Communist parties run socialist states. Marxists theorize socialism is a working class run state that exists between capitalism and communism, which is stateless
I really wish old mate had asked them, "What about the violence required to establish and maintain capitalism? Do you all support that?" Because capitalism is not a peaceful, bloodless ideology by any means, but cheerleaders for capitalism don't get called on it enough.
Capitalism is making deals and mutual agreements. If its mot mutual agreement, then its violence. Aka capitalism is anti-violence. And anti-capitalism is pro-violence.
Exactly what I was thinking. Capitalism runs because of the threat of violence if you don't work within the system of capitalism. How many people die homeless in the richest countries under capitalism each year? How many in America die because of their healthcare system? There are countless examples of violence under capitalism and we've just been told it's just a part of life. How many millions of people have died because of anti-communist wars declared by capitalist governments? Let alone other wars waged by them.
I said to myself: "Well Suzanne, you are literally a fascist" I swear these people play dumb or the definition for fascism has ben so screwed that people do not know what it means.
“Are you romanticizing a murderous ideology?” said by a straight faced Brit after Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan, the British Empire.. & tears for Maggie + the Royals 😆
Leo Gorgone yeah I find it pretty ironic that communism death toll is constantly bought up, despite capitalism’s death toll, (not that it makes criticism like this redundant, but this kind of argument applies just as well to capitalism) you know we live in a system where we have people eating themselves to death, with massive food wastage whilst simultaneously having a massive homeless and food bank problems. Then there’s foreign wars. These aren’t explicitly caused by capitalism nor are they the preferred outcome of it, but these deaths are just as linked to the system as deaths under Stalinism. Of course this is the bbc, the ultimate defender of the status quo, not matter what it might be.
boflator did I call for death camps for the bourgeoisie? No all I want is a refunded nhs, free housing, better workers rights and a living wage. You’re just projecting a straw maned communist onto me. So well done for that, never seen such a grown up argument before. And i do critique communism, it’s a system that’s done terrible harm to people around the world, its not even comparable to want I ideally want. It’s like you saying I like capitalism and I then instantly jump in and say “well if you like capitalism so much why don’t you go work in a sweatshop in India, and you think child labour is moral and justified” you’re taking ideas to the extreme, and before you try to straw man that quote that’s not what I think you think And what’s wrong with criticism of either system, don’t get so defensive about it. Even if you ignore gross mismanagement they’ll still be countless wars which were in essence profit driven- look at pretty much every U.N. “police” action since 1989 and they are all profit driven, the Arab spring was largely driven by the CIA- the countries involved were looking to switch selling oil using gold standard instead of the US dollar (this is economics that is too complicated to explain with a youtube comment go search petro dollar) which would harm US profits on the market. Libya went from one of the most well off countries in Africa to a failed state where slavery is rampant in the space of a few years as a result of neo liberal capitalism’s drive for monopoly and profit. Same thing will probably happen in Venezuela, the rats they eat will be the least of their problems over the next few years if Libya is anything to go off. (Before you say I’m defending Maduro I’m not, there’s plenty wrong with him, I just don’t want another Libya. You seem so scared and personally offended at the prospect that the system we live under is harmful to the majority of the population, although I’m guessing it’s because you associate criticism of capitalism as red flag for communism, it’s not, I just want a better world, that’s never going to happen if you’re not critical of the system you live under, especially if your only defence of it is “but communist killed” still doesn’t nullify the death under capitalism.
boflator look here in the UK there is a huge homeless crisis, worst thing is that there is more empty housing here than there are homeless people. A flat block was recently built in my city which was bought by a Russian investor for tax evasion, the flats since being completed 4 years ago have been empty ever since. I'm not calling for violence, just moral action, housing is a human right, it shouldn't be a commodity that only some can attain, and my generation thanks to inflation are never going to own our houses apart from the rich, in 20-30 years time we will see an end to social mobility as it is tied with the ability to purchase housing. What is violent about seizing empty housing and giving it to people who actually need it? And refusing to give it up when no one lives there is put it plain and simply- immoral. so US personal dominance of the oil market is fine but when Arab countries try to get in on the action that's not good? And they weren't cutting supply to US just preventing the US from profiting from other countries natural resources (the petro dollar was established by Nixon as a response the 80s oil crisis funnily enough). The US would still have oil, they just wouldn't profit in its sale on the global market. Maybe if US capitalism is so fragile that the loss of oil profits would result in societal collapse you should reconsider your argument, since this is the exact same cause for Venezuela's collapse a few years ago. So you think criticism of capitalism is fine, which is essentially what my first comment was, that people forget that profit drive leads to miss management and death, that whilst soviet communism was directly responsible for millions upon millions of deaths 80-40 years ago, modern neo liberal capitalism leads to millions of indirect deaths and human rights abuses today. I mean this argument is almost like me making a case to abolish the monarchy because it lead to deaths hundreds of years ago. We aren't living in the past, we are living in the now, and we can only affect the future, being complacent and apologetic isn't going to help anyone, including yourself
@@boflator So murdering is worse when the genocide involves your own people rather than the systemic enslavement and torturing of generations of people. Let. Me. Jot. That. Down. I guess they accidentally enslaved people for their own benefit... I hate when that happens. Just the other day I was down the street... Tripped... And what do you know, I toppled another state for oil. I guess it happens to the best of us...
I hate these tv conversations where they put one person in a room with 5 people who disagree with them. If you really feel your ideology is superior then let him make his points without interruption and then you make yours, otherwise it comes off like your scared he’s right. (which imo he is lol)
It's why I stopped watching BBC 'debates' like this years ago. Got sick of a 1 person being rounded on by a room of others , given no time to explain their views, being constantly interrupted.
He should have stated: Communism is not an ideology it's the end of ideology! Communism is the end of history because it's the end of the class struggle
@Alex Arviso that's a brilliant point and if it wasn't for britains social programs (which are slowly being destroyed by the 1%) Britain would be in the same condition. but the media will keep demonizing the poor to distract everyone from what the 1% are doing
@Alex Arviso Well you'd better tell the thousands of people still trying to get into the US EVERY DAY about it because they don't seem to agree with you.
@@occamsaturn No. Just based on a cursory history of communism, which is all about useful idiots and brutal, hypocritical self-interested schemers. We have over a century of consistent examples - not the least of which is when Communists and National Socialists aggressively initiated the Second World War as allies.
It's so hard to have an honest discussion, when even the host/moderator starts by tilting things to one side.. calling it murderous right off the bat, and blaming it for 9mil deaths caused by dictators, rather than the ideology itself.. If you wanna play by those same rules, there are plenty of arguments to be made that capitalism is responsible for 10s of millions of deaths each year, never mind the many wars and destabilizations done for capitalist reasons over the last century or 2..
Whenever people, usually on the right, start using the communism=murderous ideology argument, It is often quite easy to dismantle their line of thought using a mirror absurd critique: is Jesus and his supposed teachings to blame for the inquisition, crusades, religious colonial violence and countless other atrocities committed in his name by the Catholic Church? Usually they shut up after that one.
As someone jokingly said on Twitter recently, 50% of being a conservative is simply not knowing the definition of words. That's embarassingly clear here.
Why are we living on twitter? Oh tell me. The sad bedroom mob. Who is the somone on twitter.? One of the sado mobs. Grow up and stop playing your stupid games. The majority are hear now. The new kids on the block. Do one.
You can just tell how frustrated this guy is getting, even though they just keep demeaning his views and putting words in his mouth and insulting his intelligence, he remains perfectly pleasant, poised, and well-spoken. Absolutely proved himself to be quite more informed than everyone else in the room
Prism head No it isn't, fascism is capitalist. Socialists have always opposed fascism. In the Spanish civil war socialists fought fascism, Hitler also had socialists killed despite incorrectly calling himself one and there are many more examples. Basic research will tell you this.
Prism head Okay so you're once again wrong. The Nazi party did not have full state control of the economy(which is not something socialists are in favour of) in fact if you Google the origin of the word "privatisation" you will find it comes from an article in the economist describing Nazi policies. Walter Audasio was the Italian communist who shot Mussolini. The fascist leader Franco also said "there will be no communism"
The last year has shown very clearly just how different the U.S and U.K are in politics and how it's discussed. The standard of public discourse about lots of issues in the U.S seems totally moronic.
