I think the old poem answers the question pretty well: What is a communist? One who has yearnings For equal division of unequal earnings. Idler, or bungler, or both, he is willing To fork out his penny, and pocket your shilling.
Equal distribution of the products of capital is not a feature of Marxist communism. The video itself makes this point around 5:25. Even "produce according to ability, receive according to need" is not a point that Marx emphasized. It's more like a slogan from the Book of Acts than a central tenet of Marxism. According to Sotirakopoulos, "need" in the Marxist formulation is more about what the working class should produce than about entitlement to consume.
20:58 So often on this channel. I find speakers saying things that I arrived at independently. And have determined to be super important concepts, this is a perfect example of that where he talks about this for like 10 minutes. I agree with everything. Because I came to those same conclusions those same exact conclusions myself.
From Remarks By Vice President Harris At The 40th Annual Black History Month Virtual Celebration on the White House website: "You know, we often talk about the place that housed one of the people who, for me, was a hero and really was a beacon of what can be - Thurgood Marshall - and the house that Thurgood Marshall lived in, called the United States Supreme Court. And on those marble walls is etched “Equal justice under law.” We have always fought for equality. "But now we are also talking much more rightly about equity, understanding that we must be clear-eyed about the fact that, yes, we want everyone to get an equal amount - that sounds right - but not everyone starts out from the same place. Some people start out on first base; some people start out on third base. And if the goal is truly about equality, it has to be about a goal of saying everybody should end up in the same place. And since we didn’t start in the same place. Some folks might need more: equitable distribution. "
If you asked Kamala where she believes value comes from, I am positive she will say from labor. Look I am not saying she’s a scholar but if you asked the average person the same thing they will all say value comes from labor or at the very least the idea that value is subjective is not something most people can wrap their head around. I think this is the source of what is generally wrong in American politics. It is Marxist not in the literal pedantic sense. Calling Kamala a “Marxist” is just shorthand for a set of fundamental beliefs.
I agree that indeed most Democrats (and many Republicans) would repeat tropes like 'it's workers who built this country'. I see this more as a populist slogan (one that even a right-wing caudillo would use), rather than the Labour Theory of Value vindicated.
To add to what you're saying there, value isn't completely "subjective" either. It is objective with relation to the individual. "Subjective" would generally mean something far more arbitrarily chosen, whilst objectivity puts the individual in a certain context and describes what must be good based on the nature of that being. This is what Rand explained about the objectivity of individual rights, free market pricing, etc, and runs in close parallel but still contrast to the views of Mises and Rothbard.
@@gThomasHaggAs I see it there are three different senses in which value is used in Austrian economics, all of which are contextually valid. Subjective use-value, objective use-value and objective exchange-value. Objective value, the way Rand uses it refers to the second sense.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 You can create boxes in infinity, but they are either *objectively arrived at* or not. Objectivity in economics does not arise from the philosophy that Mises regurgitates, but from that which Rand explained.
All these people are practicalists, but in a different sort of way from the thinkers at The Ayn Rand Institute, who wish to find out what works and apply it. This doesn't work out there in the real world because all politicians are practicalists only so far as any "ism" or any ideology or any policy serves the practical purpose of furthering their own personal and/or party interests.
Good contrast between the original definitions of Marxism and Communism and it's current rhetorical use of the terms for political purposes-- especially by the extreme right. I'd like to see a similar discussion of the original definition of capitalism and its forms today where, thru govt largess, capitalists have obtained unearned benefits with the intent it would have social benefits. These unearned benefits include: deductions (expenses, business losses, depreciation), limited liability, bailouts, subsidies, and other ways only available by becoming a corporation with the sanction of state/federal governments. When I see all these unearned benefits, I am less critical of things like minimum wage regulations.
