Slavoj Zizek on why he is a communist but not a socialist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Slavoj Zizek clarifies what he means when he says that he is a communist, using the term as a placeholder for a radical reimagination of how to structure society.
Get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt by clicking on the link on the channel.
Well the video is halfway through, basically his definition of being communist means supporting a global approach in the sight of the global problems, that market nor individual states are capable of addressing properly. It kinda reminds a bit of what UN is about, but not quite the same.
So like world economic forum. Ya no thanks
Well except that the UN has absolutely no power to enact anything (unless its in very poor and weak countries) as we have seen in the case of Gaza, where one big country, the US, totally derails every resolution the UN makes.
Yeah, EVERYONE says "When I do communism, it'll be done right" ... No! communism always fails.... there's a100 million graves to prove it
WEF is not as helpful as it should be
@@diazalex5314 in my opinion it is working exactly as intended. For the super rich elites. Much the same way communism failed because of psychopathology and narcissistic greed.
He is not condemning socialism as a principle here, more complaining that the term is being over/misused in modern discourse. I would say his views are and have always been essentially socialist and he would as well.
Yeah
if you read his book "From tragedy to farce" he criticises exactly socialism, not just the way the word is used today. Communists and socialists are very different, Marx himself marked the distinction.
@@salvatoreammassari1235it's a bit more complicated than that. I mean Marx was part of the sdp whitch is a democratic socalist party. And even Lenin was part of the Russian socal democratic labor party.
This is a fake AI video using Zizek´s face. Where´s the snifing sounds?
😂
You amuse yourself so easily. Bunch of five year olds. EVERY VIDEO "Isn't it hilarious guys, isn't it funny he talks funny, perhaps he should stop sniffing 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂"
@@yoelcharjo651yes. And?
@@claypunk it's boring
@@claypunk and frankly cringe and embarrassing
Here comes every Ayn Rand enthusiast to try and spell out why free market is double good using only crayons
He's right, we need a single leader to take charge and lead us into a brighter age, it's time for monarchs to return
@@fearthedeerreckmon8741yea dictators worked out so well last century... people need to become Christian again, and then monarchy will return naturally.
@@fearthedeerreckmon8741based feudalist
@@fearthedeerreckmon8741 Trump should be king.
@@Beegeezy144 There is everyone to choose from and you chose Trump😂 Zizek hinself is a million times better choice
Is he sitting on a throne?
I believe they are just the chairs in the Cambridge Union
as he should
After all, he is the king of communism ;)
Monarchist Zizek exposed
He had better be!
For a bold thinker, that sure is a lazy description of Socialism.
He's explaining the misconstrued definition of socialism that many people believe
@@sarimsalman2698 He left out socialist elites living large while the rest live like shit and how it always devolves into violence and bloodshed because maintaining the system requires tyranny, authoritarianism, and militarism. Of course, this man would one of the intellectual elites who'd have to be a lapdog to the ideology because there's no real diversion in these societies. The Nordic countries are not true socialist states.
@@sarimsalman2698You mean like Zizek himself? Last I’ve checked, supporting the liberals in destroying Yugoslavia is far worse than the Titoist revisionism and not communist.
How anyone can listen to a self described “Hegelian Marxist” and think it isn’t opportunism is beyond me.
@@azrieldawson7377 He's definitely an opportunist, I'm just talking about what he's saying right now
@@sarimsalman2698 that’s fair tbh
This comment section makes me lose hope
Looking for hope in RUclips comment sections is like looking for a long term partner at a club
@@carpathianhermit7228 fair enough
@@theeyebro hairy muff indeed
Quite the insightful take my man, maybe elaborate a bit more next time instead of speaking in cliches 🤷♂️
@@carpathianhermit7228great analogy
Any liberal international organization that tries to create some order between states fits into this definition of communism. In this sense communism could be simplified with "common matters".
When "common matters" can be used as an excuse to launder millions of dollars to a foreign country, then it’s communism. The people didn't consent to that.
Whats the point in bringing up Fukushima? That was kinda a freak accident, no political system would've been able to prevent/predict it.
Bringing up nuclear disasters as an argument for communism is also pretty bold in the first place (glass houses and all).
well capitalism in the pursuit of profit didn't build sufficient safety measures to protect the reactor causing a near meltdown.
and they didn't build those safety measures because not building them granted higher profits.
Fukushima as a result was the result of capitalism.