Like old Louis said, “I am the state!”, and in a monarchy he’s right, yea? And so in a democracy wouldn’t “the state” simply be made up of the people? I think that’s actually the context the old guy was speaking in, he was projecting fascism onto communism and not democracy. It was disingenuous of him but I imagine he wasn’t trying to lie, he’s likely completely ignorant of history, or lying. WE all know the US has crushed all attempts at communism, the host does to I’m sure. That crushing has help conflate things. The only communist (actually socialist) regime that has been able to hold off American imperialism and “nation building” was USSR in the past and China in modern times. And China is really a mixed system, that’s probably why they’re eating all our lunch! WINNING! Both of them were/are authoritarian socialism, which is indeed a dangerous mix, ready to be corrupted by those in power. Amazingly tho (not), there can be democratic socialism/communism, which is what Marx described, for the most part. There’s been several potential democratic socialist regimes gain power in their countries, generally these are in nations that the aren’t the most stable, so there’s easily subverted and USA helps overthrow them before they can even make a decent experiment of it. USSR and China may not have been all that stable either, but stable enough to withstand our soft wars at least for a time, they also are nations that are big players on the global stage, the US couldn’t flip them in a few months, and they both pose(d) enough of a threat that they can’t just be bombed into submission, and both are famous for their spying, counterspy, as well as very good at gather info about an enemy and have solid counter intelligence too.
Both USSR and China were able to resist for the very reason that they are/were fascist socialism, which is inherently faster to move than any democratic nation. When one party or one person has the only vote that counts, they will not get bogged down in politics, no need to draft accurate laws, no waiting for both sides to prepare their arguments, no waiting for “the people” to vote, it’s just point and click. Honestly that sounds awful but there is certainly merit to it, but only with a competent leader, with potent people under him to do the bidding. That combo of fascism and socialism do seem to arise fairly often, and they are scary, especially with a wild in power, and all that combined does lend itself to tyrannical rule, in fact it resembles a feudalistic monarchy in many ways! But a true socialist government of the proletariat is something else ENTIRELY! But, at least in my mind, that would be a system that COULD be very slow to react appropriately to something like the threat of war, but we take war for granted, as if it’s just the natural state of humans, I don’t think that guaranteed tho, in a modern world cooperation is possible in ways that were impossible even a few decades ago, cooperation is death to war! No need to attack anyone over resources if we’re dedicated to cooperate. Further more, IF such an idealist system could be established, fine tune it very often to optimize communication and be able to take appropriate action quickly then it seems possible to allow for much more swift and agile movement when it’s required, and in truth the fact that such a system is slow is probably an advantage in many ways. In the US we swing from one extreme to the other, with all sides obstructing tge other side, trying to “win” at any cost, and each side making sure to undo the work of the other, as soon as one side loses power the other becomes the party in control, promptly doing everything they can to undo all that work. We can do better! We have the power to build our world the way we’d like it be, but with no vision of the future, no lofty goals to achieve them each individual citizen can only control minute change, never able to work towards a better society.
Fascism has become such a dirty word that even people who believe in its ideology think of the word as an insult. I wish fascists would own their ideology though, and be proud of it in public if they actually believe it, but they usually understand if they want to indoctrinate susceptible minds, coming out immediately as an openly revolting bigot is probably going to put off many potential inductees. They realise the importance of political correctness, in other words. Say what you want about fascists (they are undoubtedly helped by the way mainstream media either appeals to racist impulses, or appeals to a purely liberal approach to identity politics which the working class feel alienated from) but they can be extremely talented at intellectually dishonest manipulation. Much like a religious cult.
Frank, sorry but you act like an idiot who never read Marx and no Marxism. I recommend you to read Domenico Losurdo's Counter-History of Liberalism, open his mind.
@@ThePathOfEudaimonia You should check out Viki1999, they do a pretty good job of explaining leftist ideology; honestly that's a really complicated question and the answer will vary depending on who you ask and how they define communism and their specific ideology. Viki has videos that explain a lot of different socialist ideas and some of them focus on implementation of a post-capitalist system in a few different ways, some with a state and some stateless
Go to Venezuela and see what it means. I hsve travelled and seen what the outcome of communism does. It starts off as a pretty ideology then begins to suppress people. Because they cannot exercise freedom of speech. To do that means blowing the whistle on their misery. So the communists take action. Not giving a toss who is beaten or murdered. And the brakes cannot be turned off. So the vile killing goes on. This man is deluded. And dangerous. Wasn't it him that wanted to disband renemberence Sunday. Wake up.
He didn't even define what his version of socialism/communism means. Every socialist has a different definition to distance themselves from the huge numbers of people dead from their disgusting ideology.
@@JB27888 What are you talking about? By the STANDARD definiton of communism, none of these countries that are claimed to have mass deaths were communist. You're so biased and you can't even see it.
Why MEDIUM that is based on 100 % communist way of working is always criticizing communism ? This is beyond my comprehension. Please anybody help me grasp this phenomenon?
The crazy thing is, Chile wasn't even getting rid of their liberal economy, they were expanding welfarism and nationalizing a few things like El Salvador and Iran did before they were all overthrown to be replaced by dictatorships.
It doesn't help when people are debating something they don't even understand. Communism isn't state control of the means of production. It's workers control of the means of production.
if they're marxist leninists then it's revolutionary worker's vanguard party controlling the means of production as a transition into fully worker-controlled means of production. But I mean knowing the difference between socialist streams demands some good-faith engagement with the material.
Celebrimbor Blue very true. Reason I said that though is I don't count ML's as actual communists because the Vanguard party never actually quite delivers the workers democratic control of the means of production as they say they will. I don't know it would be nice to see the media actually discuss left wing politics without this Mccarthyite shrieking and fear however.
yep. I really didn't even catch what this guy's ideology was because the ~capitalists~ immediately started red baiting and yapping like scared poodles.
Stephen Tries not really. My view of communism at least is that it is at its core also libertarian. It can't have any heirachal structure because this just gets abused by dictatorships, so you wouldn't have any centralised government and state apparatus which could weild undemocratic power. Like in the USSR and pretty much every other self confessed "socialist" nation. The functions of the state (in my idea of communism at least) would be provided by industrial unions which would determine supply of goods and provide for the society what it needs, healthcare, public projects etc etc. Anarcho Syndicalism and Anarcho communism pretty much would be the basis of it.
@@paulmorinart haha 'democracy' everytime a country elects a left wing government who wants to stop foreign cooperations from destroying the country Western nations and especially the US coup them install a genocidal fascist government and call it democracy. The US is so democratic it supports the fking Saudi loyal family. They sell you individualism so you think you have power. You don't.
2:14 - "I think that if you want to abolish private property and you do want the state to control virtually everything, then you have to use brutal enforcement methods to make people cooperate." - There is a lot to be said here, but the first, immediate reaction needs to be to point out that the capitalist state(s) of today *already* use brutal enforcement methods to make people "cooperate", both against their own people and territories and against _each other's_ people and territories, even though they _don't_ do all these other things. Just to put things in perspective.
Capitalism is an ideology because it tries to make the masses see things their way. Communism is not an ideology it's the end of ideology! Communism is the end of history because it's the end of the class stuggle
@@patrickcampbell957 except they aren’t defining the word properly according to The philosopher who developed the term. Communism is not state control lol. It’s a stateless society in which the means of production are shared (like in tribes) and decisions regarding the surplus are decided democratically. Like I’m tribes people have personal property but the means of production (which is what Marx defined as “private property” are communally owned... ie no one owns a farm or factory. We have communism existing in small pockets within capitalist, socialist and social democratic states like worker coops in the basque region of Spain. Just because a political party describes itself as communist, they can only be said to be attempting to support people in creating communism, because by definition it can’t be created or exist of governed from a top down central authority. Marx described capitalism as playing an necessary evolutionary role in developing the technology which would enable communism to exist in complex large societies amd enable them to produce a surplus without coercive exploitation of human labour. I have aspergers and nothing bothers me more than how people redefine words to fit their reactionary feelings. People cannot have any sort of productive conversation and it’s maddening.
@@areyoustupid..... what are you talking about? These distinctions aren’t mine. You sound like a intellectually lazy, reactionary ideologue. capitalism is also an ideology responsible for death and war. It is also failing right now and it’s requirement for perpetual growth and gluttonous consumption will destroy our biosphere. All responsible individuals should be looking at primary sources not parroting the media brainwashing that prevents us from understanding our world and keeps us stuck in the past. Plenty of people defended feudalism, but evolution required we change. Grow up and learn to study and think for yourself.
@@areyoustupid..... I would reply but I keep getting deleted. anyways you make no sense. If communism is an idea - then you should study what that idea is. socialism is something else. stop being reactionary and intellectually lazy. Do you not see that capitalism is failing as we speak. All responsible people should be seeking to understand the world - not parrot media talking points and Cold War propaganda and conditioning. Ironic you call me a child. You don’t even know my politics, I was simply pointing out how shallow and ignorant the hosts understanding Of what communism vs socialism is.
@@TysonWoof where would you run that capitalistic style business. Don't you need private property for that? Are you aware that the state is what makes private property possible?
