In the past, striving for equality of opportunity was a noble endeavor, but now the Social Justice Warriors want equality of outcome regardless of input or effort.
That's not quite accurate. The ruling communist class always lives in luxury while forcing the peasants into poverty. Communists are the evil, greedy, selfish capitalists they pretend to hate.
Capitalism is saying "everybody can make it". And that's not true because some decide what others get. If you believe that we can't "just cuddle": What are we doing in capitalism? (And I don't say that I believe in communism.)
@@eb3222 Show me anyone, anywhere, who argued that "everybody can make it." That's a Marxist straw man, and a bit of Woke projection. It is the Marxist who claims to be able to provide everything to everyone. The conservative worldview is that life is hard, and always will be. Having the correct habits and attitudes (virtues) will make your life better. Among those virtues is charity. Help the poor and sick. Help widows and orphans. Voluntarily.
I shouldn't have, but I came straight to the comments to see what's going on down here. I was pleasantly surprised to see a lot of variations about how they're all similar _AND_ bad. But then also disappointed to see the expected responses of people who don't know squat talking about "but that's WEIMAR Socialism, versus the distributism... integralism... inherent.... Prussian... Democratrism... _words-i-read-that-make-me-sound-smart, but-have-no-real-world-application."_ One thing I've come to understand about anyone who pushes any one of those is that they share two qualities: 1 - They believe that humanity can be improved... 2 - ... and that they're further along than you are. All these potential kings without a kingdom, trying to brow-beat you with academia until you give them power and wealth. *Here is the most basic question: **_how come pro-socialists or pro-communists never approach you to GIVE you wealth and power? Why is it always FROM you TO them?_* *Here is another basic question: **_if any one of these was successful, then why are there alternatives at all?_* *Here is yet a third basic question: **_if any of these are an improvement, then why do people have to be FORCED into participating?_*
IMO, to answer all three of your questions: It’s because the woke are mal-adjusted narcissists who believe everyone else is the problem, not themselves.
IMO, to answer all three of your questions: It’s because the woke are mal-adjusted narcissists who believe everyone else is the problem, not themselves. The only reasons these woke people get away with it is money to fund their protests and schools, and sheer charisma if they have it to dupe people. Also, if the woke don’t pay the consequences of their actions such as jail time and exposure of their lies, they will keep spreading their stupid ideology.
It's a tiny detail, but I always feel sweaty after blasting a watery shit.... that rarely happens with a plain-old-vanilla poop. Jokes aside, I whole-heartedly agree with your point.
Ive been wanting this video for a long time. Its helpful to know the differences and i would like to know so i can communicate ideas in a more effective fashion
Thank you James for putting together very cogent reports on broad subjects. A person can engage your material casually or with great care confirming with research. You've launched many intellectual journeys in my mind and I want to appreciate you and thank you for sharing your talents with us. ❤🎉
@@theconceptofbass By controlling the means of production and its distribution through managerial government bureaucrats which the WEF and other think tanks believe can be organized and operated by scientific principles. It's a belief that a perfect society can be created through proper trans-national government regulations and laws, use of behavioral sciences 'nudge units' to condition the masses and getting the math of macro economics right.
@@IntegralBif There is no "kinship in ideology" between fascists and socialists. They're both collectivist but fascists are far-right and socialists far-left.
@@JackRichardsonM8Nah. The left-right scale is basically useless. 100-200 years ago, the "far right" would have been monarchists, who supported the ruling nobility and opposed anything which would have given any political power to the plebs. Socialists/Communists and fascists are pretty much the same, with the exception that one group bases their ideology on biology and "preexisting equality" determined by nationality and culture and therefore preselects who can participate in their collectivist "utopia".
@@JackRichardsonM8There is nothing "right" about fascism. I still can't believe how many people actually buy the idea that a type of socialist can be right wing.. The entire ideology is left wing. The "fascism is right wing" is a propaganda campaign to distance the left from Hitler's atrocities It is simply another branch of the Marxist tree
@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle Fascists are far-right. You do realise that if they are leftist that means virtually the entire population of Germany in the Weimar Republic were leftist. Patently absurd.
Haven't yet watched the video, but the answer is marketing. The difference between them is how they are marketed. One cannot sell one's evil ideology to useful idiots the same way as one would to fellow travelers.
I would say it is more, how far out on the tree of developing, you find them. All Communist and Marxist are socialists, since socialist is the root of the idea. But not all socialists are Communist or Marxist, because you have other versions of socialism as well. Socialism is government control of the means of production. All Marxists are Communists, but not all Communists are Marxists, because you had a few other versions of Communism. Communism is the creation of a society where everything is communal owned. And Marxist, is the people who think Marx was correct, in how he imagined a perfect socialist communist society.