@@owenbelezos8369Bro just described described Chernobyl 💀
@@nated2115 true the ussr was state capitalist [where the government is in control of the means of production]
and because the government isn't the workers, it will be affected by the profit motive.
ruclips.net/p/PLvwoHdNGq9wVy-iR1oHJKoJY2lh6ypXKZ
communism can only be achieved through anarchism:
ruclips.net/video/sMoTWFZjoYA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/L68a6mIP09E/видео.html
He was not talking about the accident, but rather how both the private market and the government failed to properly fix the damage.
@@owenbelezos8369Looking at the communist system.... Chernobyl had reaction arresting rods that both the people who manufactured the rods, and those who fitted and maintained them knew were manufactured improperly, and would not only fail to halt the reaction, but would act as a catalyst to it, and had informed the authorities, and yet nothing was done.
This is actually so true, so on and so on
Etcshhhhhetera
What a whole load of nothing.
I'm a Communist in a sense that is entirely irrelevant of Communism. Nice.
Exactly lol
omg this is just a short. Read one of his book and you'll realise he really is a communist
He is clear and confused at the same time and sometimes in the same sentense
Dude, like... I don't know. Can't understand a single idea that You have. They all seem like Loony Toons to me. But for God's sake, can't You at least get some tissues to wipe your nose?
What is this, 2023? Needs more cuts and BGM to overpower the content entirely, preferably within 2 secs total
yeah well no shit in an ideal society where everyone works towards the common good we'd all be happier... too bad people just do not care
Too bad greed is as fundamental an emotion as any other.
To think people would value strangers at the same level as their family members when times get rough is naive at best. Imagine a farmer tending to crops, If my main prerogative is to feed my family why would I then give rations out equally when I have a starving household? I'd skim off the top. Now imagine a laborer, why would I work harder, give more effort if I'd only be fed the same, rewarded the same as the most incompetent worker? I'd take every opportunity to do the bare minimum.
People will always look after themselves and their families first for as long as resources are scarce (forever). It's just fact and is only one of the many reasons communism makes for an unstable society.
Communists are idealists, which just translates into them being naive. Don't wish the world was different, except what it is.
@@oronk60prove greed is a fundamental emotion and not attributed to material factors, then you can say that communists are idealists.
@@pioxels2311 Greed, envy, competition goes back to our evolution. It's not going anywhere no matter what system you're under. People will always be greedy and envious. If your system doesn't account for that then it's naive, idealistic, and will fail.
Good thing we live in a complex system that doesn't crumble as soon as someone stops being naively altruistic.
@@oronk60 I'm waiting for you to prove any of these bs you just said
@@pioxels2311so what the world exist with the material factor. the whole human history is about greed getting out of control and are you implying communism can fix your so called material factor ? Hahagagah you litterly writing comments with a phone which would never be a thing with communism. in communism you get nothing maybe a war when the revolution starts and mostly one after that your country goes back fifty more years. there were more than 30 states that took communism and everyone of them failed but thats something you just cope with or you need to lie and say they werent communist. they all said they were communist everyone of them. And all of them took ideas and tried them and none of them worked. All needed to start from zero or ended in a civil war. But thats not communism bla bla bla bla prove me this prove me this. Communism had his chances in europe asia africa south america where ever and it fail everywhere. Not two generations can survive without it ending in a total war, dictorship or the people get so broke all they have is food and nothing else and food mostly in shortage.
Help! I'm drowning...
He just needs one of those suction things that they have at the dentist 😂
The ideal society it seems to me would be a natural rural idyll where people have large families, strong communities and a connection to nature + all the benefits of modernity (computers, medicine, transport etc). I don’t think that is possible though. Maybe with some kind of religious revolution + well managed AI etc
The AI will enslave you, and strip you of all freedoms.
Sounds Like communes
@@MZBS639 National Socialism was doing a reasonable job of it before the world wars.
what does the fukushima example have to do with socialism vs communism?
Socialism vs capitalism discussion boils down to which part of economy should be handled by state and which by market. I doesn't mean anyone should be nice to anyone else. In this sense Bill Gates could say he is a socialist because he believes there is a role for government in state's economy.
But i still dont get why WE still Talk socialism, communism vs. Capitalism? They are Not mutually exclusive. One is a societal structure, the one is an economic one. And the reality is that the majority of nations live in systems that combine elements of both in different ways.
And capitalism says absolutely nothing about organisational structures If societies or nations. It has nothing to do with those discussions. Its maddening
Well, that clears everything up then.