@@Tummasfo You would have to use force to bring back capitalism. Imagine going up to a worker owned factory or state run hospital and saying, "This is mine now."
Its funny how he‘s explaining it so well and with quite a historical touch to it, while the other ones are so oblivious. Especially the UKIP lady, like she doesn’t even know what the hell she‘s talking about. You can tell by her face, she’s just repeating prejudices she‘s heard over and over again without ever thinking critically about what’s she’s been told.
3 capitalists vs 1 (new) communist. Prrsenter ignores communists definition and goes on to talk about communism being a brutal regime of murder. *kisses teeth*
Yes, genocide, the systematic murder of a particular race, is the clear outcome of pursuing a vision of a collective society. *bangs head on wall in frustration*
3:35 Back in the USSR, they recorded billions of tiny transactions by hands on massive paper ledgers. If you bought a meal at a restaurant in the 50s in the USSR, it went into a ledger. That was inefficient back then but today it's how every above-board business in the country is run. He's 100% right about context
@@agt155 what do you think the Soviet Union was? It had a very similar standard of living to the US at that time. Just because most businesses were worker owned doesn’t mean the crops instantly withered and all food vaporized off the shelves.
"communism still has a mystique about it, that, I think, is because people who believe in the free market havent been robust enough in defending the things we believe in." (5:44) I think the cold war and the anti-communist crusade of the cia and other government agencies have been quite "robust" in "the things they believe in", as we have seen in indonesia, south america, vietnam, laos, cambodia, cuba and so many other countries.
Stop being polite to these people. 9 million? Try over 100 million killed, starved to death, and worked to death in the gulags. Stop discussing the brand and shame these people for the animals that they are
The guy on the far left’s definition was just flat out wrong! (Of communism) nothing about communism is state run, in the manifesto-it says “ stateless”
Very sad and telling that the hosts created an echo chamber on the spot to feel like they won the conversation instead of looking Aaron in the eye like adults.
Marx said the development of capitalism is necessary for communism to be achieved. One of many reasons Lenin et al was wrong to pursue it in Russia or any other under developed country. I wouldn't call myself a communist, I am a libertarian socialist, and I would avoid the word because of the baggage you described. However, you must understand that communism is a moneyless, classless society based on the free association of individuals- it's never happened anywhere, except maybe by the anarchists for a brief time in the spanish civil war before it was crushed by... Stalin. I called you a psychopath because you took the natural human act of sharing and turned it into a soulless money transaction, and called it 'grown up'. Furthermore, you ignore the uncounted millions of deaths attributed to capitalism, which are ignored as if a fact of nature. Slavery, imperialism, empire, genocide, war and fascism have all been results of the capitalist system.
"Is it more romanticized to say 'I am literally a communist' than 'I am literally a fascist'?" This shows the level of disdain the presenter possessed. The idea that communism is 'romanticized' when it is actually continually demeaned without understanding it, and by putting it alongside 'fascism' is a worrying response by a BBC presenter. Capitalism is 'romanticized' at every opportunity - communism isn't.
Saying communism is equal to hate, oppression and killing is like saying conservatism is about social divide, austerity and poverty. Defining things by what has been done rather than what they are is not helpful in the slightest, yet many people struggle to make that seperation.
Good on you Aaron. We need more people like you. Capitalism and free market economies are clearly not working. My father is a communist to this day and was a shop steward back in the day in the early 1970s. I want to read up more about communism and get a good grasp of it. You know your stuff.
So your father was partly responsible for the endless strikes. Strikes that meant we had power cuts for days on end. Strikes that had millions of tons of rubbish in the streets. No jobs. No future Strikes that resulted in the collapse of the shipbuilding industry, the car industry, coal mining , etc etc etc. I lived through it . Thank goodness Maggie came along.
First of all there were always communists who opposed Stalin, Mao et al and indeed gave their lives in the struggle against those tyrannies. There's no such thing as a fascist who stood up for democracy against Hitler,Franco etc. So the comparison is absurd. And the definition of communism given by Matthew Parris is totally false. Societies where the state controls everything and there is no private property have already existed. Ancient Egypt and China at various periods among others. Marx called these cultures Oriental despotisms. Marx wasnt completely historically accurate but the point was a tiny minority ruled the state and used it to cream off a surplus for themselves. Obviously that wasnt the kind of society marxists wanted. Indeed it sounded quite similar to Stalinism which is why the theory of oriental despotism caused deep official unease at the time.
Make an argument rather than a baseless accusation. By the way Stalin also claimed to be a democrat. East Germany had the word democratic in its official name. Does this mean democracy is a tainted word?
Because thats an absurd reading of history. You could say that of Lenin and Trotsky who clearly were committed to communism but not of Stalin or Mao. Stalin supported freer markets in the 20's when it suited his purpose then he launched his breakneck industrialization programme where inequality massively increased and most of the basic principles of socialism were disregarded. You cant have it both ways. Stalin was a naive Utopian who tried to build paradise on earth. Also he was ruthless pragmatist who did anything to stay in power. Which is it?
@@elcampesino1848 Lenin and Trotsky did not fundamentally disagree with Stalin on the necessity of terror, or on the necessity of eliminating markets and private property. Trotsky and Stalin primarily didn't like each other because of personal differences; not because of ideological differences. Heck, Trotsky wrote an entire treatise defending the use of mass violence in defence of the revolution. The first labour camps were established under Lenin; Stalin merely expanded the system. Stalin was certainly a ruthless dictator. However, can you honestly tell me how you would have gone about doing collectivization in the Soviet Union? How do you collectivise 120 million recalcitrant peasants without violence? The answer is: you can't. Stalin did it the only way it could have been done and to claim otherwise is a lie. Stalin was communism's best chance and brightest light. And yes, it was a horror show. But it couldn't have been any other way.
The host is supposed to be unbiased. How on earth do you hammer Aaron in that way but give free reign to the deputy leader of fucking UKIP? 😂 This is what we’ve become. No wonder people are searching for new initiatives.
Literally everyone is giving their opinion on communism expert the communist because they keep interrupting him and trying to accuse him off actual murder.
I feel like there was a point hit on here that needs clarifying: The panel try to equate Fascism and Communism, but how would Fascism ever result in a peaceful society? I'm genuinely not well read enough to know the answer.
People love to equate fascism and communism by looking at the numerous failed attempts at each and not understanding the differences. In short, capitalist propoganda.
If your gonna attribute the deaths under communism to the ideology you have to do the same for capitalism. And if your gonna do that capitalism is also an infinitely more murderous ideology.
Which deaths under capitalism? How can deaths be attributed to people having the freedom to trade? Deaths under communism come as a result of enforcing communism
Imagine a million Einsteins and Hawkings who are right now unable to achieve their potential because all their effort and energy goes into just scraping through life and surviving. So much wasted human potential so some rich asshole can buy a new megayacht or a tenth private jet.
The soviet union was never communist, amd never claimed to be. Lenin literally made a speach sayjng that that bolsheviks had set up a state capitalist society. He literally said that. We have the same situation with china, where neither government had claimed to be communist. Both just stayed in that state-capitalist transitionary period. That being said, i do not support this idea of a vanguard and annenforced transitionary period. We have seen now that when you just centralise power away from one grouo of people to another, it is never re redistributed. Its just the nature of power, particularly in such hostile conditions as capitalism. I think we should explore anarchist ideas abit more and begin to democratise the workplace with worker cooperatives.
Religion also led to millions of deaths but for some reason; we still have to tolerate it in our society and it's rude to comment on adults having imaginary friends.
damit, is it so hard to click on the channel info? 1. its a joke 2. its also kinda trying to reclaim "libertarian" from those right wingers who stole the word from actual anarchists (socialists)
Libertarian Leninist Rants Well actually yes, yes it is. Where do you explain your stance? Where is the channel info, I don’t know, I rarely use my channel properly.
Well done for keeping it light-hearted. You're a much better person than me on that scale. There some good points, mostly from Aaron, but I liked the man on the left of the screen being honest. I don't agree, but I liked his honest approach. However, I can't stand the woman next to him. Why not just take some time to consider different ideas. To me, that's career politics in a bag, 'I know my ideas work and get me elected, so why think of anything else'. 'Why even use my imagination of a better system, my career is fine and that's that.'
I mean, she is literally a Ukipper who's never said a thoughtful word in her life. She's been on question time a fair few times (which, fair enough, their party unfortunately got a certain level of public support), and she was just shown up for the complete lightweight she is, intellectually speaking. I mean, you could be a flag waving thatcher loving Tory and still see through her complete lack of any intelligent thought when put next to actual competent people.
