Brilliant description to people who just don't understand that they are living underneath a boot. We are all stood upon by Capital, it is evil, yet we tolerate it because we have been taught for generations that it is the only working system. and most of us could not even imagine any other system. Thank you for making this video.
How can variety of item which cannot be classified an being better one over the other exist in a communist state? How can fashion retain it's range of products and how can the food industry produce different types of produce to suit differently oriented individuals? In short, can communism maintain the level of variety that exists in areas of production today, which cannot be classified as being superior and who depend on individual taste?
Firstly, much of the "variety" in capitalism is an illusion ; sometimes literally the same things in different packaging. Secondly, fashion is both natural and artificial ; the "fashion industry" exists to stimulate constant demand. Thirdly, artists like Kandinsky were inspired by the Russian revolution to design kitchenware for mass production. Fourthly, research, asking people, respnding to requests, trial and error etc. Communism doesn't have to be drab and grey.
Some good points, but I think I'd rather be free to make my own decisions on what to do with the property I do own than be coerced into giving my money to causes I potentially don't believe in in a Communist society. You'll still get ruling classes in that kind of society as well, but with significanlty less freedom. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying things are great, but its as much a function of a confused mixed economy as anything else.
The ideal is to abolish class. Although this may sound strange, there is a path to a form of anarchism through Communism, but it is through the original communism of Lenin and Trotsky, not Stalinism which western propaganda always portrays as the only and inevitable form of Communism. A truly classless, propertyless society means freedom for the individual and the whole.
So what is the solution? Communism? Either way you slice it someone, somewhere is going to be telling you what you can and can't do. And I personally would rather be able to choose to be a janitor than told I have to be one.
Actually, I would envisage some form of anarchism, but one which evolves through a form of Communism. (I know that will seem contradictory if one accepts the nonsense that Stalinism was inevitable. I don't.) Socially necessary work should be shared, rather than some havibg work which they enjoy and others having permanently shit jobs.
Some people go to school, to college and to university to study their ass off to get a good job, while others prefer to hang around at the local mall and get stoned. People are different. They want to be different. A classless society will never happen, because people want to differentiate from others. Even in the animal kingdom there is a hierarchy. People are animals. It's either very arrogant or naive to think we're any different. Communism goes against our basic instincts.
Do animals have (self) consciousness? Can they plan rationally years ahead? Can they store information and then analyse it? Can they think abstractly? Can they use a wide variety of tools? Yes, there are a few very basic examples of animals exhibiting such behaviour, but the size and functions of our brains are a specific feature of our evolution. This is neither arrogant nor naive. Why don't you favour feudalism? What about those today whose "choices" are thwarted by class and capital?
We don't know if animals have (self) consciousness. It seems that some do, but it's hard to find out. Most animals do plan ahead. They first make a nest, then lay the eggs. They stuff themselves for months, then go into hibernation.
Feudalism makes no sense. In a capitalist system you can be the best you can be. When Hirsi Ali first came to our country, she was a refugee. She worked/studied real hard and eventually became part of our government. In a feudalist system that would be impossible.
I think my point about the differences between humans and other species remains well-founded. Capitalism was progressive when it overcame feudalism. But, in my opinion, it is no longer progressive. Within any system, especially for those who are doing well (or think they are) it is hard to envisage a better system. For those who are not doing well, (the majority) it is rather easier.
For every "success" story, how many other stories don't have a happy ending?
As much as you may hate capitalism, there's not a single succesful alternative to it.
The Communist Party no longer exists in our country. No members. No people voting for it. Apparently, not even the so-called poor thought it was a good alternative. I think that says it all.
What it says is that the huge distinctions between what Communism should be and what it became under Stalin have, not surprisingly, not been explained to people in the West. Yes, someone like myself is, at the moment, clearly on the losing side, but that doesn't make the arguments wrong. Western capitalist economies are going to go downhill and, eventually, I think the choice will be between (a form of) Communism or (a form of) barbarism.
People are always open to good ideas, especially when they think they'll benefit from it - it's human nature. So how come it isn't happening? Could it be that the concept of communism just sounds totally unrealistic, even to the poor?
We have multi-party democracy; anyone can start a political party. There is no communist party, but we have the Party For The Animals voted into the government, an animal rights party. There's plenty of opportunity for communistic ideas, but it isn't happening.
The situation varies in different countries, but two things seem common. Firstly, the continued rise of single issue politics, which lack a coherent overview. Secondly, the rise of irrationality, (religion being the most obvious example). The irrationality of the free market system is a fertile breeding ground for irrational ideas. For obvious reasons, the capitalists have done their best to brand Communism as inevitably Stalinist and then to declare Marxism dead. History will decide.
I don't know what's irrational about the free market system, and apparently most people don't. Blaming capitalists on branding communism as Stalinist is not very strong, is it? Why are you and your communist friends so silent? Why aren't your ideas convincing enough for people to believe in communism? Is it all because of the capitalist conspiracy? Why is it that in my country people think it makes more sense to vote for an animal rights party than a communist party?
An example of irrationality? Dumping food to keep profits high which people starve. Or the fact that, in Britain, many people will only be able to afford to buy a home if prices continue to fall sharply, in which case many others will then lose their homes. Surprisingly, that nice Rupert Murdoch doesn't publish a sufficiently wide range of views to include ours and the increasingly commercialised TV stations find that their advertisers and sponsors aren't keen on us either. Can't think why.
What exactly makes you think capitalist economies are going downhill? And why the black and white viewpoint? Communism or barbarism, is that really all you can think of?
If you have a great idea, people will listen. Especially the people that will benefit in your utopia. Yet nothing happens.
The rise of China and India will cause major upheavals ; the West is losing its supply of cheap energy. I said the future will tend towards some form of Communism or barbarism. Because of the contradictions which you don't recognise. Although it's trivial, Betamax was a technically superior system to VHS, but VHS grabbed sufficient market share to force a monopoly. It's unprovable and silly, but, if the world's media switched to a Communist message, there would be considerable receptivity.
I'm not denying there are some major changes awaiting us, it's obvious.
Betamax and Video 2000 lost the battle in the video rental stores, because VHS had porn. It's the people that chose VHS. To suggest that a monopoly was forced upon the people is not being truthful.
The monopoloy came about because a "tipping point" was reached. Capitalism tends towards monopoly as competitors try to eliminate each other. I'm not blaming the media as an entire explanation, but surely you would accept that the media has an in-built ideological bias? How could it not?
You got things mixed up. The 'tipping point' was still caused by the people preferring porn over regular movies. Don't blame the companies for giving the people what they want.
To claim that capitalism tends towards monopoly is confusing. Companies do try to eliminate each other, but as they do, new ones emerge. It is in communism where there is no competition and monopolies thrive.
Of course the media are biased - they've always been. They're run by people, and people are biased.
My point about a "tipping point" is that companies aim to wipe each other out and superior products and technologies can be wiped out with them. I don't think thst's rational, but you assume that the market always makes the right decision. Isn't that a bit like believing in God? The media is run by people with an agenda who employ those who share that agenda. It's hardly haphazard.
Companies do aim to wipe each other out most of the time and superior products/technologies can be wiped out with them, but as the video example shows, people don't always care if there's a better product/technology. Fashion is another good example. What's hip and trendy hardly ever is the best there is; people willingly choose the inferior alternative, because it makes them feel better. That emotional component is highly underestimated in communism.
Aha! We agree! I think, (and here I differ from most Communists I know) that the subjective element of dialectics (and real life) is badly underestimated within historical Marxism. But there is such a thing as the fashion industry and like all capitalist industries, its aim is profitable expansion.
And profitable expansion is evil? A company that makes a profit is very likely to grow and invest even more in the economy. By hiring more people for instance. Companies that are not doing well, stop, and the people end up without jobs. In communism there is no unemployment because six people are doing the work that one person can do.
Apply your argment to the arms industry, which is one of the major industries. It must increase sales to increase profits. How's it going to do that? I think we both know.
That the media are run by people with an agenda sounds pretty paranoia to me again, but maybe you mean people with a plan, like all companies have. That they employ people that share the same values/beliefs/etc. is also hardly surprising. Would the communist party employ capitalists?
That's what I mean. It's not paranoia - it's simply obvious that a capitalist media corporation will employ those who share and propagate a capitalist viewpoint.
Not quite. Two important differences : firstly, unlike the capitalist media, a genuinely Communist media (obviously not Stalinist) would make its own ideological position and interest clear. How often do caitalist media ever even mention capitalism? Their intention is to create the impression that capitalism is as natural as rain. Secondly, oppositional points of view would be admitted - rather more than they are now.