Still not sold sorry pal
His made up anecdotes lol
Here we go, let’s take another 15 seconds clip shown completely out of context and make up our minds about something! Or even better, argue like we have any idea what the frack we’re talking about
Am defo not a socialist
blahblah
Absolute garbage
What garb
Japan wasn't comunist state...
Communist state can't exist, also you completely ignored his argument
Oh Zizek your confounding your definitions.
Of course everyone is a "socialist", just not the way portraying it
Master Zatt always good for some ultra utopian vision. The change of narrative we're under, simply won't happen.
Socialist is just communist lite. What is he going on about?
I had to watch this wearing a raincoat
Does anyone know why Rosi Braidotti doesnt like him (or, at least criticizes him, e.g. for his rather melancholic/pessimist thinking, opposed to affirmative - not in a neoliberal way!)?
Music louder?
Yet it has worked for literal centuries and we are now see economic downfall and collapse because of redistribution and equity (communistic) policy. We are literally in the place we are today because of communistic policy making the combination of government and business the ultimate monopoly.
When it has worked? It has always been shit but before you could abuse other countries resources so you could temporarily make yours look a bit better, and claiming that any social politic to make life better for those in need is "communism taming over" is just dumb, those are just little stiches so society dont collapse and people dont rebel against the rich
Its not the ist but the dictator that is bad.
I'd rather starve in capitalism than be enslaved by communism
Plus in capitalism if you do starve it's almost always your own fault, Vs if you were to starve in communism it's almost always the governments fault.
Cuba's food security is higher in percentage and quality than America's, just like life expectancy.
@@phgs_smnt I've met people in real life who fled Cuba
@@smddev
Won't change the fact that Cuba is still an example on food security and health even though it's a very poor country.
Which is not a reality in the richest country.
@@johnmccrossan9376
You think almost everyone who is dying each 4 seconds rn is to blame for it?
Say that out loud
We need unity amongst all poor people. Retirement funds amount to something like 30 trillion in the us. We are the place investment funds get their money from. Then they buy everything and rent it back to us. Invest personally. Don’t let some huge company that owns everything profit from every single aspect of your life. Blackrock and vanguard own everything and they used our money to get it.
We saw how communism reacted to chernobyl lol
Every communist in their right mind was and is critical of the Soviet approach to Chernobyl
Neurotic commi
Donald Duck 😂
Im still a Communist
same
@@tobiashjalmarsson2038but I bet you live in a capitalist country
@@oscaralegre3683and?
@@oscaralegre3683 so what?
you can be a neoliberal and live in Saudi Arabia, that doesn't make your ideology any less valid.
@@owenbelezos8369 what you mean so what?? why don't you live in a communist country with your communist brothers and sisters??
He likes to call himself communist because it makes him interesting and quirky, but his own definition of it has nothing to do with what communism actually is. Once again, it's just Zizek bullshitting which is what Zizek does and people buy into it only because they like his personality
xD bill gates socialist
Meh non fighter leaders always bore me. This guy would get smashed in a street fight... how tf would he lead a revolution 🎉
Okay Bongo. Settle down and eat your banana.
@mikicerise6250 awww what's wrong? Someone pick on your little hewo?
No
wow
Does he like coke?
I don't like socialism
You have a Stalin pfp so that was to be expected. Fucking red fascists
Hahaha thank you Slavoj Zizek for being an inspiration!
CHERNOBYL
Fukushima
@@willothewisp4939Lmao,one was was the worst nuclear disaster in the world and the other ended up being handled,cannot be compared
@@mirelusul1 So now it's about which one was worse? Ohkay then.
whats your point
@@willothewisp4939 such ignorance, apples to oranges the circumstances were very different Chernobyl was due to negligence and the political impact on society that communism imposed, Fukushima was caused by a natural disaster.
Why does zizek always fiddle with his nose? Anybody know? I don't know much about the man but every vid i've seen he seems to be having trouble with his nose. Just curious.
Is this a serious question or am I getting baited
@@WarMetalChud serious. But i started off poking fun with all the other "snow" comments, then i realized that he may have an ailment (maybe even related to his deep lisp?) and it's pretty lame jabbing at someone for having allergies or whatever... All this moralizing made me curious. Well, curious enough to ask anyway.
Do you know the story?
@@anthonybrakus5280 thought it was coke but actually looking into it I think it’s just a tic of sorts
It's a nervous tic. He only has it when speaking English.
he has a big problem with anxiety. almost a permanent panic
What are those problems that cannot be solved by the market?