They were speaking 2 different languages. He was speaking digital and they were talking analogue. A bit like trying to explain internet downloads to your grandma.
"I am the one and only" - Chesney Hawkes, 1991. "I'm a cybernetic organism: living tissue over a metal endoskeleton." - T-800 Cyberdyne Systems Model 101, also 1991.
I agree that he just needs a new word. People won't let go of the historical context. And people need to be more open to new terms, and letting go of old terms.
Well, with regards to the millions of deaths, don't we think that the First and Second World Wars, fought for resources and markets should be attributed to capitalism too. And what about Iraq, a war for oil? What about the millions who die every year because of insufficient food in countries where plenty is grown, or those who die every year due to a lack of medical care - in the richest country in the world! I am not saying that communism is the right direction to go, but lets consider the facts fairly and equitably.
Aaron is way too intelligent and well-read for the rest of the people sat there. Specially the woman on the left. She can't even get past the "" mindset.
Karl Marx never hurt anybody; as Aaron says it would be like blaming Adam Smith for the millions of Indians who starved to death under British colonial rule.
He's Matthew Parris a well known, and quite independently minded writer. And he wasn't defending it, only explaining it in the face of crass ignorance by the others.
Karl Marx idea is perfection and beautiful but it can never work unless it's a perfect world or if we trusted all humans and for one we know damn sure humanity is not to be trusted. Also I bet if self preservation didn't exist it might of worked but that's impossible too right ?
Freedom of expression I say. Why should it be a problem wearing a shirt saying this that and the other? Have to thank Democratic Capitalistic systems of government in the west for being so libertarian. Problem with the communistic countries that existed in the east is that they were too authoritarian and undemocratic. Can't blame and generalise ideology to cause suppression that resulted from a multitude oppressive factors.
The meaning of communism has been redefined at some point looking back to Brittania 1971 dictionary.States:A philosophy or system derived from Marxism advocating state ownership of land and property on behalf of the proletariat.
What if I said I was a Fascist Revisionist, and rejected Mussolini but claimed real Fascism was acc represented by Gabrielle D'Annunzio??? These people are far too priviledged
How Aaron managed to remain so good- humoured through that is beyond me. The struggle against corporate media is also the struggle against intellectual ignominy.
The level of knowledge on display by these hosts reminds me of when my parents talk about the internet.
The lack thereof of knowledge, yes, it is pretty sad.
The BBC level of debate is embarrassing
Dave Locke this is our future. Sad times
I know it's ridiculous. As soon as ideas start to emerge and nuanced debate they scream in the earpieces of the hired dummies 'Corbyn is a communist'
john hudson yeah. But he is. Or is it rebranded and called a social Democrat now.
Thanks for all that I think you need to read the communist manifesto, then the labour manifesto, then read a few of Corbyns speeches.
Michael Whitaker What makes you think I haven't done so already?
“Communism is state-...” I’m going to stop you there, champ.
Yeah, I would've corrected him there. Not sure why Aaron just sat back and let that one fly lol
@@yoboi267 they would've just probably started ranting about the USSR and China again if he did
Communist parties run socialist states. Marxists theorize socialism is a working class run state that exists between capitalism and communism, which is stateless
@@yoboi267 .Man he could just been a little off guard. Underestimated centrist boomer rage!
Why is it wrong to say it's "state" anything? (just curious, I know very little about this sort of thing)
I really wish old mate had asked them, "What about the violence required to establish and maintain capitalism? Do you all support that?" Because capitalism is not a peaceful, bloodless ideology by any means, but cheerleaders for capitalism don't get called on it enough.
Communism is not an ideology it's the end of ideology! Communism is the end of history because it's the end of the class stuggle
Currently, capitalism is fighting harder against going green than it is fighting climate change.
Capitalism is making deals and mutual agreements. If its mot mutual agreement, then its violence. Aka capitalism is anti-violence. And anti-capitalism is pro-violence.
Exactly what I was thinking. Capitalism runs because of the threat of violence if you don't work within the system of capitalism.
How many people die homeless in the richest countries under capitalism each year? How many in America die because of their healthcare system? There are countless examples of violence under capitalism and we've just been told it's just a part of life.
How many millions of people have died because of anti-communist wars declared by capitalist governments? Let alone other wars waged by them.
“I can’t imagine someone saying ‘I’m literally a fascist’” says the former UKIP lady. Okay.
Well, most fascists play dumb about it and prefer to be cheeky about it.
Wow, I just learnt what UKIP is and was amused by how openly ironic this part was.
I said to myself: "Well Suzanne, you are literally a fascist"
I swear these people play dumb or the definition for fascism has ben so screwed that people do not know what it means.
“Are you romanticizing a murderous ideology?” said by a straight faced Brit after Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan, the British Empire.. & tears for Maggie + the Royals 😆
Not her colour ..no shit 😅
"I know plenty of people who are literally fascists". Lol, interesting admission.
@@boflator or just spend 25 minutes on the Internet.
I wonder why he knows PLENTY of fascists...
Certainly it couldn't be because he's a staunch defender of the free market...
I know haha. Imagine thinking that was actually some kind of rebuttal.
😂
I’ve known people who told me that they were “literally fascists”.
Imagine lecturing someone on the death toll of communism... in the Kingdom of Britain
Leo Gorgone yeah I find it pretty ironic that communism death toll is constantly bought up, despite capitalism’s death toll, (not that it makes criticism like this redundant, but this kind of argument applies just as well to capitalism) you know we live in a system where we have people eating themselves to death, with massive food wastage whilst simultaneously having a massive homeless and food bank problems. Then there’s foreign wars.
These aren’t explicitly caused by capitalism nor are they the preferred outcome of it, but these deaths are just as linked to the system as deaths under Stalinism.
Of course this is the bbc, the ultimate defender of the status quo, not matter what it might be.
boflator did I call for death camps for the bourgeoisie? No all I want is a refunded nhs, free housing, better workers rights and a living wage. You’re just projecting a straw maned communist onto me. So well done for that, never seen such a grown up argument before.
And i do critique communism, it’s a system that’s done terrible harm to people around the world, its not even comparable to want I ideally want.
It’s like you saying I like capitalism and I then instantly jump in and say “well if you like capitalism so much why don’t you go work in a sweatshop in India, and you think child labour is moral and justified” you’re taking ideas to the extreme, and before you try to straw man that quote that’s not what I think you think
And what’s wrong with criticism of either system, don’t get so defensive about it. Even if you ignore gross mismanagement they’ll still be countless wars which were in essence profit driven- look at pretty much every U.N. “police” action since 1989 and they are all profit driven, the Arab spring was largely driven by the CIA- the countries involved were looking to switch selling oil using gold standard instead of the US dollar (this is economics that is too complicated to explain with a youtube comment go search petro dollar) which would harm US profits on the market. Libya went from one of the most well off countries in Africa to a failed state where slavery is rampant in the space of a few years as a result of neo liberal capitalism’s drive for monopoly and profit. Same thing will probably happen in Venezuela, the rats they eat will be the least of their problems over the next few years if Libya is anything to go off. (Before you say I’m defending Maduro I’m not, there’s plenty wrong with him, I just don’t want another Libya.
You seem so scared and personally offended at the prospect that the system we live under is harmful to the majority of the population, although I’m guessing it’s because you associate criticism of capitalism as red flag for communism, it’s not, I just want a better world, that’s never going to happen if you’re not critical of the system you live under, especially if your only defence of it is “but communist killed” still doesn’t nullify the death under capitalism.
boflator look here in the UK there is a huge homeless crisis, worst thing is that there is more empty housing here than there are homeless people. A flat block was recently built in my city which was bought by a Russian investor for tax evasion, the flats since being completed 4 years ago have been empty ever since. I'm not calling for violence, just moral action, housing is a human right, it shouldn't be a commodity that only some can attain, and my generation thanks to inflation are never going to own our houses apart from the rich, in 20-30 years time we will see an end to social mobility as it is tied with the ability to purchase housing. What is violent about seizing empty housing and giving it to people who actually need it? And refusing to give it up when no one lives there is put it plain and simply- immoral.
so US personal dominance of the oil market is fine but when Arab countries try to get in on the action that's not good? And they weren't cutting supply to US just preventing the US from profiting from other countries natural resources (the petro dollar was established by Nixon as a response the 80s oil crisis funnily enough). The US would still have oil, they just wouldn't profit in its sale on the global market.
Maybe if US capitalism is so fragile that the loss of oil profits would result in societal collapse you should reconsider your argument, since this is the exact same cause for Venezuela's collapse a few years ago.