There seems to be a metamorphosis here. The therm "commie" was a slang term that was applied to the hard left in general because their program resembled Communism, usually in the form of income redistribution, but was not fully so, Though the term included Communists. It was like "Pink" as in "Pink Lady". It seems like that term is now being taken literally "Commie" is or was (I still use it) a slang term from the mid 20th century" and was pretty much always writtine with the "c" being lower-case As the head of the REAL MAGA (Make America Groan Again) I must identify another Cosmic Joke: And it is on Trump. According to Todd Schnitt, a conservative Republican, about 1-1/3 ago Elon Musk signed onto some document supporting "Chinese Socialism" (I suspect Musk wants to do busienss in Red China). Oh what a tangled web.... It's deja vu all over again
I'm not compelled by this simplistic dismissal of communism. It's as if speaking with a doctrinaire 20th century Marxist scholar about how REAL Marxism has never been tried, at least not according to the definitions published by Marx in 1848. Many forms of technology and society have been changed, or adapted to new developments since 1848 or since the Bolshevik Revolution. Marxism was adapted as well. Marxism is NO LONGER FOCUSED on economic inequality, especially not in the West, though it is _also_ still about economic inequality measured by comparing groups, it's mainly about cracking open other group divisions, along the lines of race and what some Marxists called "identity politics". The argument that Black people get longer prison sentences than White people for the same crimes, which is false because it relies on ignoring priors, that is also a Marxist argument about sentencing disparities. A related Marxist argument is that racial demographic disparities in crimes committed is ACKSHULLY the expected end result of socioeconomic disparities, as if most street violence is about a good meal or paying the rent. Yes, that's a shift, from traditional Marxism to forms of neo-marxism. We know the names of a variety of philosopher-activists who pushed Marxism _away_ from the capitalist working class -- who Democrats called "deplorables" if they were fans of Trump for any reason. To cling to the narrowest definitions of original Marxism seems counterproductive. Even during the USSR, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao in China, and other Marxists, all had different variations of Marxism which were magnified such that anyone defending Trotsky was called a fascist and an ally of Hitler, despite the fact that Stalin himself formed a partnership or agreements with Hitler, and Stalin had ordered the KPD Kommunists in Germany to support the National Socialists.
It is just this thinking that because someone earns more money they should have to pay the Lionshare of taxes so in other words you're smart you're industrious you figure a way out with your intelligence to earn a lot of money and so we want to take some of it from you and give it to people who are not smart and are not motivated it is exactly what nitze talked about, it is a form of resentment and feeling entitled to what someone else has but that's not what Americans want some of us are poor some of us are middle-class and some of us are rich based on what value we bring to the world and the marketplace. I am not talking about people who come from long lines of wealth either I'm talking about self-made people. You are not entitled to what they have they do not owe you more taxes for you to use for your purposes we are not slaves to the government or to our fellow men as Ayn Rand Preached
In newspeak I understand that equity is a levelling, not of opportunity, but of opportunity depending on ones intersectionality .... that is to say that if the powers that be decide that person A is more disadvantaged than person B then person A will receive a free pass in comparison to person B ..... basically if you're white, male, straight and able bodied you could be a god and get tossed aside ... sounds fair to me.
@@IridescentEye yes, and it calls on the government to adjust the shares/outcomes of its citizens. This is a lot like how a Communist government operates.
Sorry but I can’t agree. She said she wanted equality of outcome - that can only be communism. Maybe not of Marxist flavour but it’s definitely communist.
She has explicitly expressed Marxist views a number of times, so to that very extent Yes. The clarification resulting in a more detailed "no" according to this video is also correct.
🚩Definition according to Marx himself: "to each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". So, lets imagine that I take my private submarine and go in the Atlantic Ocean to find Titanic...Lets say my submarine fails and I need to be saved .. All countries send submarines , the navy , the air-force, the cost guard .. to save me... They spend millions from public resources to do that .. because I need to be saved ..( need) . and I cannot pay to maintain my private army and high-tech to save me ( ability) when I need.. it One could say that this is a form of communism - according to the definition -..... .Correct?
No. This is voluntary cooperation. Marxism is at the point of a gun making you work for a collective. Ayn Rand’s book “We the Living” demonstrates it well.
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
"A communist is someone who has read Marx and Lenin. An anti communist is someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan
Based!
Lame. Understanding stuff isn't an endorsement
@@avneet12284
Yes. Reagan was saying if you understand Marx & Lenin, you will do the opposite of endorsement.
I think the old poem answers the question pretty well:
What is a communist? One who has yearnings
For equal division of unequal earnings.
Idler, or bungler, or both, he is willing
To fork out his penny, and pocket your shilling.
Equal distribution of the products of capital is not a feature of Marxist communism. The video itself makes this point around 5:25. Even "produce according to ability, receive according to need" is not a point that Marx emphasized. It's more like a slogan from the Book of Acts than a central tenet of Marxism. According to Sotirakopoulos, "need" in the Marxist formulation is more about what the working class should produce than about entitlement to consume.
@@restonthewind so all you have to do is "need" and you can rob anyone and take their stuff as you please?
It usually really bugs me when people talk over Dr. Ghate, but it’s hard not to love Nikos.