Do you believe that Marx or the Frankfurt School intellectuals ever actually cared about the working-class or the plight of the disenfranchised? It seems to me that their intentions were always to use these groups to come to gradually gain power in these Institutions.
@@davidleehurt333 Some of them, did care. They thought they knew the only way to create paradise on earth. And if you could save the working class from hell, and give them heaven,,, what would you not be willing to do? Of course, they are wrong, their ideas will create hell, not save people from it. But they do not see it that way. Of course, some of them, only do it for power. And since both are willing to lie for the cause, it is hard to separate them.
Hey as a Finn I'd like to hear your take on Nordic social democracy as it is fawned upon everywhere. I tell you there are some truly nasty stuff we need to do to make it work properly.
Nordic social programs are great except they rely on massive subsidies for defence from America, massive wealth deposits from natural resources, and highly homogeneous populations with compatible values. Lebanon can’t do it. Turkey can’t do it. South Africa can’t do it. Thailand can’t do it. Now? America can’t do either. 30 trillion has to be paid back somehow.
I always thought that was the answer. I never knew it was actually the case. For a long while I got the impression that socialists were the people saying, "We are not as bad as the Communists and Marxists! We are different".
Don't forget Fascism, they are all just minor variations of the same ideology. Communists weren't fighting Fascists because they were on opposite sides. They were both fighting for control of the progressive, socialist left.
James it would be helpful to some if you'd do a streamlined explanation of why the ideas of Schmitt, Strauss, Heidegger, Dugin or other Woke Right favorites are incompatible with a free/Classical Liberal society, what the dangers of Distributism or Integralism are, etc.
One of the differences between socialism (as a philosophy) and communism (as a philosophy) is that socialism is a "genus", and communism (also known as scientific socialism) is a "species", among a number of other "species" of socialism. Socialism, in a generic sense, is any universalist doctrine, and it opposes any particularist and individualist doctrine.
Best to just cut to the chase and realize that it is not possible for "everyone to own everything". If there is a bicycle then everyone cannot ride it at once. Who decides who gets to ride it? Whoever that is owns it. Everybody can't make the decision, so the base notion is a total joke.
Pretty decent analysis, but I wanted to point out that Vladimir Lenin once said, “The goal of socialism is communism.” That is because it is simply an economic model where they set out on a goal of arriving to a point where everyone equally has enough stuff. In the Marxist worldview, it was based on a Hegelian belief of how economies develop overtime and will inevitably arrive at the period where everybody has enough stuff. However, it was Lenin who redefined what socialism and the proletariat actually meant. Because assuming the same Hegelian economic model, it makes no difference whether economies develop via violent revolution or through liberal reform. Because the Hegel laws of history argue that society will naturally develop to that point. With this in mind, it was Lenin who argued that the state represents the proletariat… and just as in the United States, where liberal democracy is supposed to represent the people, Lenin’s claim that the state represents the proletariat, therefore the government must take over the main of production was just a naïve Marxist belief that they can speed up the laws of history through violence and revolution. So in essence, socialism is a economic model that sets out to work with the government by taking over aspects of the means of production to democratically distribute throughout society, hoping that they arrive to the endpoint of history, the communist economy. But Marxism, or at least Marxism Leninism is the belief that they could speed up history by overthrowing the status quo, killing the elites, and seizing all of the land and private institutions overt time to fix inequality in our society.
used to be. Socialism was concepted when communism was. Communism was the goal, socialism was the road towards it. Everyone who was a socialist also was a communist. In their time it pretty much was the same, and making a difference was just hairsplitting. But that changed when people entered the scene who want socialism (the tool) on its own, but disregard communism (the goal). Now all of a sudden you have to differentiate between them because its relevant now.
I like that you made the distinction that in practice Socialism is not necessarily Communism. This gets complicated when we talk about individual political identities, as most "socialists" in liberal societies don't understand these distinctions themselves. It feels like there are many "democratic socialist" or "progressive" types who do seem to believe in the ideals of a liberal democracy and don't see these ideologies as incompatible. After all, if a liberal society decides to socialize roads, electricity, or medical care, they certainly can vote to do so. This doesn't make the alchemists trying to transform mankind into the socialist man necessarily. Yet it seems like many of the thought leaders among these groups have very Marxist beliefs. Is this the alt left pipeline seducing moderates into extremism like they blame the right for? If they aren't true socialists but rather just agree with them on certain policies from a liberal standpoint, you would think they would distance themselves from terms like socialism, which rightly gets demonized by the right.