So you think criticism of capitalism is fine, which is essentially what my first comment was, that people forget that profit drive leads to miss management and death, that whilst soviet communism was directly responsible for millions upon millions of deaths 80-40 years ago, modern neo liberal capitalism leads to millions of indirect deaths and human rights abuses today. I mean this argument is almost like me making a case to abolish the monarchy because it lead to deaths hundreds of years ago. We aren't living in the past, we are living in the now, and we can only affect the future, being complacent and apologetic isn't going to help anyone, including yourself
@@boflator You must have missed the history of the middle passage, imperialism and neo-colonialism. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@boflator
So murdering is worse when the genocide involves your own people rather than the systemic enslavement and torturing of generations of people. Let. Me. Jot. That. Down.
I guess they accidentally enslaved people for their own benefit... I hate when that happens. Just the other day I was down the street... Tripped... And what do you know, I toppled another state for oil. I guess it happens to the best of us...
I hate these tv conversations where they put one person in a room with 5 people who disagree with them. If you really feel your ideology is superior then let him make his points without interruption and then you make yours, otherwise it comes off like your scared he’s right. (which imo he is lol)
It's why I stopped watching BBC 'debates' like this years ago. Got sick of a 1 person being rounded on by a room of others , given no time to explain their views, being constantly interrupted.
He should have stated: Communism is not an ideology it's the end of ideology! Communism is the end of history because it's the end of the class struggle
If he’s right, he should be able to communicate his thoughts just fine enough with 5 people on the panel disagreeing with him.
@@perryjohnson6461 and he was, when they weren't talking over him or trying to call him a fascist instead of bringing credible arguments.
Well I think it's quite hard to find people who support communism
“Communism is when the government does stuff”
Oh no, oh god, oh fuck
my god, the BBC is awful. "communism is a murderous ideology" and capitalism has been such an angel
@Alex Arviso that's a brilliant point and if it wasn't for britains social programs (which are slowly being destroyed by the 1%) Britain would be in the same condition. but the media will keep demonizing the poor to distract everyone from what the 1% are doing
@@markweston6383 , they have to defend capitalism because they benefit from it. Just like the 1% in a feudal hierarchy of lords.
@Alex Arviso Well you'd better tell the thousands of people still trying to get into the US EVERY DAY about it because they don't seem to agree with you.
Mark Weston BBC is the most left wing bias platform in the world. Deaths caused by capitalism are nothing compared to what communism has caused
@@christophermckay7082 Humans have always migrated from one place to another. Americans have been migrating from rural to urban areas.
Jesus this pissed me off, it's like "hey let's get a guy we disagree with and talk over top of him for 5 minutes"
The beeb's bread and butter...
@@noodlyappendage6729 lol no it wasn't, they're uneducated idiots
I will say, he still came off as the most well-informed out of all of them and I think absolutely did a great job in the name of communists
@Matty Slice interesting projection there lol
@@occamsaturn No. Just based on a cursory history of communism, which is all about useful idiots and brutal, hypocritical self-interested schemers. We have over a century of consistent examples - not the least of which is when Communists and National Socialists aggressively initiated the Second World War as allies.
It's so hard to have an honest discussion, when even the host/moderator starts by tilting things to one side.. calling it murderous right off the bat, and blaming it for 9mil deaths caused by dictators, rather than the ideology itself..
If you wanna play by those same rules, there are plenty of arguments to be made that capitalism is responsible for 10s of millions of deaths each year, never mind the many wars and destabilizations done for capitalist reasons over the last century or 2..
Exactly
You are able to sound off but try it in a communist state, you’d soon be a dead dog!
Whenever people, usually on the right, start using the communism=murderous ideology argument, It is often quite easy to dismantle their line of thought using a mirror absurd critique: is Jesus and his supposed teachings to blame for the inquisition, crusades, religious colonial violence and countless other atrocities committed in his name by the Catholic Church? Usually they shut up after that one.
What does that tell you about people?
@@quaid667 I don’t know cuz I can’t make sense of your comment…
As someone jokingly said on Twitter recently, 50% of being a conservative is simply not knowing the definition of words. That's embarassingly clear here.
Why are we living on twitter? Oh tell me. The sad bedroom mob. Who is the somone on twitter.? One of the sado mobs.
Grow up and stop playing your stupid games. The majority are hear now. The new kids on the block. Do one.
@@lasttango7522 hey dude define "communism"
@@mmmorgi Hey I am not a dude so stop making assumptions.
Do your own research. Plenty of info on line regarding communism. Dude.
@@lasttango7522 dude
How did anyone state something wrong?
How the hell does he stay so calm as they just blatantly lie around him.
ikr
Yeah...unbelivable in this day and age. So calm and poised.
@Igor Horváth there will be no market. Only amazon.
@Igor Horváth I don't want competition i want co-operation.
@Igor Horváth there will different firms making art for us to enjoy. But will have all scientists working together on most appliances
You can just tell how frustrated this guy is getting, even though they just keep demeaning his views and putting words in his mouth and insulting his intelligence, he remains perfectly pleasant, poised, and well-spoken. Absolutely proved himself to be quite more informed than everyone else in the room
Communism deserves to be demeanered 100 million were killed in its name.
He was using strawman after strawman.
Have we watched the same video?
@@labt8194 Yeah but capitalism has killed sixty trillion
@@GarethPW I don’t think there’s been that many humans in humanity.
The lady in the center really likes her question, she keeps repeating it throughout the whole thing no matter what you answer.
She doesn't have an informed view, so she doesn't know how else to attack his views.
She's deranged.
"I think he's 90% communuist" .......
wot
Amazingly thorough analyses from a UKIPer once again.
If he's 90% communist (I wish) then she's 100% Fascist crackpot
Prism head No it isn't, fascism is capitalist. Socialists have always opposed fascism. In the Spanish civil war socialists fought fascism, Hitler also had socialists killed despite incorrectly calling himself one and there are many more examples. Basic research will tell you this.
Prism head Okay so you're once again wrong. The Nazi party did not have full state control of the economy(which is not something socialists are in favour of) in fact if you Google the origin of the word "privatisation" you will find it comes from an article in the economist describing Nazi policies.
Walter Audasio was the Italian communist who shot Mussolini.
The fascist leader Franco also said "there will be no communism"
@Snek Supremacist u stoopid
Snek Supremacist yes. Actual liberty.
I literally cannot imagine this conversation happening on the TV in the USA.
The last year has shown very clearly just how different the U.S and U.K are in politics and how it's discussed. The standard of public discourse about lots of issues in the U.S seems totally moronic.
It stemmed from a comment made with Piers Morgan on Morning TV the other day.
What about figuratively?
LIBERTY PRIME
That's so sad. The USA used to have great debates on TV on all controversial topics.
"It's clear what Karl Marx meant"
It's clear that you have not read a single word of Marx
I mean, his definition he said right before that quote was more accurate than what I’d find from 99% of the proletariat.
Like old Louis said, “I am the state!”, and in a monarchy he’s right, yea?
And so in a democracy wouldn’t “the state” simply be made up of the people?
I think that’s actually the context the old guy was speaking in, he was projecting fascism onto communism and not democracy.
It was disingenuous of him but I imagine he wasn’t trying to lie, he’s likely completely ignorant of history, or lying.
WE all know the US has crushed all attempts at communism, the host does to I’m sure.
That crushing has help conflate things.
The only communist (actually socialist) regime that has been able to hold off American imperialism and “nation building” was USSR in the past and China in modern times. And China is really a mixed system, that’s probably why they’re eating all our lunch! WINNING!
Both of them were/are authoritarian socialism, which is indeed a dangerous mix, ready to be corrupted by those in power.
Amazingly tho (not), there can be democratic socialism/communism, which is what Marx described, for the most part.
There’s been several potential democratic socialist regimes gain power in their countries, generally these are in nations that the aren’t the most stable, so there’s easily subverted and USA helps overthrow them before they can even make a decent experiment of it.
USSR and China may not have been all that stable either, but stable enough to withstand our soft wars at least for a time, they also are nations that are big players on the global stage, the US couldn’t flip them in a few months, and they both pose(d) enough of a threat that they can’t just be bombed into submission, and both are famous for their spying, counterspy, as well as very good at gather info about an enemy and have solid counter intelligence too.
Both USSR and China were able to resist for the very reason that they are/were fascist socialism, which is inherently faster to move than any democratic nation.
When one party or one person has the only vote that counts, they will not get bogged down in politics, no need to draft accurate laws, no waiting for both sides to prepare their arguments, no waiting for “the people” to vote, it’s just point and click.
Honestly that sounds awful but there is certainly merit to it, but only with a competent leader, with potent people under him to do the bidding.
That combo of fascism and socialism do seem to arise fairly often, and they are scary, especially with a wild in power, and all that combined does lend itself to tyrannical rule, in fact it resembles a feudalistic monarchy in many ways!