Very interesting and an EXTREMELY important argument to elaborate on. Keeping in mind that Capitalism is opening up to the "magical wonder" of Globalisation which in turn is creating an ever increasing cold and harsh "iron curtain" between the rich and the working class. Good video, keep it up!
"The "market incentive" in New Orleans is for luxury housing developments and"
Uh, no...the market incentive is that everyone pursues their self-interest and this does not imply only "luxury housing developments. Really is New Orleans really that empty of a city to value only "luxury housing developments."
Try living in the real world. The authorities and developers in New Orleans are seizing the "opportunity" for some socio-economic engineering. Plans for re-development don't include re-building homes for poor people who used to live in some areas ; they do include luxury housing for those who wish to move into what will be a whiter area. Meanwhile, many of the poorest, (mostly black) people are "pursuing their self-interest" in misery and poverty elsewhere, unable to return to New Orleans.
"A combination of market forces and racism doomed many poor black people in New Orleans and continues to doom so many around the world."
Capitalism may allow racism but it does not create racism. (And state intervention clearly isn't stopping it either) If your so worried about racism, then deal with the racists....not abstractions.
The market incentives would not encourage racism since business owners wouldn't profit as much for being a racist.
dividing people) through wage differentials, lack of social provision, competition and trade wars. The effects are concrete, not abstract. The ranks of active racists, (who, I agree, must be dealt with) are always swelled by worsening material conditions. The "market incentive" in New Orleans is for luxury housing developments and, let me make a wild guess, maybe the displaced poor black people from New Orleans aren't the intended recipients?
You get paid on your productivity. If black people accept a job at a lower wage, the incentives would be for the business owner to hire them and fire the others. A racist would have to act in non-accordance with the market incentives in order to keep on being a racist. He would lose potential profit. Capitalism is the opponent of racism. And remember......the state is what upheld racism in this country for so long.
Yesterday, you said "Capitalism may allow racism...." Today, "Capitalism is the opponent of racism." There are some jobs no-one would really want to do. If capitalism "liberates" people, who will do these jobs and what's their motive? It can't be for the common good - that's socialist, (and, presumably abstract in your view) so would it be reward or fear? Currently, vital work (e.g. sewage) or "caring" work (e.g. nursing) is low-paid. Why? Could it be fear of poverty, homelessness etc.?
Ok, "call it quits" but you havent convinced me of anything...or disproved anything I have said.
You are so disconnected from reality zardozcs, you even said "factories employed children to save them from starving to death, because of high mortality rates" thats not only irrational, it is hilarious.
When writing that comment you didnt even bother to consider the reasons why the children at this time in America, where starving to death. Because if you did your arguement would have crumbled.
In America, especially, the ideological heirs to Milton Friedman and co. seem to regard the market as a moral force and historical fact is re-interpreted in that light. A combination of market forces and racism doomed many poor black people in New Orleans and continues to doom so many around the world.
His mission has been to destroy American social institutions, look at what he has done to Social Security...or take say the U.S medical system.
Americas pay more for healthcare than any other Western nation on the planet. The U.S is also ranked lowest in the Western Hemisphere for healthcare overall, infact the child mortality rate in America is even higher than Cuba.
Children where not slaves? Wrong...they where very much slaves, wage slaves.
They had the choice of working 24/7 in a factory, or starving on the street, and that is actually NOT a choice in my opinion.
Also why where child mortality rates so high during this time? Because of the massive national poverty, wealth was immesnely concentrated during this time...and few social instituions existed to creat a livable enviorment for the poor.
Your ignorance is amazing. So I assume the unemployment caused by Roosevelts reforms was what ended the great depression? Employment was at a all time high during the Roosevelt era you moron, before he was elected President and implemented regulation & reform....95% of Americans where waiting in massive lines by the soup kitchen.
People in Russia havent lived this bad since, the times of the Czar! Only recently through some of the re-adoption of a few socialist principles by Putin, have we begun to recover
You should come over here to Russia, and see what capitalism has done to my country. During the USSR, the PBPL(population below the the poverty line) was below 1%, far ahead of almost every country in the West. Everyone here had employment, housing, free educayion, medical treatment ect. Now through privatization, and "capitalist reform" we have been driven right back into the 3rd world.
Yes, the "shock treatment" recommended by Western bankers should be viewed as a crime and the "ologarchs" who stole the country's wealth should be seen as criminals, not feted as shrewd business people and, even, celebrities.
You should watch the video I sent you yesterday zardozcs...
Also if your claim that regulation is bad, is correct...Why is it that countries with the highest HDI(Human Development Index) are those with the most government involvement in the economy.
For example take say, Iceland of Denmark...these are the two happiest countries on the planet, is it a cowincidence that these two countries have the least disparities in wealth around the world?
Every acheivment by the working class to create a livable enviorment was ripped right out of the greedy hands of the capitalist elite.
De-regulation going on in the U.S is the reason your economy is going down, 5,000 Americans lose their homes to forclosure weekly....I'm sure you are not enjoying your Economic recession, and 9 trillion national deficit in the U.S
wnxsilence: "de-regulation is reason people losing homes". First, US is not my economy I don't live there. No, FNMA and FDMC gov't programs made it easy for people who could not afford to buy houses buy houses. When reality caught up decades later up they still couldn't afford the houses. Only the banks were blamed for the gov'ts problem. People who can't afford a house voluntarily chose to enter a gov't scam. And sure some loan officers gave fraudulent loans.
Given that America is the wealthiest nation in the world, the state of health care available to so many millions of its people should be seen as a disgrace.
It was the reforming of the banking system, the implementation of market regulation and other changes made in the Roosevelt Era/1930's that stopped the Great Depression.
If it wasnt for "goverrnment control over the economy" you would be living just like Americans did before the 1930's, or how Indonesians, Africans and the rest of the capitalist world does now.
wnxsilence: Great Depression. Caused by gov't control of the money supply in form of Federal reserve. More people unemployed after roosevelt's new deal passed. Go read some economics books.
The "free market" is anarchic. Any group of capitalist economists will offer different technical analyses and different solutions to problems. The Marxist perspective is that capitalism is doomed by its inherent contradictions - put simply, the mass of people will always be exploited in order to generate wealth for the few.
Yes, it is interesting to note how even the current Bush administration is being forced into measures to prop up the mortgage and housing markets which are very much state interventionist. In Britain, the approach is to privatise profits while nationalising risks and losses.
What needs to happen is a separation of government and economy just like church and state. That's what Capitalism is, not the mixed hybrid system in the US, UK
=========
That is a ridiculous notion. Lets ask ourselves how the U.S, and U.K where doing before the workers finally demanded government regulation? 3rd world hell-holes with child-labor, and massively concentrated wealth.
wnxsilence: factories gave work to children that would otherwise have died. Remember child mortality rates. They saved their lives from certain death. Children were not compelled to work in factories they were not slaves. They were sent by their family so they wouldn't starve to death. First child labour law was against chimney sweeps, not factories. First factory act was against those sold into virtual slavery in PARISH houses - gov't control.
Before the labor movement the West. America, Britain, France ect where all 3rd world hell hole of child labor & massively concentrated wealth and no workers rights. It is because of the struggle against capitalism in many countries in the West, that the disparities in wealth have been reduced.
Yes, every gain for the working class has been through struggle. The ruling class are interested only in the accumulation of wealth and never willingly give amything away, least of all power.
less004: "ruling class power" Sure, that's what happens when the government has control over the economy. What needs to happen is a separation of government and economy just like church and state. That's what Capitalism is, not the mixed hybrid system in the US, UK, Canada, etc If gov't cannot affect the free market then it cannot be bribed by special interests.
I assume you're a"free market libertarian"? Are you suggresting some sort of Year Zero when everything starts again and everyone is on an equal footing or would we start from where we are with enormousl differences in wealth and resources?
Have you asked yourself why the U.K, or even U.S do not have the standards of living of 95%of capitalist nations? Why don't the Americans live in poverty, and work 24 hours a day?
For one thing it has been the use of violence & imperialism to secure a dominant position over the geo-political arena. But it is also because the class struggle has advanced to a more favorable level.
You should think about the 5 year old children in Indonesia working 24/7 in the sweatshops who made that Keyboard you are using to defend & praise capitalism.
Your notion that the free-market will meet the needs of the people is irrational, if your arguement was correct millions of people would not be starving in poverty around the world because in capitalism.
I disagree with the points you just made zardozcs
First you said this "If he's wrong he loses. Without speculator sewer worker starves when there's a disaster." Which is obviously ridiculous, we all saw how capitalism helped the people of New Orleans...even now in 2008 the area is STILL a disaster zone.
Socialism brought the people of China para-troopers with bags full of supplies hours after the recent Sichuan Earth-Quake, which by the way was a FAR worse disaster than New Orleans.