I think youre referring to Agrarian Unionism, Anarcho-Communism or Tribalism.
Fukushima vs Chernobyl. Democrcy vs communism. Do not ideologies when empirical data are present
Empiricism is an ideology.
communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
the only way to organise then would be through democracy,
what the Ussr had was state capitalism
where the state owns everything.
ruclips.net/video/uwU3STgBknQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/p/PLvwoHdNGq9wVy-iR1oHJKoJY2lh6ypXKZ
an alternative:
ruclips.net/video/sMoTWFZjoYA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/L68a6mIP09E/видео.html
Liberal Democracy vs Fascist Dictatorship. Despite its faults liberal democracy is and will always be better than any form of authoritarianism.
Why are my headphones wet now
Communism is never an option.
Unless being subjugated to tyrannical heartless dictators is your dream.
The trick of your tyrannical heartless dictators was to hide behind two parties and make you think they only exist in communist countries
And US's maintenance of global Capitalism had to be maintained by assassinating democratic elected socialists and suporting military heartless dictators. Have a better critique for communism than dictators.
you are very dumb
Unlike today, where we live without tyranny
Communism as an ideology wants to get rid of the state. That includes tyrannies and dictatorships. Especially Fascist dictatorships and other forms of plutocracy.
How to accomplish this, they don't agree on. Stalin was against starting a global revolution. Having replaced the bourgeois government with one accountable to the public in Georgia and other former Russian colonies as well as in Russia, was enough for him. That's why Trotsky, who was the one who had accomplished that coup, despised him.
And Stalin fell out with his biggest fan Mao, when Mao supported the farmers in the civil war, whom Stalin took to be petty bourgeois.
The thing to keep in mind though is that Stalin had been elected after Lenin's death, in a public election. All Soviet members in the Union were. And he introduced the tradition of serving food at the elections to entice voters to bother to show up. (Of course, Lenin has decreed that only party members were eligible, so that nobody who disagreed with him could be elected. Even Yeltsin, who was elected mayor of Moscow by complaining about the central government, was a party member.)
Yea he's also a plagiarist
What if the problems are caused by some state? And they sre not able to fix it, why implement more/globalism in order to do, or rather how easy would it be to Usher in an era of globalism by created so much problem that it seem unsolveable
Global problems require global solutions.
@@davidwuhrer6704 easy said, but its not true
yes he says exactly this, that there are problems neither the market NOR the state can fix, that both create
@@diakoalikarem9165 Are you a paternalist?
@@davidwuhrer6704 i dont think so, no, how come?
The Societ Union's nuclear mess up left Chernobyl uninhabitable for deacdes. Japan on the other hand was able to clean it up much faster.
😂 And you believe that? Most of the Japanese radiation ended up in the ocean.
@@Just_another_Euro_dude I pity you.
@@G0OD1004 Not as much as i pitty you. Trust me sheeple. 😆😆😆😆😆 "The Societ Unions's"... Lol dude. Can't even type properly.
@@G0OD1004 Nowhere near as much as i pity you. 😂😅😆
@@Just_another_Euro_dude I pity that you've fallen victim to the mass pandering that people say. I bet that the water is cleaner than you.
Communism has never worked, neither has socialism.
Yes it has and yes it has.
Capitalism is what has never worked. If there was just pure capitalism, every country on earth would have had a revolution. The only reason you are able to sit here blithely unaware of that fact is because every country on earth has adopted most of the policies the socialists were demanding in the 19th century. Then they take credit for it and call it capitalism.
But as the American that I suspect you are, you would never know about that (or anything else).
@@john.premose Socialism sure solves Chernobyl didn't they 😂. Why have all but two socialist countries desolved or returned to capitalism and not the other way around? Also, communism has literally never been implemented anywhere so how do you already have proof of it working? Because the holy scriptures told you 😂
@@maarten1115 for one thing there’s many more than two. For another, the entire world was and is against the success of any communist country, so they always had to fight against the pressure of the huge capitalist opposition. After the Soviet Union chose to dissolve itself, the other countries had no support so it’s not surprising that they yielded to the enormous pressure.
You seriously don’t get that? Why are you here if you don’t grasp something that basic?
Neither have been tried
He took a long time to say “I’m larping for the aesthetic”
It’s easy to make others sacrifice
Rich commies are my fave…
Iirc he lives in a commie block mate...
when its a poor communist its always "youre just lazy!!"
when its an averagely wealthy communist its always "youre just jealous!!"
when its a rich communist its always "youre just a hypocrite!!"