Would like to know your classification “Star Trek Federation Society” and possible governmental preferences change as technology advances. I’m pretty sure whatever happens mankind will find a way to mess it up.
In all seriousness, I've tried to Google this literally four times. The answer never 'sticks' in my mind, because it's always a distinction without a difference.
@@TROOPERfarcry Yep. The socialists and communists don't really understand the difference either. They quote Marx and go on about this or that part of the "theory," but in the end it's nothing but an incoherent ideology and the words are interchangeable.
@@Evil0tto Saw a quote the other day or year or whenever, "A Marxist is one who has read Marx... an _ANTI-_ Marxist is one who has _UNDERSTOOD_ Marx." Or as that one scientist said of communitsm/socialism-- _an entomologist, actually_ -- *"Great idea... **_wrong species."_*
I think one subtle distinction that gets lost in everything is that, in Communism, the claim is made that the very concept of "ownership" has lost meaning so that forced redistribution is superfluous and thus the State and its law enforcement mechanisms are no longer justifiable. This is why the claim is made that the State will "wither away." "Forced redistribution" only has meaning in the context of a social environment that recognizes "private property." It goes back to Hegel's notion of "recognition" and the Master/Slave dialectic. As far as Marxism, I define that as the Religion of Atheism, or Protestantism taken to such an extreme that ot inverts on itself and becomes Christian license, using the moral concept of Charity to hoodwink people into accepting Secular Humanism with religious fanaticism and commitment.
Babuška asked komesar in Moscow. I know how communism looks like. We have it. But how will socialism be like? When we reach the state of socialism all the stores will be loaded with meat and bread, komesar replied. Great. So it will be like at the times of the tsarist Russia. 😂
My favorite meme expressing how some of this works, is the one of Anakin and Padme sitting together, and he says "I'm a socialist" and she smiles and says "oh me too, what kind of socialist?", and he gets this evil grin and says "national", and then it just shows her with this scared face, lol. Yes, both communism and fascism are socialist ideologies, with different end-states in mind. The communist believes that the socialism will be a stepping stone to communism, to communal living where no one owns anything, and there is no need for a state anymore, where the fascist just wants the socialist state to BE the end state. So, in the end, they really aren't very different in application, only in what they believe the outcome will be. And the funnier part, is that the people in charge CALLING themselves communists, never have any intention of relinquishing power and abolishing the state, so in reality, they are just fascists lying to everyone about what their intentions are.
Very true. I personally am not sure if communists are liars who try to fool everyone or if they truly believe they can usher the paradise only to discover it's impossibility. And only then being finally fully corrupted and falling into fascism.
Thanks James, Ive had a long ie 20+ years and intensive relationship with School of Philosophy. There has often been some wonderful and enlightening times then I started to realise that they wanted me to hook up with some ugly feminist and furthermore wanted my house too. Your podcasts have helped me alot re seeing this cult or quasicult for what it is :)
I can't even say it without my comment vanishing into the ether. Wokeness = idpol And there are people on the Right who are upset that their particular special interest groups aren't the ones getting the special treatment. Though I disagree with how widespread he thinks they are. Most of them we read about are either misunderstood or Feds
@ yes I’ve watched his explanation. But critical theory is about destroying western civilization and Conservatism is about preserving western civilization. These are antithetical goals which can’t exist simultaneously.
Because some people on the right are using "the ends justify the means" (Remember Bush?) or Oppression dynamics, or power dynamics, or power over truth, or arguing reality through the dialectic, or even arguing supremacy of the state. In other words, people "right" people are using the same engine that communism is, and calling themselves right wing.
You defined it on their terms which is useful, but really it's just losers hating winners. They lost the moment they assumed that power is the highest virtue.
It's ironic reading Leviticus through Judges in the Old Testament and listening to the Marxist ideas about the state dissolving. Under the Theocrasy that existed between the crossing of the Jordan River and the crowning of Saul as the first Israeli king they had their own unique system that achieved everything the Communists wanted without the downsides. It also achieved everything Libertarians, Anarchists, and Capitalists wanted in a political and economic system. The land was evenly divided up among the people in the beginning, it was handed down from father to son in perpetuity. A man was the sovereign of his private property, and a land sale was nothing more than a lease that could never run past the jubilee year that happened every 50 years. In that Jubilee year all outstanding debts were declared null and void, all bondsmen returned to the land of their forefathers. There was no king, no elected body, so no political parties. A 10% tithe was collected by the priests once a year to provide for the poor and sick. There was no standing army, every man was a reservist, any military action could only take place after being sanctioned by the priests. The law was enforced by judges chosen locally on the formula of pick the guy that didn't want the job the most. Rights and the Law came from God and not a constitution or state government. I consider that ancient system superior to all that has been proposed and implemented ever since.