Yes. I wonder what zardozcs thinks about inherited wealth - how is this earned and how does it benefit society? Similarly, what does he think about the oligarchs in Russia who have stolen the wealth already created by the workers?
less004: "inherited wealth" It's earned by the person giving the wealth away -- he worked his whole life and after all that still had something left over. Isn't it nice that your father loves you enough to give you his life's work, instead of his mistress, or the Communist party? This benefits the heir, who then spends the money, employing people, or he invests it, creating jobs for people.
Jobs are created for profit, not as acts of benevolence. All land was originally "owned" by violence. Is this legitimate? If so, can't it be taken back by violence?
wnxsilence: "speculator + china disaster" Nice taking my points out of context. Was talking about crop failure. There are many factors which contributed to New Orleans, some I listed. I was in China at the time of earthquake. State TV laid a massive guilt trip on everyone else for 3 days. Socialism also gives them executions for speaking against the gov't. And the one child law means many family trees are now wiped out forever in that region. There was much criticism of the gov'e about that.
"Socialism" doesn't require state murder (executions). The fact that it happens in China is a reason for political (rather than economic) change there.
by the way, i dont think using terminology like "Stalinism" is the best way to discuss this. It simply doesnt exist. Stalin pursued Marxism-Leninism untill the end. The USSR had to change itself towards more efficiency to face the imperialists. And in that way it became the same as the capitalists in the end. You can say that the biggest mistake of the Stalin era was the lack of revolutionary education, this could have saved the revolution instead of the hammering on material goals only.
"Isms" are problematic, as is personalising history, but I think Lenin's warning about Stalin and the ideological (rather than bureaucratic) struggle with Trotsky indicates a break from Marxism-Leninism. I don't accept the Soviet Union became capitalist till much later. I welcomed Glasnost, but not Perestroika and saw Yeltsin as openly counter-revolutionary ; till then, the Soviet Union still had a centrally planned economy, collective property and capitalists couldn't organise politically.
The anti-imperialist struggle is waged most efficient with a powerful state/army. Not with a strongly decentralized state and with the power fully in the hands of the workers. Thats the dilemma for the revolution, it was like that in the USSR and its like that everywhere else. In order to defend yourself best u go for efficiency instead of pure communism. Stalin's mistake wasnt that he "abandoned" revolution, he had to wage the anti-imperialist struggle to the max in order to save the revolution
Yes, there will always be that dilemna. One aspect of dialectics which, I think, is not considered enough is the subjective element. One of the reasons for bureaucratisation in the early Soviet Union was simply that, after so much fighting and economic hardship, people were exhausted. Historical conditions must vary, but it seems to me that spreading the Revolution abroad will always be the best way of protecting it at home.
The problem with that notion is that Socialism in one country was nessesary according to the objective conditions at that time. There was no revolution breaking out in the west so they had to fight capitalism/imperialism by themselves. And by doing that struggle most efficient, it means that u have to centralize more, and create a strong state and army. This leads to a loss of the revolutionary cause in the end (ideologically).
I agree completely that a major reason for the bureaucratic degeneration in the Soviet Union was the constant external pressure, both military and economic, but, after Lenin's death, there were clear differences between factions led by Stalin and those of Trotsky. Stalin's regime began to betray Communist causes in other countries in order to try appease the capitalists who would, of course, never be appeased.
I have come to conclusion that for Socialist revolution to be possible it must occur in the most powerful nations, in the center of capitalism. Or on a global scale, otherwise it will have little hope of success.
Like I said education is the key for which the proletarian will free itself from its chains, and unite.
We see similar trends all over the world, Nicaragua is now in shambles from decades of U.S sponsored terrorist war, as is Guatemala and countless other South American nations whose people dare rise up, Vietnam was literally flatened from years of bombing & and genocide by the West, Korea was divided leaving the North isolated and surrounded by hostile forces making domestic progress impossible
There are very few countries in which America has not planted its miltary bases and / or its covert operations designed to install "friendly" regimes. As the Sandinista government discovered, it is never possible to appease American imperialism which is determined to "save" people from themselves, even if it means killing them all.
My country was invaded several times by the west, not only during WWII by the Germans, but even directly after the October Revolution in 1917, the Americans & British sent troops to smother our revolution, and re-install the Czar as dictator.
External pressure was one reason why the Revolution began to degenerate. The west never stopped its attempts to destabilise the Soviet Union. For example, both Solidarity in Poland, (the only union liked by Reagan and Thatcher) and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan were funded by the C.I.A.
I agree, and keep in mind the capitalists always make the anti-socialist arguement of "genuine communism goes against human nature".
In reality it is the opposite, capitalism degrades everyone to wage slavery where all creativity is lost and the worker becomes a mere screw in the clockwork.
Unfortunately where ever the face of genuine freedom & liberty dare show its face around the world, it can expect its head to be immediately chopped off by American/Western imperialism.
Yes, the capitalist argument is that human nature is essentially bad and must be restrained, whereas communists believe that, with rationally planned material conditions, people are enormously creative, productive and social beings.
Another excellent video, well done! I am going to subscribe.
Capitalism is truely a destructive system that has enslaved humanity. Our dear planet has more than enough recources to sustain a comfortable life for all of its inhabitants, the fact that most of humanity is impoverished is unexcusable.
The proletarian must unite, we must all work to educate the masses, for ignorance is one of many tools the capitalists use to opress their slaves.
Similar to another comment. Disagree with your message but your speaking style is catchy.
One glaring error is "the only way to make a profit is to pay your workers less than their labour is worth" This is wrong. The way to make a profit is for your selling price to exceed your costs. If your wage costs are high yes you want to lower them but you can only lower them so far before people leave to other jobs. Free market can't stop them from leaving. In the absence of wage controls wages=value
Wage costs are a major factor for most businesses. What can stop workers leaving low-paid jobs is that state benefits aren't available if you leave work "voluntarily", that, for many people, the only other available work is also low-paid, (many people in Britain work below the minimum wage) and landlords and shopkeepers aren't interested in whether you're paid a decent wage, they just want their slice of it. The market is "free" for capital, but not for labour.
Minimum wage is a wage control which puts people out of work. Obviously if the job isn't worth minimum wage the job doesn't happen, even if someone was willing to work at that wage level. Benefits used to be known as savings and charity (from family or friends) But since gov't inflates the money savings lose their value. A free market requires hard backed money as well - gold, silver. Excessive gov't regulations make it difficult for new businesses to start which might employ more ppl.
Clearly, you approve of a "free" capitalist market. We have major differences which are hard to address briefly. Capitalist markets are anarchic, in the sense of being chaotic. Wages bear no relation to the social value of the job. An example : if no-one worked the water and sewage system, (literally a shit job) then, amongst many others, the currency speculator would die of cholera. Which job is more valuableand who is better rewarded? Does this make any kind of sense?
Yes, you're right, I can only hope to bring to light some of the more common misconceptions about capitalism here so that's what I'll do. I'm interested in technical details of 'communism' because people have said Soviet Union is not communism but I'm at a loss to see why not and no one seems to back that with explanation. Box is getting small here so next point in another comment...
True communism involves political power moving from the bottom upwards, collectivised property forms and a centrally planned economy. Production is on the basis of need rather than profit. People are individuals, of course, but exist within a wider social context in which the well-being of others is a real concern. Under constant attack, both military and economic, from its inception, the Soviet Union degenerated under Stalin.
But this is an impossible thing to assess. Humans are not omniscient and there is no way a limited number of economy planners could possibly determine everyone's 'needs' Even if you tried to use computers and have everyone submit 'what they needed right now' to some massive system, everyone would ask for the world. Profits provide the means of judging what is needed by the people most in touch with what they need. Spending on X deprives product Y.
There's a clear difference between "need" and "want". Human needs, such as shelter, clothing, food, water, heating etc. have not been met for many while others have every possible "wish" or "want" catered for. Indeed, the advertising indistry depends on creating "wants" rather than satisfying needs.
less004: "need and want" If you look at the figures though you'll find that those doing without shelter food and clothing decreases in the more free market countries than the ones with governments which are absolutely corrupt (Africa) As I said elsewhere, America and Britain: countries where the 'poor' are obese. So under communism the economy only provides shelter, clothing and food, water and heating? Beyond mere survival value, humans need inspiration too we are conceptual beings, not animals
less004: "need and want" If you look at the figures though you'll find that those doing without shelter food and clothing decreases in the more free market countries than the ones with governments which are absolutely corrupt (Africa) As I said elsewhere, America and Britain: countries where the 'poor' are obese. So under communism the economy only provides shelter, clothing and food, water and heating? Beyond mere survival value, humans need inspiration too we are conceptual beings, not animals
less004: Social value is an invalid idea, I think. Can you define it? How do you work out
the value? Values apply to living things and a whole society is not a living thing. It's a number of individuals all making their own value-judgements. Cholera free water is valued by each individual, reflected in the price they pay whether they chose piped supply from a company, bottled water, a well in their yard or a storage tank. Any company selling "cholera" water would soon be out of business.