Yes
@@jason59k55true
@@jason59k55
Yeah lazyness, jealousy and hyoocrisy, the core features of leftists Dogma
Capitalism is like democracy, its really bad but unfortunately all other systems that were tried turned out to be much worse. Despite that this strange guy has some interesting ideas.
Maybe he needs a new word, because I don't think he can beat USSR, China, and many smaller communist countries, and change the word they defined with totalitarianism, gulags and blind obedience.
The ussr got rid of gulags in the 1950's
Most of the world's inmates are in US prisions but you only care when it's called Gulags, the russian word for prision.
Or maybe he is using the actual meaning of the word, rather than any form of Marxism. Or what Fascists believe Marxism to be.
@@davidwuhrer6704 and maybe, just maybe, its not a viable option for humanity, because we dont work that way, and if we did work that way, you can bet your sweet bippy we were forced to work that way.
@@Stefanius058 What are you even taking about?
What about Chernobyl 🤣
America has had 56 nuclear reactor meltdowns the worst being Three Mile Island.
The US had 0 Nuclear Meltdowns you liar. Even three Mile island was only a partial meltdown.
@@Quatschtotal thank you! I didn't feel like getting the Geiger counter out to make sure I wasn't living amongst 56 nuclear reactor meltdowns😂
What about it?
>average communist
This was disappointing. Although perhaps there is a larger context I am not getting which has been cut.
He abandons what socialism actually is to talk about how people view it and falsely label themselves (some semblance of social democracy).
But then he doesn't frame communism in the same way (i.e. defining it by how people at large view it rather than its actual definition), and maintains whatever his own definition of it is.
If he did, he wouldn't agree with that either.
Liberal capitalism worked and will work, i would just suggest to review the ground realities and adjust accordingly from time to time, like for example it may be necessary now to tax the rich corporations and people of west more and strengthen the social support system to help vulnerable sections of people.
Communism failed and will fail again and again.
It will only appear necessary if and only if the capitalist system becomes rigid, unrealistic to pursue,but even then communism will fail after some period.
No human created system is an ultimate solution, certainly not for whole world, every system will disadvantage se and advantage some, all syatems were meant to address specific problems and should either adjust or perish once those requirements were fulfilled. Capitalism had adjusted in the past and chinese communism too which is why they kept on ticking
liberal capitalism is not perfect, but communism is DEFINITELY not the better alternative. zizek is an intelligent guy, with lots of great insight, but his adherence to marxism is baffling
@natural783
For over 150 years capitalism ist about to fail according to marxists, for 100+ years they attempted to create communist societies in practice and always failed.
The Point is,no single person knows all the things you just listed, Division of labour etc. or how all the complex systems in our society work and Interact.
That's why the
@natural783
All those people who simp for their communist Utopia. They never Picture themselves as just working in an ore mine, as a foot soldier or in construction.
They always Picture themselves as people with influence in those hypothetical society.
Politicians, higher level Administrators, artists or educators etc.
I don't trust them, they hardly ever work in production or the trades where you have to work with actual matter, humbled bythe inescapable rules of Nature.
In those Environments you need to be honest,direct, reliable and pragmatic.
Most leftists I know think in concepts and ideas. They're in love with their own ideas.they put concepts over people.
That's why the Revolution Always ends in desaster.
You couldn't run a lemonade stand.
Ia something preventing him from moving to North Korea? Or does he have the same defect as I do? That that "isnt real Communism" just like the US isnt real Capitalism?
how does North Korea constitute the global international narrative Zizek longs for...? it's probably the most isolated state in the world
North Korea isn’t a communist country. I’m not saying this to defend communism, I’m not a communist. It’s just that objectively North Korea is not communistic, for a plethora of reasons.
I disagree with the logic you used as well. Hypothetically speaking, if North Korea was a communistic country, I think an individual who identifies as a communist, would
be better off trying to change the politics systems of where they reside, as opposed to running away.
@@S.pilgrimcope
@@Zal0vidwhat is he coping about?
He is Slovenian. Slovenia used to be communist. It isn't anymore, but Zizek remains a communist, although a different kind of communist than Tito was. He also says he is not a socialist, which doesn't make sense to me because communism is a form of socialism and he knows it. (In this video he says that everyone is a socialist nowadays and so the term is meaningless. I don't think that's true, there are surprisingly many openly Fascists.)