@@theconceptofbass Ah, so that's why you deny the label. Being a worshipper of the pagan idol gods yourself made it incentivised to ignore the recognition of your faith, since only by namelessnsss can it remain unchallenged. Language isn't static, and the new dialects evolving under the framework your theocracy we've been under for 60+ years has unfortunate consequences. But hey, monkey's paws always do grant wishes that way, yeah?
Your definition of socialism isn't broad enough and sounds like the one Marxists have come up with and that has become popular. Socialism is way older and broader than Marxism. It also includes variants in which the State doesn't necessarily own the means of production. E.g. German/National/Prussian/Arabic/Ba'atist socialism. Your description of Fascism is very superficial and sounds like one that a Libertarian or Marxist would make.
He did have a expanded version of socialism. "Government control of the means of production", is what the fascists had. The factories was not owned by the state. But if the state told them to do something, they would still have to do it, or the factory would be taken away from them and "given" to somebody else. That is why fascism is a type of socialism, but not a version of communism or marxism. Communism believe everything should be communal owned. Fascists did not claim that. And marxists are people who think Marx was correct, while the fascists claimed Marx was wrong. Non of these ideas are good,,, or even working.
One happy giant family!! You talk a lot of rubish. A great variety of people of various capacities , etc. Read something that does not tickle your fancy.....
Equity, when everyone is equally poor and starving equally.
In a world, where everybody is dead, everybody is the same.
I fear they might actually think that is a good goal, as long as everybody is equal.
In the past, striving for equality of opportunity was a noble endeavor, but now the Social Justice Warriors want equality of outcome regardless of input or effort.
That's not quite accurate. The ruling communist class always lives in luxury while forcing the peasants into poverty. Communists are the evil, greedy, selfish capitalists they pretend to hate.
Yes, everyone buried at six feet deep. Not 5. Not 7. Six feet.
"We'll all be equal when we all have nothing."
Socialism is communism saying "we can just cuddle."
Do you really hate dogs that much??
Capitalism is saying "everybody can make it".
And that's not true because some decide what others get. If you believe that we can't "just cuddle": What are we doing in capitalism? (And I don't say that I believe in communism.)
@@eb3222 Show me anyone, anywhere, who argued that "everybody can make it." That's a Marxist straw man, and a bit of Woke projection.
It is the Marxist who claims to be able to provide everything to everyone.
The conservative worldview is that life is hard, and always will be. Having the correct habits and attitudes (virtues) will make your life better.
Among those virtues is charity. Help the poor and sick. Help widows and orphans. Voluntarily.
I shouldn't have, but I came straight to the comments to see what's going on down here. I was pleasantly surprised to see a lot of variations about how they're all similar _AND_ bad. But then also disappointed to see the expected responses of people who don't know squat talking about "but that's WEIMAR Socialism, versus the distributism... integralism... inherent.... Prussian... Democratrism... _words-i-read-that-make-me-sound-smart, but-have-no-real-world-application."_
One thing I've come to understand about anyone who pushes any one of those is that they share two qualities:
1 - They believe that humanity can be improved...
2 - ... and that they're further along than you are.
All these potential kings without a kingdom, trying to brow-beat you with academia until you give them power and wealth.
*Here is the most basic question: **_how come pro-socialists or pro-communists never approach you to GIVE you wealth and power? Why is it always FROM you TO them?_*
*Here is another basic question: **_if any one of these was successful, then why are there alternatives at all?_*
*Here is yet a third basic question: **_if any of these are an improvement, then why do people have to be FORCED into participating?_*
Well said.
Yep. Simple fact is, the want to be the masters of the slaves, and be god.
IMO, to answer all three of your questions: It’s because the woke are mal-adjusted narcissists who believe everyone else is the problem, not themselves.
IMO, to answer all three of your questions: It’s because the woke are mal-adjusted narcissists who believe everyone else is the problem, not themselves.
The only reasons these woke people get away with it is money to fund their protests and schools, and sheer charisma if they have it to dupe people.
Also, if the woke don’t pay the consequences of their actions such as jail time and exposure of their lies, they will keep spreading their stupid ideology.
Because they know better than you, answer to all 3...
What’s the difference between poo, shit, and diarrhoea?
💩 = 💩 = 💩
One has more corn? 🐿️
It's a tiny detail, but I always feel sweaty after blasting a watery shit.... that rarely happens with a plain-old-vanilla poop.