Technology exists which could put electronic censors under individual paving stones. Perhaps streets should be privatised? We may all walk down the street, but it's up to us which paving stones we tread on. We could hopscotch down the street, choosing the best deal as we go? Or would it be more sensible to accept that we have common needs - shelter, food, water, sanitation etc. Why not have competing fire brigades and then, when your house is on fire, you shop around for the best quote?
less004 "streets privatised" Yes actually. They'd be in better condition for one thing. Like a shopping mall, not everyone is purchasing, some just walk through the mall to get somewhere else, but they are accessible to all. How the owner would fund his street would be up to the free market. Maybe it would be partially advertising, parking fees, what have you. I think freedom solves problems better than the force of government. Commonly held property rots. That's the tragedy of the commons.
Surely, each paving stone could be privately owned by different companies? Each company could charge different rates. So it might take two hours to negotiate the cheapest path down a street which currently only takes two minutes, but, hey, that's the beauty of the "free" market!
less004: "paving stones" Yeah, each stone could be priced that way but I doubt it would be economical to put so many sensors down. Who knows what private roads would look like though. Look at the internet. If the US Military had kept control of it, it would still just be a military network. But freedom has produced so much variety no one predicted anything like it 10 yrs ago.
less004: Currency speculators wouldn't exist in a proper metals backed currency. Consider other speculators. eg Corn. Speculator provides service of hoarding against future drought. Takes big risk because no one knows the future. Purchases product today expecting it will be needed more dearly in the future. If he's right then he profits and has made sure there is no shortage of corn when there is drought. If he's wrong he loses. Without speculator sewer worker starves when there's a disaster.
Capitalism is built on making money from money - usury, to use an old-fashioned word -
and is quasi-religious, placing faith in the "magic" of markets, which are easily distorted for profit. Look at the different responses to two recent disasters : the floods in New Orleans and the earthquake in China. The Chinese rescue effort and rebuilding programme was vastly more efficient because of the (still) centrally planned economy which enabled production in factories to be switched so quickly.
less004: "making money from money" part1. Be clear here, Capitalism is about freedom to trade both property and labour. Proper gold-backed money does not suffer from the 'market magic' you speak of. That is created by paper money which has no value, is printed by government. It is not a capitalist effect. In capitalism, private banks would create the currency in gold coin or notes backed by gold.
less004: "making money from money" part2. One doesn't make money. They lend some gold to someone expecting that he will be able to create something useful which others are willing to pay gold for. The profits need to be able to pay the rental amount on the loan and eventually the principal. At the other end, people are mining for more gold to increase the currency supply. If we run out of gold, then platinum or titanium will suffice, as decided by the private banks. No need for government force
Who decides who qualifies for loans? Who sets the "rental" rate? Who enforces payment?
Who decides what "useful" is? If it's the market, then we're back to a situation where it might be "useful" to do all sorts of things which are clearly harmful and exploitative.
less004 "private banks" Owned by one man, or by shareholders or a worker's cooperative with all of them having shares.All banks were private before the gov't started getting involved. Gov't always diluted the money supply. A loan officer in the bank decides who gets a loan. Each bank sets their own interest rate each competing with each other. The bailiffs enforce payment after a court of law makes a judgement. Useful: name something that is 'useful' and clearly harmful yet is not criminal.
less004 "private banks" Owned by one man, or by shareholders or a worker's cooperative with all of them having shares.All banks were private before the gov't started getting involved. Gov't always diluted the money supply. A loan officer in the bank decides who gets a loan. Each bank sets their own interest rate each competing with each other. The bailiffs enforce payment after a court of law makes a judgement. Useful: name something that is 'useful' and clearly harmful yet is not criminal.
Something which capitalists see as useful, which is harmful yet not illegal? Surely, even from your point of view, the ways in which markets (e.g. pharmaceutical)are deliberately distorted for profit? Having knowingly brought cancer to many millions in the west, the tobacco industry is currently ensuring that many millions of young peole in poor countries are becoming hooked on nicotine. Advertising sells an illusory lifestyle "choice" and then it's profit from misery.
Do you really believe that those who own property (perhaps including workers' houses) and whose "rights" are backed by the full force of the state, are in the same "free" bargaining position as workers who only have their labour to sell? What do you think scabs and blacklegs are - market adjusters?
less004: "scabs and blacklegs" -- sorry don't konw those terms. Why do some workers only have their labour to sell? Can't they improve their skills, can't they save money and improve their lot? In capitalism, yes. Hairdressers do become lawyers, even today in england by hard work. No one worker is not in the same bargaining position with a company that's why you have collective bargaining, if all the workers feel strongly enough to leave it counts more. But they better not use force.
less004: "scabs and blacklegs" -- sorry don't konw those terms. Why do some workers only have their labour to sell? Can't they improve their skills, can't they save money and improve their lot? In capitalism, yes. Hairdressers do become lawyers, even today in england by hard work. No one worker is not in the same bargaining position with a company that's why you have collective bargaining, if all the workers feel strongly enough to leave it counts more. But they better not use force.
less004 "disasters" Man doesn't live in a disaster area. One's political system should cater for man's everyday needs. Sure during an emergency, the military can come in and provide immediate life support as needed but our well being is our responsibility. New Orleans is below sea level, levees were not repaired, blocked by environmental lawsuits. Under federal control instead of locals who would have an interest in keeping them good. False media reports of gunfire at rescuers also contributed.
People are born in all sorts of places. Many simply can't afford to leave. Infrastructure in America (and Britain) is rotting because of lack of government investment. Racism and greed are undoubtedly contributing to how the disaster in New Orleans is being seen as a major opportunity for re-development which will exclude many of the previous poor, black citizens.
less004: I'm gonna have to call it quits here. You've been a gentleman in our discussions, sticking to ideas. I respect that. We disagree but I'm willing to talk again sometime. More than I can say for some of your comrades here.
I've been away. Just working through my messages in order, so only just reached this one. It may be that you see yourself as a libertarian, but the world you envisage is one where everything will have a price and human life will be cheap. I hope you'll look at the EARLY days of the Russian Revolution and see how the Soviet Union tried to move towards a society based on satisfying humnan need rather than seeking profit. Bye.
I feel honored to be the first to watch this video. I am afraid I don't share your point of view on Capitalism, and I'll be glad to elaborate on that when I have the time to do it.
But I like your style very much, so 5 stars anyway! Keep the good work!
Brilliant description to people who just don't understand that they are living underneath a boot. We are all stood upon by Capital, it is evil, yet we tolerate it because we have been taught for generations that it is the only working system. and most of us could not even imagine any other system. Thank you for making this video.
lotrdude327 2 years ago
Yes, Political Correctness went from a despicable tactic of stalin and evil communism to the loved tool of extremist capitalism and classism.
Here in the USA the republican party uses PC to such an extreme it's difficult to listen to them long enough to hear their platform.
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
I have enjoyed discussing with you, but unfortunately I wont' be able to spend much time here for a while. Good luck.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
Thanks. Good luck to you. Hope you don't get squeezed or crunched or whatever fate capitalism has in store for us!
less004 3 years ago
How can variety of item which cannot be classified an being better one over the other exist in a communist state? How can fashion retain it's range of products and how can the food industry produce different types of produce to suit differently oriented individuals? In short, can communism maintain the level of variety that exists in areas of production today, which cannot be classified as being superior and who depend on individual taste?