Another educational show. Thank you.
Thanks guys, very informative.
20:58 So often on this channel. I find speakers saying things that I arrived at independently. And have determined to be super important concepts, this is a perfect example of that where he talks about this for like 10 minutes. I agree with everything. Because I came to those same conclusions those same exact conclusions myself.
From Remarks By Vice President Harris At The 40th Annual Black History Month Virtual Celebration on the White House website:
"You know, we often talk about the place that housed one of the people who, for me, was a hero and really was a beacon of what can be - Thurgood Marshall - and the house that Thurgood Marshall lived in, called the United States Supreme Court. And on those marble walls is etched “Equal justice under law.” We have always fought for equality.
"But now we are also talking much more rightly about equity, understanding that we must be clear-eyed about the fact that, yes, we want everyone to get an equal amount - that sounds right - but not everyone starts out from the same place. Some people start out on first base; some people start out on third base. And if the goal is truly about equality, it has to be about a goal of saying everybody should end up in the same place. And since we didn’t start in the same place. Some folks might need more: equitable distribution. "
Harris is a Pragmatic idealist, not an ideological idealist.
Love the new style with the trailer at the beginning!!!
If you asked Kamala where she believes value comes from, I am positive she will say from labor. Look I am not saying she’s a scholar but if you asked the average person the same thing they will all say value comes from labor or at the very least the idea that value is subjective is not something most people can wrap their head around. I think this is the source of what is generally wrong in American politics. It is Marxist not in the literal pedantic sense. Calling Kamala a “Marxist” is just shorthand for a set of fundamental beliefs.
I agree that indeed most Democrats (and many Republicans) would repeat tropes like 'it's workers who built this country'. I see this more as a populist slogan (one that even a right-wing caudillo would use), rather than the Labour Theory of Value vindicated.
To add to what you're saying there, value isn't completely "subjective" either. It is objective with relation to the individual. "Subjective" would generally mean something far more arbitrarily chosen, whilst objectivity puts the individual in a certain context and describes what must be good based on the nature of that being. This is what Rand explained about the objectivity of individual rights, free market pricing, etc, and runs in close parallel but still contrast to the views of Mises and Rothbard.
@@gThomasHaggAs I see it there are three different senses in which value is used in Austrian economics, all of which are contextually valid.
Subjective use-value, objective use-value and objective exchange-value.
Objective value, the way Rand uses it refers to the second sense.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 You can create boxes in infinity, but they are either *objectively arrived at* or not. Objectivity in economics does not arise from the philosophy that Mises regurgitates, but from that which Rand explained.
All these people are practicalists, but in a different sort of way from the thinkers at The Ayn Rand Institute, who wish to find out what works and apply it. This doesn't work out there in the real world because all politicians are practicalists only so far as any "ism" or any ideology or any policy serves the practical purpose of furthering their own personal and/or party interests.
Would love to see you guys invite James Lindsay on to discuss.
They would get educated
TIK History - also an ex-Marxist like Nikos I believe.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752TIK History was a former socialist but he wasn't a Marxist.
Yea hes right that shes a communist. Its very obvious and james can school these guys who routinely protect the dems in a way Rand never would.
@@RyanRothwellI stand corrected. He would still be good to have on though.
Good contrast between the original definitions of Marxism and Communism and it's current rhetorical use of the terms for political purposes-- especially by the extreme right.
I'd like to see a similar discussion of the original definition of capitalism and its forms today where, thru govt largess, capitalists have obtained unearned benefits with the intent it would have social benefits. These unearned benefits include:
deductions (expenses, business losses, depreciation),
limited liability,
bailouts,
subsidies,
and other ways
only available by becoming a corporation with the sanction of state/federal governments.
When I see all these unearned benefits, I am less critical of things like minimum wage regulations.
There seems to be a metamorphosis here. The therm "commie" was a slang term that was applied to the hard left in general because their program resembled Communism, usually in the form of income redistribution, but was not fully so, Though the term included Communists. It was like "Pink" as in "Pink Lady". It seems like that term is now being taken literally "Commie" is or was (I still use it) a slang term from the mid 20th century" and was pretty much always writtine with the "c" being lower-case
As the head of the REAL MAGA (Make America Groan Again) I must identify another Cosmic Joke: And it is on Trump. According to Todd Schnitt, a conservative Republican, about 1-1/3 ago Elon Musk signed onto some document supporting "Chinese Socialism" (I suspect Musk wants to do busienss in Red China). Oh what a tangled web.... It's deja vu all over again
I'm not compelled by this simplistic dismissal of communism. It's as if speaking with a doctrinaire 20th century Marxist scholar about how REAL Marxism has never been tried, at least not according to the definitions published by Marx in 1848.