You know, Europe never had the McCarthy witch hunts, so there is no knee-jerk reflex to state at every opportunity "I am not now now have I ever been a member of the communist party" in these or other words. Communism is still an accepted political ideology here (except in Romania), although it is by no means mainstream, it is very much on the fringe, just, not as stigmatised.
The only times it was illegal to be a communist here were the times when it was illegal to be anything other than the local variety of Fascist, and that was after the Fascists themselves had been outlawed in several countries. Which officially they still are again. (That tends to happen if you outlaw everyone else and still lose against them.)
I don't know if it's because he's talking a foreign language (though he seems very fluent) but he is not a communist and, in fact, neither is anyone else. While terms like 'socialist' are very open to interpretation, in fact communism is not, according to Marx and Engels Manifesto. Perhaps some people should try to read it. It's very easy to read.
It's literally working right now
history is not the last two centuries,
Comedians are better philosophers
No they're not. You just like what they say more. That's not the same thing.
@@john.premose "i remain a communist"
@@maximilianoleon2 yeah.
@@maximilianoleon2 so do I. You have a problem with that? Cope.
@@john.premose lmao
zizek is always right because he always talks about communism as a theoreritcal. and of course its impossible to argue that theoretically, everything running perfectly by some perfect leader would be better than what we have today. he understands that power corrupts and that it has corrupted previous communist leaders but is basically holding out for the right leader. he knows deep down inside that it very likely isnt possible, atleast not in anyones lifetime today, but maintains hope that it is. thats why he is a well liked communist.
The perfect communism would have no leader at all but be a stateless and classless society with direct democracy and everyone having equal representation
this is a very shallow misunderstanding of what communism is. it’s clear ur idea of the subject comes purely from red scare propaganda
'everything running perfectly by some perfect leader would be better than what we have today', is that communism?
In theory, communism is not supposed to have leaders.
Communism doesn't require are single leader though.
I love that the inevitable conclusion of all such thought experiments is that we need authoritarian global rule akin to a 40k universe. We also know what that leads to. Nice.
Where the hell is the Emperor of Mankind right now
Talking about nuclear disasters, we saw how the Soviet Union dealt with it’s last one.
If todays capitalist societies cannot deal with the scale of such events, well, Chernobyl destroyed communism in less then 5 years.
Ah the classic Hallmark of the unsmart Merican, they have no clue how to read a book and their only idea of any belief except capitalism is about some country they fought years ago which hasn't existed in decades, no one takes you seriously in these conversations and this is why
How well do Communist countries do in treatment of Autism? (He should maybe look into it)
Better than in America where you don't have any treatment
@@arthurlobo2 point missed.
@@chetcarman3530 He was born and raised in a Comunist nation, and is extremely well read. You should genuinely ask him.
@@Satiro723 point missed
@@chetcarman3530what point IS there?
Name 5 communists who produced a tangible good or service, or 1.
??
I mean there have been many millions of communists throughout the last 150 years in all types of professions from factory workers to professors. So take your pick of any one of them I guess.
Communists built the device you are using to read this response
Albert Einstein.... time for you to learn how to read and think before opening your mouth. There have been millions of influential communists that have produced countless goods, services and ideas for society. Same goes for all ideologies. It was socialists in Britain that set up the first public health service. It was communists that won workers the right to have holidays, weekends and sick pay etc
I luv this Guy, but i preffer idea of strongest leader.
KING IS ALLOWED TO BLEED ONLY IN BATTLE.
GOD MAY NEVER.
Totalitarianism always fails as it lacks the distinction ability to adaptively shift in response to new flows of becoming. It just doesn’t work.
On top of it just not working, it's hard to ignore how primitive of an instinct is at the base of this ideology. It's a yearning for a personality cult, or more simply, desire for a daddy to take care of everything.
God doesn't bleed because fictional characters cannot
He doesn't make much sense tbh..
hes saying he doesnt like the label socialist because everyone ruins the definition of socialism so he calls himself a communist so his beliefs remain clear.
Care to elaborate?
@riccardozanoni2531 First of all, he says he is a 'communist' but in a different sense, then goes on to say nothing about that 'sense'.. and after that, he says we need 'global narratives', which is self-contradictory - because he started this statement by trying to disassemble the communist term (i am 'this' - but different 'this'.).