FreelancerAlpha 3 years ago
Firstly, much of the "variety" in capitalism is an illusion ; sometimes literally the same things in different packaging. Secondly, fashion is both natural and artificial ; the "fashion industry" exists to stimulate constant demand. Thirdly, artists like Kandinsky were inspired by the Russian revolution to design kitchenware for mass production. Fourthly, research, asking people, respnding to requests, trial and error etc. Communism doesn't have to be drab and grey.
less004 3 years ago
Some good points, but I think I'd rather be free to make my own decisions on what to do with the property I do own than be coerced into giving my money to causes I potentially don't believe in in a Communist society. You'll still get ruling classes in that kind of society as well, but with significanlty less freedom. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying things are great, but its as much a function of a confused mixed economy as anything else.
adamwebb1 3 years ago
The ideal is to abolish class. Although this may sound strange, there is a path to a form of anarchism through Communism, but it is through the original communism of Lenin and Trotsky, not Stalinism which western propaganda always portrays as the only and inevitable form of Communism. A truly classless, propertyless society means freedom for the individual and the whole.
less004 3 years ago
So what is the solution? Communism? Either way you slice it someone, somewhere is going to be telling you what you can and can't do. And I personally would rather be able to choose to be a janitor than told I have to be one.
netwolf 3 years ago
Actually, I would envisage some form of anarchism, but one which evolves through a form of Communism. (I know that will seem contradictory if one accepts the nonsense that Stalinism was inevitable. I don't.) Socially necessary work should be shared, rather than some havibg work which they enjoy and others having permanently shit jobs.
less004 3 years ago
Some people go to school, to college and to university to study their ass off to get a good job, while others prefer to hang around at the local mall and get stoned. People are different. They want to be different. A classless society will never happen, because people want to differentiate from others. Even in the animal kingdom there is a hierarchy. People are animals. It's either very arrogant or naive to think we're any different. Communism goes against our basic instincts.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
Do animals have (self) consciousness? Can they plan rationally years ahead? Can they store information and then analyse it? Can they think abstractly? Can they use a wide variety of tools? Yes, there are a few very basic examples of animals exhibiting such behaviour, but the size and functions of our brains are a specific feature of our evolution. This is neither arrogant nor naive. Why don't you favour feudalism? What about those today whose "choices" are thwarted by class and capital?
less004 3 years ago
We don't know if animals have (self) consciousness. It seems that some do, but it's hard to find out. Most animals do plan ahead. They first make a nest, then lay the eggs. They stuff themselves for months, then go into hibernation.
Feudalism makes no sense. In a capitalist system you can be the best you can be. When Hirsi Ali first came to our country, she was a refugee. She worked/studied real hard and eventually became part of our government. In a feudalist system that would be impossible.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
I think my point about the differences between humans and other species remains well-founded. Capitalism was progressive when it overcame feudalism. But, in my opinion, it is no longer progressive. Within any system, especially for those who are doing well (or think they are) it is hard to envisage a better system. For those who are not doing well, (the majority) it is rather easier.
For every "success" story, how many other stories don't have a happy ending?
less004 3 years ago
As much as you may hate capitalism, there's not a single succesful alternative to it.
The Communist Party no longer exists in our country. No members. No people voting for it. Apparently, not even the so-called poor thought it was a good alternative. I think that says it all.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
What it says is that the huge distinctions between what Communism should be and what it became under Stalin have, not surprisingly, not been explained to people in the West. Yes, someone like myself is, at the moment, clearly on the losing side, but that doesn't make the arguments wrong. Western capitalist economies are going to go downhill and, eventually, I think the choice will be between (a form of) Communism or (a form of) barbarism.
less004 3 years ago
People are always open to good ideas, especially when they think they'll benefit from it - it's human nature. So how come it isn't happening? Could it be that the concept of communism just sounds totally unrealistic, even to the poor?
We have multi-party democracy; anyone can start a political party. There is no communist party, but we have the Party For The Animals voted into the government, an animal rights party. There's plenty of opportunity for communistic ideas, but it isn't happening.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
The situation varies in different countries, but two things seem common. Firstly, the continued rise of single issue politics, which lack a coherent overview. Secondly, the rise of irrationality, (religion being the most obvious example). The irrationality of the free market system is a fertile breeding ground for irrational ideas. For obvious reasons, the capitalists have done their best to brand Communism as inevitably Stalinist and then to declare Marxism dead. History will decide.
less004 3 years ago
I don't know what's irrational about the free market system, and apparently most people don't. Blaming capitalists on branding communism as Stalinist is not very strong, is it? Why are you and your communist friends so silent? Why aren't your ideas convincing enough for people to believe in communism? Is it all because of the capitalist conspiracy? Why is it that in my country people think it makes more sense to vote for an animal rights party than a communist party?
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
An example of irrationality? Dumping food to keep profits high which people starve. Or the fact that, in Britain, many people will only be able to afford to buy a home if prices continue to fall sharply, in which case many others will then lose their homes. Surprisingly, that nice Rupert Murdoch doesn't publish a sufficiently wide range of views to include ours and the increasingly commercialised TV stations find that their advertisers and sponsors aren't keen on us either. Can't think why.
less004 3 years ago
What exactly makes you think capitalist economies are going downhill? And why the black and white viewpoint? Communism or barbarism, is that really all you can think of?
If you have a great idea, people will listen. Especially the people that will benefit in your utopia. Yet nothing happens.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
The rise of China and India will cause major upheavals ; the West is losing its supply of cheap energy. I said the future will tend towards some form of Communism or barbarism. Because of the contradictions which you don't recognise. Although it's trivial, Betamax was a technically superior system to VHS, but VHS grabbed sufficient market share to force a monopoly. It's unprovable and silly, but, if the world's media switched to a Communist message, there would be considerable receptivity.
less004 3 years ago
I'm not denying there are some major changes awaiting us, it's obvious.
Betamax and Video 2000 lost the battle in the video rental stores, because VHS had porn. It's the people that chose VHS. To suggest that a monopoly was forced upon the people is not being truthful.
Blaming the media is not very strong.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
The monopoloy came about because a "tipping point" was reached. Capitalism tends towards monopoly as competitors try to eliminate each other. I'm not blaming the media as an entire explanation, but surely you would accept that the media has an in-built ideological bias? How could it not?
less004 3 years ago
You got things mixed up. The 'tipping point' was still caused by the people preferring porn over regular movies. Don't blame the companies for giving the people what they want.
To claim that capitalism tends towards monopoly is confusing. Companies do try to eliminate each other, but as they do, new ones emerge. It is in communism where there is no competition and monopolies thrive.
Of course the media are biased - they've always been. They're run by people, and people are biased.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
My point about a "tipping point" is that companies aim to wipe each other out and superior products and technologies can be wiped out with them. I don't think thst's rational, but you assume that the market always makes the right decision. Isn't that a bit like believing in God? The media is run by people with an agenda who employ those who share that agenda. It's hardly haphazard.
less004 3 years ago
Companies do aim to wipe each other out most of the time and superior products/technologies can be wiped out with them, but as the video example shows, people don't always care if there's a better product/technology. Fashion is another good example. What's hip and trendy hardly ever is the best there is; people willingly choose the inferior alternative, because it makes them feel better. That emotional component is highly underestimated in communism.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
Aha! We agree! I think, (and here I differ from most Communists I know) that the subjective element of dialectics (and real life) is badly underestimated within historical Marxism. But there is such a thing as the fashion industry and like all capitalist industries, its aim is profitable expansion.
less004 3 years ago
And profitable expansion is evil? A company that makes a profit is very likely to grow and invest even more in the economy. By hiring more people for instance. Companies that are not doing well, stop, and the people end up without jobs. In communism there is no unemployment because six people are doing the work that one person can do.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
Apply your argment to the arms industry, which is one of the major industries. It must increase sales to increase profits. How's it going to do that? I think we both know.
less004 3 years ago
That the media are run by people with an agenda sounds pretty paranoia to me again, but maybe you mean people with a plan, like all companies have. That they employ people that share the same values/beliefs/etc. is also hardly surprising. Would the communist party employ capitalists?
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
That's what I mean. It's not paranoia - it's simply obvious that a capitalist media corporation will employ those who share and propagate a capitalist viewpoint.
less004 3 years ago
Right, just as obvious that a communist party will employ those who share and propagate a communist viewpoint. It goes both ways.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
Not quite. Two important differences : firstly, unlike the capitalist media, a genuinely Communist media (obviously not Stalinist) would make its own ideological position and interest clear. How often do caitalist media ever even mention capitalism? Their intention is to create the impression that capitalism is as natural as rain. Secondly, oppositional points of view would be admitted - rather more than they are now.
less004 3 years ago
Very interesting and an EXTREMELY important argument to elaborate on. Keeping in mind that Capitalism is opening up to the "magical wonder" of Globalisation which in turn is creating an ever increasing cold and harsh "iron curtain" between the rich and the working class. Good video, keep it up!
Torchmark 3 years ago
"The "market incentive" in New Orleans is for luxury housing developments and"
Uh, no...the market incentive is that everyone pursues their self-interest and this does not imply only "luxury housing developments. Really is New Orleans really that empty of a city to value only "luxury housing developments."
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Try living in the real world. The authorities and developers in New Orleans are seizing the "opportunity" for some socio-economic engineering. Plans for re-development don't include re-building homes for poor people who used to live in some areas ; they do include luxury housing for those who wish to move into what will be a whiter area. Meanwhile, many of the poorest, (mostly black) people are "pursuing their self-interest" in misery and poverty elsewhere, unable to return to New Orleans.
less004 3 years ago
"A combination of market forces and racism doomed many poor black people in New Orleans and continues to doom so many around the world."