But a true socialist government of the proletariat is something else ENTIRELY!
But, at least in my mind, that would be a system that COULD be very slow to react appropriately to something like the threat of war, but we take war for granted, as if it’s just the natural state of humans, I don’t think that guaranteed tho, in a modern world cooperation is possible in ways that were impossible even a few decades ago, cooperation is death to war!
No need to attack anyone over resources if we’re dedicated to cooperate.
Further more, IF such an idealist system could be established, fine tune it very often to optimize communication and be able to take appropriate action quickly then it seems possible to allow for much more swift and agile movement when it’s required, and in truth the fact that such a system is slow is probably an advantage in many ways.
In the US we swing from one extreme to the other, with all sides obstructing tge other side, trying to “win” at any cost, and each side making sure to undo the work of the other, as soon as one side loses power the other becomes the party in control, promptly doing everything they can to undo all that work.
We can do better!
We have the power to build our world the way we’d like it be, but with no vision of the future, no lofty goals to achieve them each individual citizen can only control minute change, never able to work towards a better society.
Communism is not an ideology it's the end of ideology! Communism is the end of history because it's the end of the class stuggle
Karl Marx meant that we all have to share the one toothbrush.
"'I'm literally a fascist.' You can't imagine anyone going on national TV, and saying that, can you?"
She so wishes she could though. XD
Franck brusset???!! Tu squat les anglais maintenant putin de gauchiste ! 😂
No man....listen again !
Fascism has become such a dirty word that even people who believe in its ideology think of the word as an insult.
I wish fascists would own their ideology though, and be proud of it in public if they actually believe it, but they usually understand if they want to indoctrinate susceptible minds, coming out immediately as an openly revolting bigot is probably going to put off many potential inductees. They realise the importance of political correctness, in other words.
Say what you want about fascists (they are undoubtedly helped by the way mainstream media either appeals to racist impulses, or appeals to a purely liberal approach to identity politics which the working class feel alienated from) but they can be extremely talented at intellectually dishonest manipulation. Much like a religious cult.
Frank, sorry but you act like an idiot who never read Marx and no Marxism. I recommend you to read Domenico Losurdo's Counter-History of Liberalism, open his mind.
That's 'cause most fascists are hypocrites that prefer being hypocrites and using whistleblowing and other double-speak crap.
He could’ve easily said “Communism has no state” and it would’ve easily debunked everything they said. The Soviet Union was authoritarian socialist
Sorry, they promised communism by 80s. Did they lied?
@@SurzhenkoAndrii Yes
This is an honest question:
How can you get communism on a large scale, without having a large and controlling state to regulate everything?
@@ThePathOfEudaimonia You should check out Viki1999, they do a pretty good job of explaining leftist ideology; honestly that's a really complicated question and the answer will vary depending on who you ask and how they define communism and their specific ideology. Viki has videos that explain a lot of different socialist ideas and some of them focus on implementation of a post-capitalist system in a few different ways, some with a state and some stateless
How does communism work without a totalitarian state?
UKIP's Suzanne Evans. "That tee-shirt's not my colour."
Aaron Bastani "Of course not, it's black"
I'm just gonna pretend I heard that, if that's okay.
Ollie Mason - ah ok. If people don't say anything you can label racist then you'll just make it up.
"It's a funny tinge".
"Communism has a certain mystique about it"
I suppose so, since the people present are clearly mystified about what it actually means.
Go to Venezuela and see what it means. I hsve travelled and seen what the outcome of communism does. It starts off as a pretty ideology then begins to suppress people. Because they cannot exercise freedom of speech. To do that means blowing the whistle on their misery. So the communists take action. Not giving a toss who is beaten or murdered. And the brakes cannot be turned off. So the vile killing goes on. This man is deluded. And dangerous. Wasn't it him that wanted to disband renemberence Sunday. Wake up.
@@lasttango7522 you too seem mystified about what it means
@@lasttango7522 venezuela kkjjjjjj
@@Smerpyderp Not mystified just outraged that so many useful idiots buy into this vile ideology.
The panel should be wearing “Literally a colonialist” t-shirts instead.
Loaded questions with Red herrings!! RIP to intellectual debates.
... what lol
Debate is shit, tbh
it's incredible watching Aaron so eloquently lay out his views, and the look of utter confusion on everyone elses faces lol
Love Aaron but he should have said, look how many people died under capitalism or for capitalism, 2 world wars, middle east wars, slavery, famines etc
He didn't even define what his version of socialism/communism means. Every socialist has a different definition to distance themselves from the huge numbers of people dead from their disgusting ideology.
Communism is not an ideology it's the end of ideology! Communism is the end of history because it's the end of the class stuggle
@@JB27888 What are you talking about? By the STANDARD definiton of communism, none of these countries that are claimed to have mass deaths were communist. You're so biased and you can't even see it.
@@generalgrievous5452 always the excuse to say they weren't real communists.
Aaron handled this incredibly well considering that half of the other people on the panel weren't even arguing in good faith to begin with.
God, the smug look on that UKIP woman's face.
Why MEDIUM that is based on 100 % communist way of working is always criticizing communism ?
This is beyond my comprehension. Please anybody help me grasp this phenomenon?
It's like a debate between an academic intellectual and two 16 year olds.
you reds
The communist guy was too clueless to even understand what they were asking. He was having a completely different conversation.
@@ScreamingManiac He really wasn’t
@@Michael-vn1td he really was
It's like a smiling National Socialist selling a Jew hunting safari in Israel to a couple of polite but skeptical Brits.
5:55 I think they were pretty forceful in implementing the free market in chille
I'm yet to see a public referendum enact the "free market economy" thing in a single country, including my own.
As fellow chilean, i agree, they literally killed our president
The crazy thing is, Chile wasn't even getting rid of their liberal economy, they were expanding welfarism and nationalizing a few things like El Salvador and Iran did before they were all overthrown to be replaced by dictatorships.
He talked briefly about technology being the reason for his belief, but the panel never gave him the floor long enough to explain. Frustrating.
Yep, Bullshit Jobs by the late David Graeber makes the same exact point about technology.
It doesn't help when people are debating something they don't even understand. Communism isn't state control of the means of production. It's workers control of the means of production.
if they're marxist leninists then it's revolutionary worker's vanguard party controlling the means of production as a transition into fully worker-controlled means of production. But I mean knowing the difference between socialist streams demands some good-faith engagement with the material.
Celebrimbor Blue very true. Reason I said that though is I don't count ML's as actual communists because the Vanguard party never actually quite delivers the workers democratic control of the means of production as they say they will. I don't know it would be nice to see the media actually discuss left wing politics without this Mccarthyite shrieking and fear however.
yep. I really didn't even catch what this guy's ideology was because the ~capitalists~ immediately started red baiting and yapping like scared poodles.
Surely once “the workers” have complete control over the economy they effectively become a state?
Stephen Tries not really. My view of communism at least is that it is at its core also libertarian. It can't have any heirachal structure because this just gets abused by dictatorships, so you wouldn't have any centralised government and state apparatus which could weild undemocratic power. Like in the USSR and pretty much every other self confessed "socialist" nation. The functions of the state (in my idea of communism at least) would be provided by industrial unions which would determine supply of goods and provide for the society what it needs, healthcare, public projects etc etc. Anarcho Syndicalism and Anarcho communism pretty much would be the basis of it.
How many millions of people died in the name of "democracy" and "capitalism" and yet those words are still considered sacred.
That's because democracy is worth dying for and communism isn't worth living for.
@@paulmorinart socialism is necessarily democratic.
@@paulmorinart haha 'democracy' everytime a country elects a left wing government who wants to stop foreign cooperations from destroying the country Western nations and especially the US coup them install a genocidal fascist government and call it democracy. The US is so democratic it supports the fking Saudi loyal family. They sell you individualism so you think you have power. You don't.
2:14 - "I think that if you want to abolish private property and you do want the state to control virtually everything, then you have to use brutal enforcement methods to make people cooperate."
- There is a lot to be said here, but the first, immediate reaction needs to be to point out that the capitalist state(s) of today *already* use brutal enforcement methods to make people "cooperate", both against their own people and territories and against _each other's_ people and territories, even though they _don't_ do all these other things. Just to put things in perspective.
Capitalism is an ideology because it tries to make the masses see things their way. Communism is not an ideology it's the end of ideology! Communism is the end of history because it's the end of the class stuggle
I love how the non-communists are telling the actual Communist what he is
That's how words work. crazy innit
@@patrickcampbell957 except they aren’t defining the word properly according to The philosopher who developed the term. Communism is not state control lol. It’s a stateless society in which the means of production are shared (like in tribes) and decisions regarding the surplus are decided democratically. Like I’m tribes people have personal property but the means of production (which is what Marx defined as “private property” are communally owned... ie no one owns a farm or factory. We have communism existing in small pockets within capitalist, socialist and social democratic states like worker coops in the basque region of Spain. Just because a political party describes itself as communist, they can only be said to be attempting to support people in creating communism, because by definition it can’t be created or exist of governed from a top down central authority.