So, are you, or are you not a communist? (If we do have global narratives)
Secondly, I don't care how you choose to define yourself if you are going to use elusive tactics to do so.
Overall, he didn't say anything meaningful, and after watching a lot of his stuff, that's usually the feeling I get. He uses a lot of verbal gymnastics to make vague concepts sound funny and philosophical .(The emperor has no clothes type thing.)
Granted, I haven't read his stuff, but I did watch many lengthy videos of debates, speeches, and his documentary.
Maybe im not intelligent enough to fully follow his thoughts or something. idk...
The state is, ten out of ten times the source of the problem. The state also gets to define what constitutes a problem, and what is problematic. Free-market economies are usually incompatible with increasingly left-leaning ideas - thus to the state.
No that's just bias, capitalists do this, they say "government is corrupt, free enterprise is good" while ignoring the fact that its the companies paying the state to be corrupt, you remove the state you still have the same amount of corruption. Move beyond your naive beliefs
You should read Adam Smith.
Where meaning? All I heard is: why I am Commie ->friend went to Fukushima -> government panic -> Market and state insufficient -> we need global communism -> Bill Gates is socialist -> something something.
Why can't he just say "we need a global oversight to solve global issues". Half-defined terms and salade words are not needed.
I ❤️capitalism. You will never be able to dismantle the commodification of goods and labor because it’s a million times more practical than communism. And the best part is you don’t need an authoritarian collective to enforce it.
Someone translate, please.
My hearing isn’t very good and his lisp was quite strong. I’m always intrigued but struggle. Thank you.
Mr. robot, the words are on the screen
@@EarlofSedgewick😂
bruh 😭😭😭
He said, "be very, very quiet. I'm hunting the bourgeoisie."
love his accent,
logic?
not so much...
the reason imho socialism is a failure is not because of lack of resources, but because of a lack of market forces to balance the influence of ideas.
and that experiment was pretty much reproduced when the USSR was around. It is its economic theory which made it dependent on the west for pretty much everything while being 1/6th of the land of the planet (and that without counting the Socialist Arab states iirc).
Basically, everything that was needed for the soviet citizens was produced outside of it and imported for oil.
when the soviets tried to conquer Afghanistan, that spooked other countries which produced oil, which made them run to the US, which in turn asked for the prices of oil to come down. When the oil prices came down the USSR needed to produce more to get the same products (and by products I mean food ingredients as well). And that strained the economy, so the higher ups had to make reforms in order to save it from collapse, and the people? since there was no free press the people didn't know just how bad their top down "planned economy" was doing.
which means, to this day, just like in any collapsed system, the people always talk about "the greedy ones at the top who wanted to live even better", not knowing it was their own government that withheld crucial information from them...
Aside from your point about the need for a market mechanism (I would add to gauge demand in order to determine what needs to be produced, something that was tried to varying degrees with varying success in all Comecon countries, but which might have worked much better had they something like the internet), but your point that oil was used to buy all of the consumer goods needed in these countries is simply not correct. Some goods and food was acquired this way, but not necessarily bartered for oil, or other resource and/or agricultural products. Typically, these resources (and some manufactured goods) would be sold for "hard" western currencies, which were then used to purchase modern western machine tools so that the eastern economies could manufacture their own versions of both the desired consumer goods AND the machine tools(in each case, to varying degrees of quality). This way, they avoided mass unemployment and maintained/improved workers' skills, helping to keep a lid on dissent. And they might well have succeeded in this, had they not decided to go toe to toe with Ronald Reagan when he threw down the gauntlet of SDI/Star Wars in 1983. This meant they had to divert an even larger portion of investment into military R&D and production, on top of the bloated amounts they had already been investing. This, combined with the Saudis pumping oil like crazy to keep world prices down, to the detriment of the USSR, is what undermined the economy and enabled political dissent to really catch fire.
@@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry , thank you for your lengthy post. I suppose that some things the west could have bought from the USSR (though none come to my mind apart from Ladas and Nivas). My view on the economics of the downfall of the the USSR relies heavily on people from from there and a documentary about the subject (don't worry, it has English subtitles, the whole channel is on another level imho):
ruclips.net/video/tQy15S5-bMo/видео.htmlsi=nNHSNAJ1mc4koTB0
(in case the link is broken, or you don't trust it:
redactsia channel
"the death of empire. why did the soviet union collapse")
no need to make robots cry...