Jokes aside, I whole-heartedly agree with your point.
Put in a sandwich, baguette or panini and you have democracy. Choose a different wrap and filling each time. Still get a mouth full of ... Every time.
I’m really tired guys…sorry, but i owe you no response. Why do YOU think that i MUST AGREE with the “Philosopher-in-charge”??? I don’t get that.
Why is it SO DIFFICULT to allow “Rochelle” to be “Rochelle”???
Solzhenitsyn explained the difference between Socialism and Communism/Marxism this way, 'with Socialism you die more slowly'.
The Differences Are Little To None Like The Words Jealous, Envious & Covetous...
Well said
Don't forget lazy, incompetent, and violent.
@@plumbthumbs9584lazy, incompetent & useless.
Ive been wanting this video for a long time. Its helpful to know the differences and i would like to know so i can communicate ideas in a more effective fashion
Dont need it, Tyranny vs Freedom is the only categorisation. Everything else is jerking off.
Thank you James for putting together very cogent reports on broad subjects. A person can engage your material casually or with great care confirming with research. You've launched many intellectual journeys in my mind and I want to appreciate you and thank you for sharing your talents with us. ❤🎉
Utopian promises, with horrible results for all but those who rule.
Exactly.
Funny, that.
Thus technocracy is a socialist utopian variant.
How?
@@theconceptofbass By controlling the means of production and its distribution through managerial government bureaucrats which the WEF and other think tanks believe can be organized and operated by scientific principles. It's a belief that a perfect society can be created through proper trans-national government regulations and laws, use of behavioral sciences 'nudge units' to condition the masses and getting the math of macro economics right.
WOW....thank you for such a succinct simple definition 👏👏
No difference. Same people pushing same agenda
"Would you like your feces with corn, hair, or plain?" _Me trying to make the best choice between socialism, communism, and Marxism._
Thank you for clarifying this. So helpful, James. Going to share this.
Well said. I'm glad you mentioned national socialism/fascism at the end there. Important to recognize the kinship in ideology between them.
@@IntegralBif There is no "kinship in ideology" between fascists and socialists. They're both collectivist but fascists are far-right and socialists far-left.
@@JackRichardsonM8 lol "left" and "right" are meaningless unless you're in 1700's france. good try but don't be wrong next time
@@JackRichardsonM8Nah.
The left-right scale is basically useless.
100-200 years ago, the "far right" would have been monarchists, who supported the ruling nobility and opposed anything which would have given any political power to the plebs.
Socialists/Communists and fascists are pretty much the same, with the exception that one group bases their ideology on biology and "preexisting equality" determined by nationality and culture and therefore preselects who can participate in their collectivist "utopia".
@@JackRichardsonM8There is nothing "right" about fascism. I still can't believe how many people actually buy the idea that a type of socialist can be right wing..
The entire ideology is left wing. The "fascism is right wing" is a propaganda campaign to distance the left from Hitler's atrocities
It is simply another branch of the Marxist tree
@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle Fascists are far-right. You do realise that if they are leftist that means virtually the entire population of Germany in the Weimar Republic were leftist. Patently absurd.
Well done James!
Haven't yet watched the video, but the answer is marketing. The difference between them is how they are marketed. One cannot sell one's evil ideology to useful idiots the same way as one would to fellow travelers.
They also just rebrand things from time to time once a name gets a bad connotation connected to it.
I would say it is more, how far out on the tree of developing, you find them.
All Communist and Marxist are socialists, since socialist is the root of the idea.
But not all socialists are Communist or Marxist, because you have other versions of socialism as well.
Socialism is government control of the means of production.
All Marxists are Communists, but not all Communists are Marxists, because you had a few other versions of Communism.
Communism is the creation of a society where everything is communal owned.
And Marxist, is the people who think Marx was correct, in how he imagined a perfect socialist communist society.
Do you believe that Marx or the Frankfurt School intellectuals ever actually cared about the working-class or the plight of the disenfranchised? It seems to me that their intentions were always to use these groups to come to gradually gain power in these Institutions.
@@davidleehurt333 Some of them, did care.
They thought they knew the only way to create paradise on earth.
And if you could save the working class from hell, and give them heaven,,, what would you not be willing to do?
Of course, they are wrong, their ideas will create hell, not save people from it.
But they do not see it that way.
Of course, some of them, only do it for power. And since both are willing to lie for the cause, it is hard to separate them.
Well done James
Love these bullets
I guess that makes James a marksman, or is it a Marxman??