Marx described capitalism as playing an necessary evolutionary role in developing the technology which would enable communism to exist in complex large societies amd enable them to produce a surplus without coercive exploitation of human labour. I have aspergers and nothing bothers me more than how people redefine words to fit their reactionary feelings. People cannot have any sort of productive conversation and it’s maddening.
It's called ideology. 98% of people defending capitalism don't own capital and have to work to survive.
@@areyoustupid..... what are you talking about? These distinctions aren’t mine. You sound like a intellectually lazy, reactionary ideologue. capitalism is also an ideology responsible for death and war. It is also failing right now and it’s requirement for perpetual growth and gluttonous consumption will destroy our biosphere. All responsible individuals should be looking at primary sources not parroting the media brainwashing that prevents us from understanding our world and keeps us stuck in the past. Plenty of people defended feudalism, but evolution required we change. Grow up and learn to study and think for yourself.
@@areyoustupid..... I would reply but I keep getting deleted. anyways you make no sense. If communism is an idea - then you should study what that idea is. socialism is something else. stop being reactionary and intellectually lazy. Do you not see that capitalism is failing as we speak. All responsible people should be seeking to understand the world - not parrot media talking points and Cold War propaganda and conditioning. Ironic you call me a child. You don’t even know my politics, I was simply pointing out how shallow and ignorant the hosts understanding Of what communism vs socialism is.
5:40 "I have a lot of friends who are literally fascists..." wtf who is this dude?
"I am happy with the old word, communism is State ..."
Stop right there dude, communism is stateless by the old definition.
If communism were to be stateless, does that mean an individual within this non-state has the right to run a capitalistic style business?
No, the not-a-state would violently stop that
@@TysonWoof where would you run that capitalistic style business. Don't you need private property for that? Are you aware that the state is what makes private property possible?
But it never gets past socialism, nor will it.
@@Tummasfo
You would have to use force to bring back capitalism. Imagine going up to a worker owned factory or state run hospital and saying, "This is mine now."
Its funny how he‘s explaining it so well and with quite a historical touch to it, while the other ones are so oblivious. Especially the UKIP lady, like she doesn’t even know what the hell she‘s talking about. You can tell by her face, she’s just repeating prejudices she‘s heard over and over again without ever thinking critically about what’s she’s been told.
Communism is not an ideology it's the end of ideology! Communism is the end of history because it's the end of the class stuggle
3 capitalists vs 1 (new) communist. Prrsenter ignores communists definition and goes on to talk about communism being a brutal regime of murder. *kisses teeth*
That's because it is obvious to most people that when you go down the road of communist collectivism; genocide and oppression are inevitable!
Why people can now talk with communists on TV but not with nazists? It is same as bad. I am from post communist country never again
CoMMunISm CuT 9698654321354 GazziLlion PeopLE iNTO piECEs and Ate theIR bAbieS !!!!!!!!!1111!!!!eleven!!!1!1
Yes, genocide, the systematic murder of a particular race, is the clear outcome of pursuing a vision of a collective society. *bangs head on wall in frustration*
@1234 abcd We are already redistributing wealth by force and under threat. It's called debt.
Jesus my blood pressure got way too high watching this
BuT iSn'T cOmMuNiSm LiTeRaLlY fAsCiSm???
You communists would kill capitalists if you could
@Noémie D Anarcho-fascism doesn't have to work with a leader either
No one is saying that though.
Wow, Best example of BBC neutrality /s
kristian devries BBC's worst moment ever? I think so
Bruh, do you want them to be neutral towards Nazis too?
3:35 Back in the USSR, they recorded billions of tiny transactions by hands on massive paper ledgers. If you bought a meal at a restaurant in the 50s in the USSR, it went into a ledger. That was inefficient back then but today it's how every above-board business in the country is run. He's 100% right about context
Who was buying meals at restaurants in 1950's Soviet Union?
@@agt155 Do you really believe there were no restaurants in the USSR?
@@agt155 what do you think the Soviet Union was? It had a very similar standard of living to the US at that time. Just because most businesses were worker owned doesn’t mean the crops instantly withered and all food vaporized off the shelves.
Communism is not an ideology it's the end of ideology! Communism is the end of history because it's the end of the class stuggle
@@Smerpyderp yeah the cia even admitted that they had a similar calorie intake but the Soviets ate healthier food
"murderous ideology" lol... and she has the guts to say that under capitalism
Both are
Funny how right at the start they show the BIG scary hammer and sickle with the red flag
It is unbelievable how these commentators perceive communism
"communism still has a mystique about it, that, I think, is because people who believe in the free market havent been robust enough in defending the things we believe in." (5:44)
I think the cold war and the anti-communist crusade of the cia and other government agencies have been quite "robust" in "the things they believe in", as we have seen in indonesia, south america, vietnam, laos, cambodia, cuba and so many other countries.
Stop being polite to these people. 9 million? Try over 100 million killed, starved to death, and worked to death in the gulags. Stop discussing the brand and shame these people for the animals that they are
"It's not my colour" I'm sure they do it in white
Brown
🤣🤣🤣
Under Communism you wouldn't be allowed to have these debates. He avoids the questions about oppression and violence.
When millions of people commit suicide because of capitalist greed or stave to death on the street then this is never linked to greedy capitalism.
The guy on the far left’s definition was just flat out wrong! (Of communism) nothing about communism is state run, in the manifesto-it says “ stateless”
Hilarious at the end where they treat a T shirt like it’s a bomb.
😂😂😂
Ex-Tory MP, "I know lots of people who are fascists....'
Well who'd have thought?
Very sad and telling that the hosts created an echo chamber on the spot to feel like they won the conversation instead of looking Aaron in the eye like adults.
Equating fascism and communism 😂
It's a damn shame you didn't refute his assertion communism is about state control
@Paul Judkins no it isn't
@Paul Judkins see: anarchist communism
@Prism head you're a psychopath
Marx said the development of capitalism is necessary for communism to be achieved. One of many reasons Lenin et al was wrong to pursue it in Russia or any other under developed country. I wouldn't call myself a communist, I am a libertarian socialist, and I would avoid the word because of the baggage you described. However, you must understand that communism is a moneyless, classless society based on the free association of individuals- it's never happened anywhere, except maybe by the anarchists for a brief time in the spanish civil war before it was crushed by... Stalin. I called you a psychopath because you took the natural human act of sharing and turned it into a soulless money transaction, and called it 'grown up'. Furthermore, you ignore the uncounted millions of deaths attributed to capitalism, which are ignored as if a fact of nature. Slavery, imperialism, empire, genocide, war and fascism have all been results of the capitalist system.
serjthereturn libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.
90% commie
wtf does that even mean
"The more the guberment does stuff, the more commie it is."
10% not a communist?🤕
"Is it more romanticized to say 'I am literally a communist' than 'I am literally a fascist'?"
This shows the level of disdain the presenter possessed. The idea that communism is 'romanticized' when it is actually continually demeaned without understanding it, and by putting it alongside 'fascism' is a worrying response by a BBC presenter. Capitalism is 'romanticized' at every opportunity - communism isn't.
Communism is not an ideology it's the end of ideology! Communism is the end of history because it's the end of the class stuggle
1:33 "Communism means state control of the means of production" bruhhhhhhh
Saying communism is equal to hate, oppression and killing is like saying conservatism is about social divide, austerity and poverty. Defining things by what has been done rather than what they are is not helpful in the slightest, yet many people struggle to make that seperation.
Aaron came across very well on this. Keep up with these good appearances.
Aaron Bastani is an eloquent speaker and holds his own very well. Unlike the smug rest of them. And the lady from Ukip can hardly talk.
Good on you Aaron. We need more people like you. Capitalism and free market economies are clearly not working. My father is a communist to this day and was a shop steward back in the day in the early 1970s. I want to read up more about communism and get a good grasp of it. You know your stuff.
So your father was partly responsible for the endless strikes. Strikes that meant we had power cuts for days on end. Strikes that had millions of tons of rubbish in the streets. No jobs. No future Strikes that resulted in the collapse of the shipbuilding industry, the car industry, coal mining , etc etc etc. I lived through it . Thank goodness Maggie came along.
Bastani did a great job handling this ignorant group attack.