Capitalism may allow racism but it does not create racism. (And state intervention clearly isn't stopping it either) If your so worried about racism, then deal with the racists....not abstractions.
The market incentives would not encourage racism since business owners wouldn't profit as much for being a racist.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Capitalism encourages racism, (as one means of
dividing people) through wage differentials, lack of social provision, competition and trade wars. The effects are concrete, not abstract. The ranks of active racists, (who, I agree, must be dealt with) are always swelled by worsening material conditions. The "market incentive" in New Orleans is for luxury housing developments and, let me make a wild guess, maybe the displaced poor black people from New Orleans aren't the intended recipients?
less004 3 years ago
You get paid on your productivity. If black people accept a job at a lower wage, the incentives would be for the business owner to hire them and fire the others. A racist would have to act in non-accordance with the market incentives in order to keep on being a racist. He would lose potential profit. Capitalism is the opponent of racism. And remember......the state is what upheld racism in this country for so long.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
slavery I mean
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
In the pursuit of profit.
less004 3 years ago
Yesterday, you said "Capitalism may allow racism...." Today, "Capitalism is the opponent of racism." There are some jobs no-one would really want to do. If capitalism "liberates" people, who will do these jobs and what's their motive? It can't be for the common good - that's socialist, (and, presumably abstract in your view) so would it be reward or fear? Currently, vital work (e.g. sewage) or "caring" work (e.g. nursing) is low-paid. Why? Could it be fear of poverty, homelessness etc.?
less004 3 years ago
The state which upheld racism / slavery was and is a capitalist state.
less004 3 years ago
The only states which are successful in abolishing slavery are capitalist states.
Lagwagon555 3 years ago
Can you explain this comment?
less004 3 years ago
Ok, "call it quits" but you havent convinced me of anything...or disproved anything I have said.
You are so disconnected from reality zardozcs, you even said "factories employed children to save them from starving to death, because of high mortality rates" thats not only irrational, it is hilarious.
When writing that comment you didnt even bother to consider the reasons why the children at this time in America, where starving to death. Because if you did your arguement would have crumbled.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
In America, especially, the ideological heirs to Milton Friedman and co. seem to regard the market as a moral force and historical fact is re-interpreted in that light. A combination of market forces and racism doomed many poor black people in New Orleans and continues to doom so many around the world.
less004 3 years ago
His mission has been to destroy American social institutions, look at what he has done to Social Security...or take say the U.S medical system.
Americas pay more for healthcare than any other Western nation on the planet. The U.S is also ranked lowest in the Western Hemisphere for healthcare overall, infact the child mortality rate in America is even higher than Cuba.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
Exactly! The government de-regulated the housing market, allowing any hobo on the street to get a loan for a home.
Bush, Americas current President...is from the capitalist elite, and represents the capitalist elite.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
Children where not slaves? Wrong...they where very much slaves, wage slaves.
They had the choice of working 24/7 in a factory, or starving on the street, and that is actually NOT a choice in my opinion.
Also why where child mortality rates so high during this time? Because of the massive national poverty, wealth was immesnely concentrated during this time...and few social instituions existed to creat a livable enviorment for the poor.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
Your ignorance is amazing. So I assume the unemployment caused by Roosevelts reforms was what ended the great depression? Employment was at a all time high during the Roosevelt era you moron, before he was elected President and implemented regulation & reform....95% of Americans where waiting in massive lines by the soup kitchen.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
People in Russia havent lived this bad since, the times of the Czar! Only recently through some of the re-adoption of a few socialist principles by Putin, have we begun to recover
...and look how much the West hates him for it.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
You should come over here to Russia, and see what capitalism has done to my country. During the USSR, the PBPL(population below the the poverty line) was below 1%, far ahead of almost every country in the West. Everyone here had employment, housing, free educayion, medical treatment ect. Now through privatization, and "capitalist reform" we have been driven right back into the 3rd world.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
Yes, the "shock treatment" recommended by Western bankers should be viewed as a crime and the "ologarchs" who stole the country's wealth should be seen as criminals, not feted as shrewd business people and, even, celebrities.
less004 3 years ago
You should watch the video I sent you yesterday zardozcs...
Also if your claim that regulation is bad, is correct...Why is it that countries with the highest HDI(Human Development Index) are those with the most government involvement in the economy.
For example take say, Iceland of Denmark...these are the two happiest countries on the planet, is it a cowincidence that these two countries have the least disparities in wealth around the world?
wnxsilence 3 years ago
Every acheivment by the working class to create a livable enviorment was ripped right out of the greedy hands of the capitalist elite.
De-regulation going on in the U.S is the reason your economy is going down, 5,000 Americans lose their homes to forclosure weekly....I'm sure you are not enjoying your Economic recession, and 9 trillion national deficit in the U.S
wnxsilence 3 years ago
wnxsilence: "de-regulation is reason people losing homes". First, US is not my economy I don't live there. No, FNMA and FDMC gov't programs made it easy for people who could not afford to buy houses buy houses. When reality caught up decades later up they still couldn't afford the houses. Only the banks were blamed for the gov'ts problem. People who can't afford a house voluntarily chose to enter a gov't scam. And sure some loan officers gave fraudulent loans.
zardozcs 3 years ago
Given that America is the wealthiest nation in the world, the state of health care available to so many millions of its people should be seen as a disgrace.
less004 3 years ago
It was the reforming of the banking system, the implementation of market regulation and other changes made in the Roosevelt Era/1930's that stopped the Great Depression.
If it wasnt for "goverrnment control over the economy" you would be living just like Americans did before the 1930's, or how Indonesians, Africans and the rest of the capitalist world does now.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
wnxsilence: Great Depression. Caused by gov't control of the money supply in form of Federal reserve. More people unemployed after roosevelt's new deal passed. Go read some economics books.
zardozcs 3 years ago
The "free market" is anarchic. Any group of capitalist economists will offer different technical analyses and different solutions to problems. The Marxist perspective is that capitalism is doomed by its inherent contradictions - put simply, the mass of people will always be exploited in order to generate wealth for the few.
less004 3 years ago
Yes, it is interesting to note how even the current Bush administration is being forced into measures to prop up the mortgage and housing markets which are very much state interventionist. In Britain, the approach is to privatise profits while nationalising risks and losses.
less004 3 years ago
What needs to happen is a separation of government and economy just like church and state. That's what Capitalism is, not the mixed hybrid system in the US, UK
=========
That is a ridiculous notion. Lets ask ourselves how the U.S, and U.K where doing before the workers finally demanded government regulation? 3rd world hell-holes with child-labor, and massively concentrated wealth.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
wnxsilence: factories gave work to children that would otherwise have died. Remember child mortality rates. They saved their lives from certain death. Children were not compelled to work in factories they were not slaves. They were sent by their family so they wouldn't starve to death. First child labour law was against chimney sweeps, not factories. First factory act was against those sold into virtual slavery in PARISH houses - gov't control.
zardozcs 3 years ago
Subscribed!
nuclearnight 3 years ago
Before the labor movement the West. America, Britain, France ect where all 3rd world hell hole of child labor & massively concentrated wealth and no workers rights. It is because of the struggle against capitalism in many countries in the West, that the disparities in wealth have been reduced.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
Yes, every gain for the working class has been through struggle. The ruling class are interested only in the accumulation of wealth and never willingly give amything away, least of all power.
less004 3 years ago
less004: "ruling class power" Sure, that's what happens when the government has control over the economy. What needs to happen is a separation of government and economy just like church and state. That's what Capitalism is, not the mixed hybrid system in the US, UK, Canada, etc If gov't cannot affect the free market then it cannot be bribed by special interests.
zardozcs 3 years ago
I assume you're a"free market libertarian"? Are you suggresting some sort of Year Zero when everything starts again and everyone is on an equal footing or would we start from where we are with enormousl differences in wealth and resources?
less004 3 years ago
Have you asked yourself why the U.K, or even U.S do not have the standards of living of 95%of capitalist nations? Why don't the Americans live in poverty, and work 24 hours a day?
For one thing it has been the use of violence & imperialism to secure a dominant position over the geo-political arena. But it is also because the class struggle has advanced to a more favorable level.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
You should think about the 5 year old children in Indonesia working 24/7 in the sweatshops who made that Keyboard you are using to defend & praise capitalism.
Your notion that the free-market will meet the needs of the people is irrational, if your arguement was correct millions of people would not be starving in poverty around the world because in capitalism.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
I disagree with the points you just made zardozcs
First you said this "If he's wrong he loses. Without speculator sewer worker starves when there's a disaster." Which is obviously ridiculous, we all saw how capitalism helped the people of New Orleans...even now in 2008 the area is STILL a disaster zone.