This is a good one haha. Thanks for the laugh
😏
Hey as a Finn I'd like to hear your take on Nordic social democracy as it is fawned upon everywhere. I tell you there are some truly nasty stuff we need to do to make it work properly.
Like that 80 percent unsolved removal rate?
@@xaviermagnus8310 If you mean unsolved murder cases, that's Sweden's problem. We solve murders at a very high rate.
Nordic social programs are great except they rely on massive subsidies for defence from America, massive wealth deposits from natural resources, and highly homogeneous populations with compatible values. Lebanon can’t do it. Turkey can’t do it. South Africa can’t do it. Thailand can’t do it. Now? America can’t do either. 30 trillion has to be paid back somehow.
Thank you. Very helpful.
I always thought that was the answer. I never knew it was actually the case. For a long while I got the impression that socialists were the people saying, "We are not as bad as the Communists and Marxists! We are different".
Basically, its the same sh*t with different sprinkles.
Don't forget Fascism, they are all just minor variations of the same ideology.
Communists weren't fighting Fascists because they were on opposite sides.
They were both fighting for control of the progressive, socialist left.
Fascists are far-right.
The distinction is made at 15:30
That's simply not true. German and Italian fascists had a completely different voter base from German and Italian Socialists and Communists.
@JackRichardsonM8 they are 2 sides of the she coin. It's even in their name National Socialists.
A fascist is an honest socialist.
Different branches of the same tree.
The song "Woodstock" comes to mind...
James it would be helpful to some if you'd do a streamlined explanation of why the ideas of Schmitt, Strauss, Heidegger, Dugin or other Woke Right favorites are incompatible with a free/Classical Liberal society, what the dangers of Distributism or Integralism are, etc.
One of the differences between socialism (as a philosophy) and communism (as a philosophy) is that socialism is a "genus", and communism (also known as scientific socialism) is a "species", among a number of other "species" of socialism. Socialism, in a generic sense, is any universalist doctrine, and it opposes any particularist and individualist doctrine.
Thanks, this is a great breakdown.
Best to just cut to the chase and realize that it is not possible for "everyone to own everything". If there is a bicycle then everyone cannot ride it at once. Who decides who gets to ride it? Whoever that is owns it. Everybody can't make the decision, so the base notion is a total joke.
Thnaks James.
Pretty decent analysis, but I wanted to point out that Vladimir Lenin once said, “The goal of socialism is communism.” That is because it is simply an economic model where they set out on a goal of arriving to a point where everyone equally has enough stuff. In the Marxist worldview, it was based on a Hegelian belief of how economies develop overtime and will inevitably arrive at the period where everybody has enough stuff. However, it was Lenin who redefined what socialism and the proletariat actually meant. Because assuming the same Hegelian economic model, it makes no difference whether economies develop via violent revolution or through liberal reform. Because the Hegel laws of history argue that society will naturally develop to that point. With this in mind, it was Lenin who argued that the state represents the proletariat… and just as in the United States, where liberal democracy is supposed to represent the people, Lenin’s claim that the state represents the proletariat, therefore the government must take over the main of production was just a naïve Marxist belief that they can speed up the laws of history through violence and revolution. So in essence, socialism is a economic model that sets out to work with the government by taking over aspects of the means of production to democratically distribute throughout society, hoping that they arrive to the endpoint of history, the communist economy. But Marxism, or at least Marxism Leninism is the belief that they could speed up history by overthrowing the status quo, killing the elites, and seizing all of the land and private institutions overt time to fix inequality in our society.
Excellent clarification! Especially the point about the different schools.
Didn't Karl and engel said socialism and communism are the same?
used to be. Socialism was concepted when communism was. Communism was the goal, socialism was the road towards it. Everyone who was a socialist also was a communist. In their time it pretty much was the same, and making a difference was just hairsplitting. But that changed when people entered the scene who want socialism (the tool) on its own, but disregard communism (the goal).
Now all of a sudden you have to differentiate between them because its relevant now.
@@legion_sqd Thank you
Marx himself never used the word socialism.
"We are stardust
We are golden
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden"
Woodstock Joni Mitchell
They are used interchangeably by modern communists/socialists/Marxists
Not really. Equity is the new euphemism generally, but people are beginning to associate that word with evil as well.
No they're not. The right tends to use them all for anyone they disagree with.
"If everything belongs to everyone, nothing belongs to no one. " Aristotle’s
same goal, different paths
Pretty succinct 👌
All 3 flatten ambition by robbing people of action due to lack of motivation, resulting in a lack of innovation.
Love this response.
Well, Russia brought man into space under communism.
That makes no sense.
