStones 1 year ago
while the Wall Street financiers are the ones who skim off billions from pillaging the world economy. It's never been about hard work, if you want to become rich don't waste your time working hard, you just have to be born in a position of wealth and power and plunder the world.
PavedStones 1 year ago
The "you too can become rich if only you work hard" stuff that you hear in the corporate media day and night is just what those on top tell you to make their rule seem fair but you don't need to take everything they say seriously, you have to think for yourself too.
PavedStones 1 year ago
Good points. Not only are democracy and communism compatible, but democracy is a prerequisite for communism and communism is a prerequisite for democracy.
This is naturally the ideal, but the many actual activities necessary to reach it is the problem.
In talking about the Soviet Union, please note not only the negative aspects, but consider the positive aspects too. For example, there was a tremendous rise in the standard of living and education over the 68 years and many achievements.
JayPhilosopher 1 year ago
good video !
SoviMusic 1 year ago
I'm sorry. You're understandings of Communism and the Soviet Union are seemingly minute. One star.
policestory 1 year ago
Please explain. This is my first video, and I did rush it. If I misrepresented myself please let me know in what manner.
Sovietcomrade232 1 year ago
Ok, I will. You left out the fact that Communism would be entirely stateless and moneyless. I would've mentioned that Communism is, how Marx put it, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Also, the abolition of private property is a pillar of Socialism/Communism. The Soviet Union didn't "ban" private property because it was a threat to the Government. They seized it because private property doesn't exist in Socialism and Communism.
policestory 1 year ago
As I thought, I just misrepresented myself. Especially in the private property part. I by no means meant that the Soviets 'banned' private property. I was referring to the extent and manner to in which they went about doing it. Now on the stateless and money less part, I more or less spaced, but I also have a difference in opinion about that part. Not the money less part, but by exactly what would be considered stateless.
Sovietcomrade232 1 year ago