Socialism brought the people of China para-troopers with bags full of supplies hours after the recent Sichuan Earth-Quake, which by the way was a FAR worse disaster than New Orleans.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
Yes. I wonder what zardozcs thinks about inherited wealth - how is this earned and how does it benefit society? Similarly, what does he think about the oligarchs in Russia who have stolen the wealth already created by the workers?
less004 3 years ago
less004: "inherited wealth" It's earned by the person giving the wealth away -- he worked his whole life and after all that still had something left over. Isn't it nice that your father loves you enough to give you his life's work, instead of his mistress, or the Communist party? This benefits the heir, who then spends the money, employing people, or he invests it, creating jobs for people.
zardozcs 3 years ago
Jobs are created for profit, not as acts of benevolence. All land was originally "owned" by violence. Is this legitimate? If so, can't it be taken back by violence?
less004 3 years ago
wnxsilence: "speculator + china disaster" Nice taking my points out of context. Was talking about crop failure. There are many factors which contributed to New Orleans, some I listed. I was in China at the time of earthquake. State TV laid a massive guilt trip on everyone else for 3 days. Socialism also gives them executions for speaking against the gov't. And the one child law means many family trees are now wiped out forever in that region. There was much criticism of the gov'e about that.
zardozcs 3 years ago
"Socialism" doesn't require state murder (executions). The fact that it happens in China is a reason for political (rather than economic) change there.
less004 3 years ago
by the way, i dont think using terminology like "Stalinism" is the best way to discuss this. It simply doesnt exist. Stalin pursued Marxism-Leninism untill the end. The USSR had to change itself towards more efficiency to face the imperialists. And in that way it became the same as the capitalists in the end. You can say that the biggest mistake of the Stalin era was the lack of revolutionary education, this could have saved the revolution instead of the hammering on material goals only.
Okhlopkov 3 years ago
"Isms" are problematic, as is personalising history, but I think Lenin's warning about Stalin and the ideological (rather than bureaucratic) struggle with Trotsky indicates a break from Marxism-Leninism. I don't accept the Soviet Union became capitalist till much later. I welcomed Glasnost, but not Perestroika and saw Yeltsin as openly counter-revolutionary ; till then, the Soviet Union still had a centrally planned economy, collective property and capitalists couldn't organise politically.
less004 3 years ago
The anti-imperialist struggle is waged most efficient with a powerful state/army. Not with a strongly decentralized state and with the power fully in the hands of the workers. Thats the dilemma for the revolution, it was like that in the USSR and its like that everywhere else. In order to defend yourself best u go for efficiency instead of pure communism. Stalin's mistake wasnt that he "abandoned" revolution, he had to wage the anti-imperialist struggle to the max in order to save the revolution
Okhlopkov 3 years ago
Yes, there will always be that dilemna. One aspect of dialectics which, I think, is not considered enough is the subjective element. One of the reasons for bureaucratisation in the early Soviet Union was simply that, after so much fighting and economic hardship, people were exhausted. Historical conditions must vary, but it seems to me that spreading the Revolution abroad will always be the best way of protecting it at home.
less004 3 years ago
The problem with that notion is that Socialism in one country was nessesary according to the objective conditions at that time. There was no revolution breaking out in the west so they had to fight capitalism/imperialism by themselves. And by doing that struggle most efficient, it means that u have to centralize more, and create a strong state and army. This leads to a loss of the revolutionary cause in the end (ideologically).
Okhlopkov 3 years ago
I agree completely that a major reason for the bureaucratic degeneration in the Soviet Union was the constant external pressure, both military and economic, but, after Lenin's death, there were clear differences between factions led by Stalin and those of Trotsky. Stalin's regime began to betray Communist causes in other countries in order to try appease the capitalists who would, of course, never be appeased.
less004 3 years ago
I have come to conclusion that for Socialist revolution to be possible it must occur in the most powerful nations, in the center of capitalism. Or on a global scale, otherwise it will have little hope of success.
Like I said education is the key for which the proletarian will free itself from its chains, and unite.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
I agree. Communism must be internationalist rather than the Stalinist perspective of "Socialism in one country".
less004 3 years ago
We see similar trends all over the world, Nicaragua is now in shambles from decades of U.S sponsored terrorist war, as is Guatemala and countless other South American nations whose people dare rise up, Vietnam was literally flatened from years of bombing & and genocide by the West, Korea was divided leaving the North isolated and surrounded by hostile forces making domestic progress impossible
wnxsilence 3 years ago
There are very few countries in which America has not planted its miltary bases and / or its covert operations designed to install "friendly" regimes. As the Sandinista government discovered, it is never possible to appease American imperialism which is determined to "save" people from themselves, even if it means killing them all.
less004 3 years ago
My country was invaded several times by the west, not only during WWII by the Germans, but even directly after the October Revolution in 1917, the Americans & British sent troops to smother our revolution, and re-install the Czar as dictator.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
External pressure was one reason why the Revolution began to degenerate. The west never stopped its attempts to destabilise the Soviet Union. For example, both Solidarity in Poland, (the only union liked by Reagan and Thatcher) and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan were funded by the C.I.A.
less004 3 years ago
I agree, and keep in mind the capitalists always make the anti-socialist arguement of "genuine communism goes against human nature".
In reality it is the opposite, capitalism degrades everyone to wage slavery where all creativity is lost and the worker becomes a mere screw in the clockwork.
Unfortunately where ever the face of genuine freedom & liberty dare show its face around the world, it can expect its head to be immediately chopped off by American/Western imperialism.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
Yes, the capitalist argument is that human nature is essentially bad and must be restrained, whereas communists believe that, with rationally planned material conditions, people are enormously creative, productive and social beings.
less004 3 years ago
At last! Normal teaching in Youtube!
Well done!
TrueCommunist 3 years ago 2
i like your style comrade, very nice video! keep up the good work!
Okhlopkov 3 years ago
5 stars.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
Another excellent video, well done! I am going to subscribe.
Capitalism is truely a destructive system that has enslaved humanity. Our dear planet has more than enough recources to sustain a comfortable life for all of its inhabitants, the fact that most of humanity is impoverished is unexcusable.
The proletarian must unite, we must all work to educate the masses, for ignorance is one of many tools the capitalists use to opress their slaves.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
Similar to another comment. Disagree with your message but your speaking style is catchy.
One glaring error is "the only way to make a profit is to pay your workers less than their labour is worth" This is wrong. The way to make a profit is for your selling price to exceed your costs. If your wage costs are high yes you want to lower them but you can only lower them so far before people leave to other jobs. Free market can't stop them from leaving. In the absence of wage controls wages=value
zardozcs 3 years ago
Wage costs are a major factor for most businesses. What can stop workers leaving low-paid jobs is that state benefits aren't available if you leave work "voluntarily", that, for many people, the only other available work is also low-paid, (many people in Britain work below the minimum wage) and landlords and shopkeepers aren't interested in whether you're paid a decent wage, they just want their slice of it. The market is "free" for capital, but not for labour.
less004 3 years ago
Minimum wage is a wage control which puts people out of work. Obviously if the job isn't worth minimum wage the job doesn't happen, even if someone was willing to work at that wage level. Benefits used to be known as savings and charity (from family or friends) But since gov't inflates the money savings lose their value. A free market requires hard backed money as well - gold, silver. Excessive gov't regulations make it difficult for new businesses to start which might employ more ppl.
zardozcs 3 years ago
Clearly, you approve of a "free" capitalist market. We have major differences which are hard to address briefly. Capitalist markets are anarchic, in the sense of being chaotic. Wages bear no relation to the social value of the job. An example : if no-one worked the water and sewage system, (literally a shit job) then, amongst many others, the currency speculator would die of cholera. Which job is more valuableand who is better rewarded? Does this make any kind of sense?
less004 3 years ago
less004: "differences hard to address briefly"
Yes, you're right, I can only hope to bring to light some of the more common misconceptions about capitalism here so that's what I'll do. I'm interested in technical details of 'communism' because people have said Soviet Union is not communism but I'm at a loss to see why not and no one seems to back that with explanation. Box is getting small here so next point in another comment...
zardozcs 3 years ago
True communism involves political power moving from the bottom upwards, collectivised property forms and a centrally planned economy. Production is on the basis of need rather than profit. People are individuals, of course, but exist within a wider social context in which the well-being of others is a real concern. Under constant attack, both military and economic, from its inception, the Soviet Union degenerated under Stalin.
less004 3 years ago
less004 "production on the basis of need"
But this is an impossible thing to assess. Humans are not omniscient and there is no way a limited number of economy planners could possibly determine everyone's 'needs' Even if you tried to use computers and have everyone submit 'what they needed right now' to some massive system, everyone would ask for the world. Profits provide the means of judging what is needed by the people most in touch with what they need. Spending on X deprives product Y.