@@meirm471 Actually, there was quite a range of manufactured goods and agricultural products from the Eastern Bloc available in Canada in the 1980's that I can remember off the top of my head (I was in my twenties). In addition to Ladas /Nivas, other autos such as Skodas (Czechoslovakia), Yugos (Yugoslavia), and Dacias (Romania) were sold. East German and Soviet textiles and chess and alarm clocks, Pilsner Urquell beer (Czechoslovakia), Soviet binoculars and wood panelling, Polish sesame wafers (still available), Czechslovak math sets (compasses and protractors) and hockey skates, Yugoslav jams and hot peppers, and I can recall some Hungarian food items/confectionaries as well. I think some sporting goods stores were selling Soviet manufactured single-shot shotguns. And plenty of books, not all of them ideological from Progress Publishers. Many were beautifully illustrated children's books. A friend of mine who studied Applied Mathematics said the texts they used were in either Russian or German. And I can remember plenty of tourism ads in newspapers for EB countries and Cuba. It's a certainty that many bulk items like steel and chemicals were sold to Canadian companies, in addition to consumer goods.
@@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry , why thank you, never heard about those. Do you remember Russia specific exports (not its "colonies" per se)? (I don't mean to come off sarcastic, I think that many of the citizens of these countries do feel like that about that time)
@@meirm471 Nothing other than those items I listed. Nothing was exported as specifically "Russian"; it was marked as either Soviet or USSR, so it could be from the RSFSR, any of the fourteen other constituent republics of the USSR, or parts could originate from any of these republics and be assembled in any of them. I forgot to mention that Stolichnaya and Moscovskaya vodkas were also available. I'm not a vodka fan, so that's probably why I forgot.
The free market solves problems becase money drives people to fix a problem
Tell me intelligent communist gentlemen how a communist society solves problems
Nice joke
Lmao the most naive pipedream ever, I love how in recent times a Train derailed in the US in a town called Palestine and immediately after the company responsible didn't fix any problem, they just gave more money to lobbyists to avoid regulations making them fix the problem, but remember guys, this almost invisible chemical company will be brought to heel by the spending power of the average joke, that philosophy is a joke made for R3t.@rd$ who could barely comprehend Ayn Rand
Honestly that level of naivety is scary for an adult to be engaging in
@@michaeltye2359 most if not all magor tecknilogical development hapend because the drive of profit seldome other resons were few and far betwen
Present this man with a bar of soap. Stop listening to his media persona. It's shameful.
Liberalism goes against capitalism.
capitalism is liberalism
The game of Monopoly is all about diminishing freedom. Capitalism allows for setting arbitrary rules in spaces by their owners. The total amount of space is limited. In capitalism, it also occurs that the spaces with rules are merged under a more dominant owner. This leads to the state where at each point in space, there are some arbitrary rules which is against liberalism, because in liberalism, everyone is free to set their own rules while respecting its basic tenets. The first liberals were socialists and they fought against feudalism. Capitalism, with its principles regarding money, ownership, inheritance and setting of arbitrary rules in spaces, is similar to feudalism, so it makes no sense to claim that capitalism is liberalism.
@@michallasan3695...liberals are not and were never socialist. They are and were LIBERALS. The factory owners, the merchants, those with money but no title.
Capitalism goes against democracy.
@@michallasan3695 "The first liberals were socialists" you say.... that is just complete nonsense. So laughably untrue and ridiculous I hardly know where to start. Maybe first you should understand the primary cornerstone of all liberalism was the belief in free markets and private property... basically the opposite of socialism. Good Jesus
Communism no !
Communism yes !
Checkmate.
@@TheBarroomHero321 No Chekmate!
How Many People should die in Communism again!
@@TheBarroomHero321 How many People should die by the Experiment agai?
Seeing the success of liberalism, i have to dissagree. No political system has reached such advanced and standarts of living for the most amount of people ever.
Most amount is the right phrasing. Modern age liberal capitalism is built upon suffering of the whole southern sphere of earth, just a bit more hidden and 'humanist' colonialism. There is always something new, something better for all people to strive forward. Staying stale is staying decaying, and that is just not good for anyone. Liberalism is definitly not the possible final stage of evolution of human society as whole, even Fukuyama backtracked his opinion on that. And he is ultraliberal
Meanwhile, in China…
@@davidwuhrer6704 meanwhile china was a backwater that got their SOL up when they adopted a part of free market capitalism? Mao was the lack of liberty. And now they are halfway there. Their system is slowing them down thankfully
This guy is the communist final boss (biggest clown)