I like that you made the distinction that in practice Socialism is not necessarily Communism. This gets complicated when we talk about individual political identities, as most "socialists" in liberal societies don't understand these distinctions themselves. It feels like there are many "democratic socialist" or "progressive" types who do seem to believe in the ideals of a liberal democracy and don't see these ideologies as incompatible. After all, if a liberal society decides to socialize roads, electricity, or medical care, they certainly can vote to do so. This doesn't make the alchemists trying to transform mankind into the socialist man necessarily. Yet it seems like many of the thought leaders among these groups have very Marxist beliefs. Is this the alt left pipeline seducing moderates into extremism like they blame the right for? If they aren't true socialists but rather just agree with them on certain policies from a liberal standpoint, you would think they would distance themselves from terms like socialism, which rightly gets demonized by the right.
Would like to know your classification “Star Trek Federation Society” and possible governmental preferences change as technology advances. I’m pretty sure whatever happens mankind will find a way to mess it up.
I like to be remind of the difference because to me there is no meaningful difference.
In all seriousness, I've tried to Google this literally four times. The answer never 'sticks' in my mind, because it's always a distinction without a difference.
@@TROOPERfarcry Yep. The socialists and communists don't really understand the difference either. They quote Marx and go on about this or that part of the "theory," but in the end it's nothing but an incoherent ideology and the words are interchangeable.
@@TROOPERfarcry its funny how people can see such huge differences in theory but the results are always the same...tyranny.
@@Evil0tto Saw a quote the other day or year or whenever, "A Marxist is one who has read Marx... an _ANTI-_ Marxist is one who has _UNDERSTOOD_ Marx."
Or as that one scientist said of communitsm/socialism-- _an entomologist, actually_ -- *"Great idea... **_wrong species."_*
I think one subtle distinction that gets lost in everything is that, in Communism, the claim is made that the very concept of "ownership" has lost meaning so that forced redistribution is superfluous and thus the State and its law enforcement mechanisms are no longer justifiable. This is why the claim is made that the State will "wither away." "Forced redistribution" only has meaning in the context of a social environment that recognizes "private property." It goes back to Hegel's notion of "recognition" and the Master/Slave dialectic. As far as Marxism, I define that as the Religion of Atheism, or Protestantism taken to such an extreme that ot inverts on itself and becomes Christian license, using the moral concept of Charity to hoodwink people into accepting Secular Humanism with religious fanaticism and commitment.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even if it got to the point where the state was no longer needed, they’d keep the power anyway.
DEMOCIDE
infinitely more deadly than
GENOCIDE
see, Karl Marx
😮😢
❤
Juat when i thought socialism couldnt get anymore insane.
Do people still comment 'first' anymore? Odd badge of honour
_First._
Babuška asked komesar in Moscow. I know how communism looks like. We have it. But how will socialism be like? When we reach the state of socialism all the stores will be loaded with meat and bread, komesar replied. Great. So it will be like at the times of the tsarist Russia. 😂
The state run by the people owns the means of production..
Number of dead bodies
My favorite meme expressing how some of this works, is the one of Anakin and Padme sitting together, and he says "I'm a socialist" and she smiles and says "oh me too, what kind of socialist?", and he gets this evil grin and says "national", and then it just shows her with this scared face, lol. Yes, both communism and fascism are socialist ideologies, with different end-states in mind. The communist believes that the socialism will be a stepping stone to communism, to communal living where no one owns anything, and there is no need for a state anymore, where the fascist just wants the socialist state to BE the end state. So, in the end, they really aren't very different in application, only in what they believe the outcome will be. And the funnier part, is that the people in charge CALLING themselves communists, never have any intention of relinquishing power and abolishing the state, so in reality, they are just fascists lying to everyone about what their intentions are.
Very true. I personally am not sure if communists are liars who try to fool everyone or if they truly believe they can usher the paradise only to discover it's impossibility. And only then being finally fully corrupted and falling into fascism.
The difference is the spelling.
There isnt one, the end all 3 philosophies aee wealth and think theyre the ones best suited to distribute it differently.
National Socialism is Socialism. 🐿️
People need to understand. Religion is just a philosophy you pratice because you belive in it. This is how greeks view it.
The difference? The spelling.
Hair colour
Thanks James, Ive had a long ie 20+ years and intensive relationship with School of Philosophy. There has often been some wonderful and enlightening times then I started to realise that they wanted me to hook up with some ugly feminist and furthermore wanted my house too. Your podcasts have helped me alot re seeing this cult or quasicult for what it is :)
Marxism is also a tool to critique capitalism.
Distilled NIGHTMARE
So ultimately communism was a better socialist state than socialism.