zardozcs 3 years ago
There's a clear difference between "need" and "want". Human needs, such as shelter, clothing, food, water, heating etc. have not been met for many while others have every possible "wish" or "want" catered for. Indeed, the advertising indistry depends on creating "wants" rather than satisfying needs.
less004 3 years ago
less004: "need and want" If you look at the figures though you'll find that those doing without shelter food and clothing decreases in the more free market countries than the ones with governments which are absolutely corrupt (Africa) As I said elsewhere, America and Britain: countries where the 'poor' are obese. So under communism the economy only provides shelter, clothing and food, water and heating? Beyond mere survival value, humans need inspiration too we are conceptual beings, not animals
zardozcs 3 years ago
less004: "need and want" If you look at the figures though you'll find that those doing without shelter food and clothing decreases in the more free market countries than the ones with governments which are absolutely corrupt (Africa) As I said elsewhere, America and Britain: countries where the 'poor' are obese. So under communism the economy only provides shelter, clothing and food, water and heating? Beyond mere survival value, humans need inspiration too we are conceptual beings, not animals
zardozcs 3 years ago
less004: Social value is an invalid idea, I think. Can you define it? How do you work out
the value? Values apply to living things and a whole society is not a living thing. It's a number of individuals all making their own value-judgements. Cholera free water is valued by each individual, reflected in the price they pay whether they chose piped supply from a company, bottled water, a well in their yard or a storage tank. Any company selling "cholera" water would soon be out of business.
zardozcs 3 years ago
Technology exists which could put electronic censors under individual paving stones. Perhaps streets should be privatised? We may all walk down the street, but it's up to us which paving stones we tread on. We could hopscotch down the street, choosing the best deal as we go? Or would it be more sensible to accept that we have common needs - shelter, food, water, sanitation etc. Why not have competing fire brigades and then, when your house is on fire, you shop around for the best quote?
less004 3 years ago
less004 "streets privatised" Yes actually. They'd be in better condition for one thing. Like a shopping mall, not everyone is purchasing, some just walk through the mall to get somewhere else, but they are accessible to all. How the owner would fund his street would be up to the free market. Maybe it would be partially advertising, parking fees, what have you. I think freedom solves problems better than the force of government. Commonly held property rots. That's the tragedy of the commons.
zardozcs 3 years ago
Surely, each paving stone could be privately owned by different companies? Each company could charge different rates. So it might take two hours to negotiate the cheapest path down a street which currently only takes two minutes, but, hey, that's the beauty of the "free" market!
less004 3 years ago
less004: "paving stones" Yeah, each stone could be priced that way but I doubt it would be economical to put so many sensors down. Who knows what private roads would look like though. Look at the internet. If the US Military had kept control of it, it would still just be a military network. But freedom has produced so much variety no one predicted anything like it 10 yrs ago.
zardozcs 3 years ago
less004: Currency speculators wouldn't exist in a proper metals backed currency. Consider other speculators. eg Corn. Speculator provides service of hoarding against future drought. Takes big risk because no one knows the future. Purchases product today expecting it will be needed more dearly in the future. If he's right then he profits and has made sure there is no shortage of corn when there is drought. If he's wrong he loses. Without speculator sewer worker starves when there's a disaster.
zardozcs 3 years ago
Capitalism is built on making money from money - usury, to use an old-fashioned word -
and is quasi-religious, placing faith in the "magic" of markets, which are easily distorted for profit. Look at the different responses to two recent disasters : the floods in New Orleans and the earthquake in China. The Chinese rescue effort and rebuilding programme was vastly more efficient because of the (still) centrally planned economy which enabled production in factories to be switched so quickly.
less004 3 years ago
less004: "making money from money" part1. Be clear here, Capitalism is about freedom to trade both property and labour. Proper gold-backed money does not suffer from the 'market magic' you speak of. That is created by paper money which has no value, is printed by government. It is not a capitalist effect. In capitalism, private banks would create the currency in gold coin or notes backed by gold.
zardozcs 3 years ago
less004: "making money from money" part2. One doesn't make money. They lend some gold to someone expecting that he will be able to create something useful which others are willing to pay gold for. The profits need to be able to pay the rental amount on the loan and eventually the principal. At the other end, people are mining for more gold to increase the currency supply. If we run out of gold, then platinum or titanium will suffice, as decided by the private banks. No need for government force
zardozcs 3 years ago
Who is going to run these "private banks"?
Who decides who qualifies for loans? Who sets the "rental" rate? Who enforces payment?
Who decides what "useful" is? If it's the market, then we're back to a situation where it might be "useful" to do all sorts of things which are clearly harmful and exploitative.
less004 3 years ago
less004 "private banks" Owned by one man, or by shareholders or a worker's cooperative with all of them having shares.All banks were private before the gov't started getting involved. Gov't always diluted the money supply. A loan officer in the bank decides who gets a loan. Each bank sets their own interest rate each competing with each other. The bailiffs enforce payment after a court of law makes a judgement. Useful: name something that is 'useful' and clearly harmful yet is not criminal.
zardozcs 3 years ago
less004 "private banks" Owned by one man, or by shareholders or a worker's cooperative with all of them having shares.All banks were private before the gov't started getting involved. Gov't always diluted the money supply. A loan officer in the bank decides who gets a loan. Each bank sets their own interest rate each competing with each other. The bailiffs enforce payment after a court of law makes a judgement. Useful: name something that is 'useful' and clearly harmful yet is not criminal.
zardozcs 3 years ago
Something which capitalists see as useful, which is harmful yet not illegal? Surely, even from your point of view, the ways in which markets (e.g. pharmaceutical)are deliberately distorted for profit? Having knowingly brought cancer to many millions in the west, the tobacco industry is currently ensuring that many millions of young peole in poor countries are becoming hooked on nicotine. Advertising sells an illusory lifestyle "choice" and then it's profit from misery.
less004 3 years ago
Do you really believe that those who own property (perhaps including workers' houses) and whose "rights" are backed by the full force of the state, are in the same "free" bargaining position as workers who only have their labour to sell? What do you think scabs and blacklegs are - market adjusters?
less004 3 years ago
less004: "scabs and blacklegs" -- sorry don't konw those terms. Why do some workers only have their labour to sell? Can't they improve their skills, can't they save money and improve their lot? In capitalism, yes. Hairdressers do become lawyers, even today in england by hard work. No one worker is not in the same bargaining position with a company that's why you have collective bargaining, if all the workers feel strongly enough to leave it counts more. But they better not use force.
zardozcs 3 years ago
less004: "scabs and blacklegs" -- sorry don't konw those terms. Why do some workers only have their labour to sell? Can't they improve their skills, can't they save money and improve their lot? In capitalism, yes. Hairdressers do become lawyers, even today in england by hard work. No one worker is not in the same bargaining position with a company that's why you have collective bargaining, if all the workers feel strongly enough to leave it counts more. But they better not use force.
zardozcs 3 years ago
less004 "disasters" Man doesn't live in a disaster area. One's political system should cater for man's everyday needs. Sure during an emergency, the military can come in and provide immediate life support as needed but our well being is our responsibility. New Orleans is below sea level, levees were not repaired, blocked by environmental lawsuits. Under federal control instead of locals who would have an interest in keeping them good. False media reports of gunfire at rescuers also contributed.
zardozcs 3 years ago
People are born in all sorts of places. Many simply can't afford to leave. Infrastructure in America (and Britain) is rotting because of lack of government investment. Racism and greed are undoubtedly contributing to how the disaster in New Orleans is being seen as a major opportunity for re-development which will exclude many of the previous poor, black citizens.
less004 3 years ago
less004: I'm gonna have to call it quits here. You've been a gentleman in our discussions, sticking to ideas. I respect that. We disagree but I'm willing to talk again sometime. More than I can say for some of your comrades here.
zardozcs 3 years ago
I've been away. Just working through my messages in order, so only just reached this one. It may be that you see yourself as a libertarian, but the world you envisage is one where everything will have a price and human life will be cheap. I hope you'll look at the EARLY days of the Russian Revolution and see how the Soviet Union tried to move towards a society based on satisfying humnan need rather than seeking profit. Bye.
less004 3 years ago
I love your videos :)
My favorite line from this is "if you don't learn from history, you'll be held back in class" very nice indeed :)
DoctorWho723 3 years ago
Hi, Mark.
I feel honored to be the first to watch this video. I am afraid I don't share your point of view on Capitalism, and I'll be glad to elaborate on that when I have the time to do it.
But I like your style very much, so 5 stars anyway! Keep the good work!
FightBadIdeas 3 years ago