‘’Automation’’ , not my idea of Communism, and not Sustainable as it is another centralised industrial growth economic system
First of all there were always communists who opposed Stalin, Mao et al and indeed gave their lives in the struggle against those tyrannies. There's no such thing as a fascist who stood up for democracy against Hitler,Franco etc. So the comparison is absurd. And the definition of communism given by Matthew Parris is totally false. Societies where the state controls everything and there is no private property have already existed. Ancient Egypt and China at various periods among others. Marx called these cultures Oriental despotisms. Marx wasnt completely historically accurate but the point was a tiny minority ruled the state and used it to cream off a surplus for themselves. Obviously that wasnt the kind of society marxists wanted. Indeed it sounded quite similar to Stalinism which is why the theory of oriental despotism caused deep official unease at the time.
Make an argument rather than a baseless accusation. By the way Stalin also claimed to be a democrat. East Germany had the word democratic in its official name. Does this mean democracy is a tainted word?
Because thats an absurd reading of history. You could say that of Lenin and Trotsky who clearly were committed to communism but not of Stalin or Mao. Stalin supported freer markets in the 20's when it suited his purpose then he launched his breakneck industrialization programme where inequality massively increased and most of the basic principles of socialism were disregarded. You cant have it both ways. Stalin was a naive Utopian who tried to build paradise on earth. Also he was ruthless pragmatist who did anything to stay in power. Which is it?
@@elcampesino1848 Lenin and Trotsky did not fundamentally disagree with Stalin on the necessity of terror, or on the necessity of eliminating markets and private property. Trotsky and Stalin primarily didn't like each other because of personal differences; not because of ideological differences. Heck, Trotsky wrote an entire treatise defending the use of mass violence in defence of the revolution. The first labour camps were established under Lenin; Stalin merely expanded the system.
Stalin was certainly a ruthless dictator. However, can you honestly tell me how you would have gone about doing collectivization in the Soviet Union? How do you collectivise 120 million recalcitrant peasants without violence? The answer is: you can't. Stalin did it the only way it could have been done and to claim otherwise is a lie. Stalin was communism's best chance and brightest light. And yes, it was a horror show. But it couldn't have been any other way.
He would be wiser to say he literally advocates a resourced based economy
The host is supposed to be unbiased. How on earth do you hammer Aaron in that way but give free reign to the deputy leader of fucking UKIP? 😂
This is what we’ve become. No wonder people are searching for new initiatives.
Literally everyone is giving their opinion on communism expert the communist because they keep interrupting him and trying to accuse him off actual murder.
So Russia is communist but the structure is capitalist.does that not make it capitalist waring a communist coat
Russia is capitalist and has been for a long time
Dude did a good job considering he was up against 4 neolibs. Always hard in a 4v1 debate :/
I feel like there was a point hit on here that needs clarifying: The panel try to equate Fascism and Communism, but how would Fascism ever result in a peaceful society? I'm genuinely not well read enough to know the answer.
People love to equate fascism and communism by looking at the numerous failed attempts at each and not understanding the differences. In short, capitalist propoganda.
If your gonna attribute the deaths under communism to the ideology you have to do the same for capitalism. And if your gonna do that capitalism is also an infinitely more murderous ideology.
Which deaths under capitalism? How can deaths be attributed to people having the freedom to trade? Deaths under communism come as a result of enforcing communism
Imagine a million Einsteins and Hawkings who are right now unable to achieve their potential because all their effort and energy goes into just scraping through life and surviving. So much wasted human potential so some rich asshole can buy a new megayacht or a tenth private jet.
The soviet union was never communist, amd never claimed to be. Lenin literally made a speach sayjng that that bolsheviks had set up a state capitalist society. He literally said that. We have the same situation with china, where neither government had claimed to be communist. Both just stayed in that state-capitalist transitionary period. That being said, i do not support this idea of a vanguard and annenforced transitionary period. We have seen now that when you just centralise power away from one grouo of people to another, it is never re redistributed. Its just the nature of power, particularly in such hostile conditions as capitalism. I think we should explore anarchist ideas abit more and begin to democratise the workplace with worker cooperatives.
Religion also led to millions of deaths but for some reason; we still have to tolerate it in our society and it's rude to comment on adults having imaginary friends.
She keeps it, because she will be wearing it :D
She will wear it in fear once the revolution is on her door
Libertarian Leninist Rants How does one be both a Libertarian AND a Leninist?
damit, is it so hard to click on the channel info?
1. its a joke
2. its also kinda trying to reclaim "libertarian" from those right wingers who stole the word from actual anarchists (socialists)
Libertarian Leninist Rants Well actually yes, yes it is. Where do you explain your stance? Where is the channel info, I don’t know, I rarely use my channel properly.
click on the channel name and then you see these different tabs under the channel picture like videos, playlists and channel description.
Libertarian Leninist Rants Cheers brah.
"Are you romanticizing a murderous ideology?"...
"No"...
Enough said
Jeremy Corbyn isn't even a democratic socialist. He's a social democrat. There's a big difference
Well done for keeping it light-hearted. You're a much better person than me on that scale. There some good points, mostly from Aaron, but I liked the man on the left of the screen being honest. I don't agree, but I liked his honest approach. However, I can't stand the woman next to him. Why not just take some time to consider different ideas. To me, that's career politics in a bag, 'I know my ideas work and get me elected, so why think of anything else'. 'Why even use my imagination of a better system, my career is fine and that's that.'
I mean, she is literally a Ukipper who's never said a thoughtful word in her life. She's been on question time a fair few times (which, fair enough, their party unfortunately got a certain level of public support), and she was just shown up for the complete lightweight she is, intellectually speaking. I mean, you could be a flag waving thatcher loving Tory and still see through her complete lack of any intelligent thought when put next to actual competent people.
They were speaking 2 different languages. He was speaking digital and they were talking analogue. A bit like trying to explain internet downloads to your grandma.
"Are you romanticising a murderous ideology?" "No." "Well ARE YOU?" "..."
The anticommunism mindset is so rooted! It's infuriating!!!
ego is strong within all of us.
Another top example of the BBC being neutral...
Wow. You did well staying so calm.
If they LITERALLY just googled it.. we could actually discuss this like adults
"I am the one and only" - Chesney Hawkes, 1991.
"I'm a cybernetic organism: living tissue over a metal endoskeleton." - T-800 Cyberdyne Systems Model 101, also 1991.
I agree that he just needs a new word. People won't let go of the historical context. And people need to be more open to new terms, and letting go of old terms.
Well, with regards to the millions of deaths, don't we think that the First and Second World Wars, fought for resources and markets should be attributed to capitalism too. And what about Iraq, a war for oil? What about the millions who die every year because of insufficient food in countries where plenty is grown, or those who die every year due to a lack of medical care - in the richest country in the world! I am not saying that communism is the right direction to go, but lets consider the facts fairly and equitably.
Aaron is way too intelligent and well-read for the rest of the people sat there. Specially the woman on the left. She can't even get past the "" mindset.
What an embarrassing discussion. The BBC is so far gone.
I was quite surprised to see a journalist from The Times defending Karl Marx.
Karl Marx never hurt anybody; as Aaron says it would be like blaming Adam Smith for the millions of Indians who starved to death under British colonial rule.
OghamTheBold Y’know, the strangest thing about this comment is that it says that you’ve edited it.
OghamTheBold This comment should be made into a t-shirt
He's Matthew Parris a well known, and quite independently minded writer. And he wasn't defending it, only explaining it in the face of crass ignorance by the others.
Karl Marx idea is perfection and beautiful but it can never work unless it's a perfect world or if we trusted all humans and for one we know damn sure humanity is not to be trusted. Also I bet if self preservation didn't exist it might of worked but that's impossible too right ?
Freedom of expression I say. Why should it be a problem wearing a shirt saying this that and the other? Have to thank Democratic Capitalistic systems of government in the west for being so libertarian. Problem with the communistic countries that existed in the east is that they were too authoritarian and undemocratic. Can't blame and generalise ideology to cause suppression that resulted from a multitude oppressive factors.
The meaning of communism has been redefined at some point looking back to Brittania 1971 dictionary.States:A philosophy or system derived from Marxism advocating state ownership of land and property on behalf of the proletariat.
Terrible debate, excellent lecture by Arran Bastani.
What if I said I was a Fascist Revisionist, and rejected Mussolini but claimed real Fascism was acc represented by Gabrielle D'Annunzio??? These people are far too priviledged
"I don't think she quite understands what she's saying" - don't we all love ourselves a bit of casual sexism?
Shut up knob.
pardon?
We have 8-10 years to figure it out.
What the problem,if communism failed one time in USSR, capitalism failed 14 times in 90 years.
How Aaron managed to remain so good- humoured through that is beyond me. The struggle against corporate media is also the struggle against intellectual ignominy.