We will never know because “real socialism was never tried” 😂
Sounds and plays out just like the advent of a new exclamatory religion. Has to be by design
Time
I dunno man, tell us more about that "woke right" thing
James please explain how “Woke” can exist in Conservative circles when Conservatism is antithetical to Critical Theory.
he can't, and he won't
He can, and he has. Just do a search for his name and woke right and you can find interviews with him explaining exactly how it works.
I can't even say it without my comment vanishing into the ether.
Wokeness = idpol
And there are people on the Right who are upset that their particular special interest groups aren't the ones getting the special treatment.
Though I disagree with how widespread he thinks they are. Most of them we read about are either misunderstood or Feds
@ yes I’ve watched his explanation. But critical theory is about destroying western civilization and Conservatism is about preserving western civilization. These are antithetical goals which can’t exist simultaneously.
Because some people on the right are using
"the ends justify the means" (Remember Bush?) or
Oppression dynamics, or power dynamics, or power over truth, or arguing reality through the dialectic, or even arguing supremacy of the state.
In other words, people "right" people are using the same engine that communism is, and calling themselves right wing.
You defined it on their terms which is useful, but really it's just losers hating winners.
They lost the moment they assumed that power is the highest virtue.
It's ironic reading Leviticus through Judges in the Old Testament and listening to the Marxist ideas about the state dissolving. Under the Theocrasy that existed between the crossing of the Jordan River and the crowning of Saul as the first Israeli king they had their own unique system that achieved everything the Communists wanted without the downsides. It also achieved everything Libertarians, Anarchists, and Capitalists wanted in a political and economic system. The land was evenly divided up among the people in the beginning, it was handed down from father to son in perpetuity. A man was the sovereign of his private property, and a land sale was nothing more than a lease that could never run past the jubilee year that happened every 50 years. In that Jubilee year all outstanding debts were declared null and void, all bondsmen returned to the land of their forefathers. There was no king, no elected body, so no political parties. A 10% tithe was collected by the priests once a year to provide for the poor and sick. There was no standing army, every man was a reservist, any military action could only take place after being sanctioned by the priests. The law was enforced by judges chosen locally on the formula of pick the guy that didn't want the job the most. Rights and the Law came from God and not a constitution or state government. I consider that ancient system superior to all that has been proposed and implemented ever since.
You forgot democratism. See democratism info.
So essentially communism has never existed and the soviet union was a socialist state.
It was state-capitalist
4j
⚔️⚔️⚔️⚔️⚔️⚔️⚔️
What’s the difference? Nothing. Marx used communism and socialism interchangeably.
Marx actually never used the word socialism at all.
Not sure if "New Discourses" is the correct channel name if I am just going to hear Republican talking points from 60+ years ago
They're all things you disagree with.
@@theconceptofbass
Ah, so that's why you deny the label. Being a worshipper of the pagan idol gods yourself made it incentivised to ignore the recognition of your faith, since only by namelessnsss can it remain unchallenged.
Language isn't static, and the new dialects evolving under the framework your theocracy we've been under for 60+ years has unfortunate consequences. But hey, monkey's paws always do grant wishes that way, yeah?
Your definition of socialism isn't broad enough and sounds like the one Marxists have come up with and that has become popular. Socialism is way older and broader than Marxism. It also includes variants in which the State doesn't necessarily own the means of production. E.g. German/National/Prussian/Arabic/Ba'atist socialism.
Your description of Fascism is very superficial and sounds like one that a Libertarian or Marxist would make.
He did have a expanded version of socialism.
"Government control of the means of production", is what the fascists had.
The factories was not owned by the state.
But if the state told them to do something, they would still have to do it, or the factory would be taken away from them and "given" to somebody else.
That is why fascism is a type of socialism, but not a version of communism or marxism.
Communism believe everything should be communal owned. Fascists did not claim that.
And marxists are people who think Marx was correct, while the fascists claimed Marx was wrong.
Non of these ideas are good,,, or even working.
@haraldbredsdorff2699 Fascists are collectivists, that isn't the same as Socialist collectivism. Quite the opposite.
@JackRichardsonM8 What he said was quite correct, even though they are opposites in many of the cultural aspects.
@@LiveforchristnottheworldAnd economic aspects. In fact in all aspects. Fascists are far-right, Socialists and Communists are far-left.
One happy giant family!! You talk a lot of rubish. A great variety of people of various capacities , etc. Read something that does not tickle your fancy.....
If you think his views are inadequate then possibly provide another resource that you feel would be more accurate instead of insulting his work.
Yes, too many idiots are around criticizing socialism.
Do you have an actual argument to make?