Many forms of technology and society have been changed, or adapted to new developments since 1848 or since the Bolshevik Revolution. Marxism was adapted as well.
Marxism is NO LONGER FOCUSED on economic inequality, especially not in the West, though it is _also_ still about economic inequality measured by comparing groups, it's mainly about cracking open other group divisions, along the lines of race and what some Marxists called "identity politics".
The argument that Black people get longer prison sentences than White people for the same crimes, which is false because it relies on ignoring priors, that is also a Marxist argument about sentencing disparities. A related Marxist argument is that racial demographic disparities in crimes committed is ACKSHULLY the expected end result of socioeconomic disparities, as if most street violence is about a good meal or paying the rent.
Yes, that's a shift, from traditional Marxism to forms of neo-marxism. We know the names of a variety of philosopher-activists who pushed Marxism _away_ from the capitalist working class -- who Democrats called "deplorables" if they were fans of Trump for any reason.
To cling to the narrowest definitions of original Marxism seems counterproductive. Even during the USSR, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao in China, and other Marxists, all had different variations of Marxism which were magnified such that anyone defending Trotsky was called a fascist and an ally of Hitler, despite the fact that Stalin himself formed a partnership or agreements with Hitler, and Stalin had ordered the KPD Kommunists in Germany to support the National Socialists.
The Democrats.
Maybe Iam not an educated Marxist. These guys seem to be apologizing.
It is just this thinking that because someone earns more money they should have to pay the Lionshare of taxes so in other words you're smart you're industrious you figure a way out with your intelligence to earn a lot of money and so we want to take some of it from you and give it to people who are not smart and are not motivated it is exactly what nitze talked about, it is a form of resentment and feeling entitled to what someone else has but that's not what Americans want some of us are poor some of us are middle-class and some of us are rich based on what value we bring to the world and the marketplace. I am not talking about people who come from long lines of wealth either I'm talking about self-made people. You are not entitled to what they have they do not owe you more taxes for you to use for your purposes we are not slaves to the government or to our fellow men as Ayn Rand Preached
Mozart
James Lindsay, Trevor Loudon, Jeff Nyquist, Anatoliy Golitsyn
Your point?
Harris is a Pragmatist commie,not an ideological commie.
What is equity then?
In newspeak I understand that equity is a levelling, not of opportunity, but of opportunity depending on ones intersectionality .... that is to say that if the powers that be decide that person A is more disadvantaged than person B then person A will receive a free pass in comparison to person B ..... basically if you're white, male, straight and able bodied you could be a god and get tossed aside ... sounds fair to me.
@@IridescentEye yes, and it calls on the government to adjust the shares/outcomes of its citizens. This is a lot like how a Communist government operates.
@@IridescentEye This is accurate definition of equity according to DEI.
Equal outcome regardless of input.
Sorry but I can’t agree. She said she wanted equality of outcome - that can only be communism. Maybe not of Marxist flavour but it’s definitely communist.
Kamala Harris?
She has explicitly expressed Marxist views a number of times, so to that very extent Yes. The clarification resulting in a more detailed "no" according to this video is also correct.
James Lindsey
He needs to touch the grass
Who? I suspect all of you secretly are...
Tucker Carlson? Oh, no Ayn Rand... I see, maybe you're not the smartest person to ask.
🚩Definition according to Marx himself: "to each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
So, lets imagine that I take my private submarine and go in the Atlantic Ocean to find Titanic...Lets say my submarine fails and I need to be saved .. All countries send submarines , the navy , the air-force, the cost guard .. to save me... They spend millions from public resources to do that .. because I need to be saved ..( need) . and I cannot pay to maintain my private army and high-tech to save me ( ability) when I need.. it
One could say that this is a form of communism - according to the definition -..... .Correct?
No. This is voluntary cooperation. Marxism is at the point of a gun making you work for a collective. Ayn Rand’s book “We the Living” demonstrates it well.
What's your rank in government, comrade?
@@TheSuburban15 Great argument...
(Ask someone who is marxist.. by the way )
@@Digiphex Volunteer ?
Don't all these people/ countries which pay for coast guard navy , Air Force etc have...... mandatory .....taxes ?