Communism and Socialism Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 окт 2024
- This video addresses common misconceptions ad arguments against Communism and Socialism. This is one in a series. If you have any more points to add to future videos or any points you would like argued against message them to me or post as comments below.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
So basically Communism would work if we had high enough technological achievement that all sort of labour intensive, boring and repetitive could be automated through the use of machines and people would have access to as many goods as the needed. This would mean that people would not have to work in order to have goods and services available in a society, meaning that people would only chose to work on jobs that are fulfilling and entertaining e.g. people usually only have jobs such as being a geologist because it is something they are interested in and is fulfilling and entertaining for them. So pure communism could in theory work in say 50 or 60 years once there has been a high enough technological achievement so that machines can replace builders, labourers, teachers, doctors, surgeons, etc.
We see technology replacing us now, look at the auto checkout machines in the supermarket. The problem is that with capitalism, this tech is used to replace us and put us back into unemployment. Because of the increase supply of labour employers can offer lower wages, worse conditions etc. Government job creation tries to combat this, but only waste tax payers funds, it would be cheaper just to pay an unemployment benefit. This unemployment is not the devil which its made out to be, it should be embraced, and the goal of any decent society. Technology replacing us will never be fully accepted as long as its creating inequality, once we remove capitalism, we can fully utilise technology to emancipate us from labour.
Will you mind if i try to reupload this video subtitled in spanish?
An example of wasted human potential is for instance, a person under capitalism wants to have a career in cosmo chemystry, but cosmochemystry (the study of the formation of molecules in space) is very expensive to acheive a degree in as there is very little to gain monetarily, and as a result, even if a degree is achieved, there is likely to be few employment opportunities. This person could revolutionize our very understanding of the universe, but with so many obstacles holding him from pursing his desire for knowledge that though the potential exists for great human contribution, it is never used. The person simply gets a job at starbucks to pay for his phone and medical bills because its hard enough just to get by, how on earth earth can he get by on what he earns and makeing time for collegebis out of the question. How can happiness and contribution be persued if a person is too busy pursuing his own very livelyhood?
If anyone has trouble understanding the big picture of communism:
Imagine Shire. Boom, I know. Wow. Makes you wonder quite a lot of things.
The general principle seems like a good one, but I was wondering about what could be done to address problems seperate from class warfare. 1. Wouldn't a modified police force be needed to address violent crime? And a modified military for non-domestic threats? 2. Who decides the value of output in the absense of a market? If the answer is representatives, what could be done to keep them from forming a class? 3. How would banking and the money system work w/o private investment?
Thanks. So there can be no such thing as anarcho-communism if there is such a big difference? Correct?
well... I'll be looking for Glen Beck's explanation right now. Thank you?
An important point to add, is that the notion of "human nature" is simply an excuse to delegate our behavior and social problems to a realm outside our control. Marx can be considered the first Western social constructionist, recognizing that human behavior is largely conditioned by its social, cultural, and economic contexts and history.
As Marx said: "Philosophers describe the world, the point is to change it". Of course the ones in power will resist, that's why we must learn revolutionary tactics and strategy. It does not necessarily have to involve armed struggle. First will come resistance, then revolt followed by revolution. We must focus on organization rather than mobilization, create a political arm that will demonstrate the power of the disaffected masses. Another avenue will be service to the community
Here in the United States, there was actual slavery,to the extent that it's part of the Constitution itself. There was no "middle class" until the reforms of the New Deal and the ascension of organized labor. There were breadlines during the Great Depression here also. All those flaws you see in those countries were in existence in this country well before those countries were established.
Legitimate, non- trolling question here--
@3:24
I understand all of the points made regarding reasons people work other than money, but what about when similar companies with the same target market (ex. Coke and Pepsi, or Microsoft and Apple) arise? Wouldn't competition and motivation for bigger profit have to eventually come into play?
"Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists - to their mutual benefit. " - Sutton
There are two types of communism. This is the fact most people have trouble comprehending. There is a highly authoritarian version of communism, which sees the transition stage into pure communism and the notion of a vanguard party to lead the revolution necessary. Then there are those who oppose the ideas of a vanguard party and a transition stage, and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism.
Im a socialist, but that doesn't mean street cleaners and doctors get paid the same. If the labour theory of value is correct, then the extra labour required to become a doctor (in the form of university and medical school, etc) makes the service more valuable. Thus entitling the doctor to a higner wage.
I am communist and say communism can be democratic but most communists oppose democracy. And communism do require at least 4% of the population to work as police officers and at least 4% to work as troops. And it does mean that the state run all shops and factories.
The only big difference between communists and anarchists is that communists believe that there should be a transitional phase called socialism,that would make the society ready for communism.
While anarchy believes that hierarchy is the biggest problem to the workers and tends to eliminate it at the very begining,without a tranisitional phase. Thats the big difference... A communist society is described to have no government,even by Marx and Engels.
It was Hugo Chavez and it's going to be a pleasure to answer each question:
1. He won because he messed up economy by printing money and giving it away to poor people - Our yearly inflation: 150%.
2. He did not protect the defenseless.
3. Public healthcare and education suck, you can come here and see it yourself.
4. We're all poor, so yes, there USED to be wealthy people around here, not anymore, so we're all kinda equal now.
5. Cubans can't afford a Big Mac, that's why they're healthy.
Places like the soviets and Cuba, wanted to implement what was described in the scientific definition, trouble is people don't operate like that and it always degrades into what we see as the non scientific definition.
The fundamental problem of communism and socialism is that they fail to address how people will be encouraged to preform mind numbing grunt labor. Computer programming is a job which can be an inherently joyful and fulfilling activity in and of itself, which is why so many people are willing to do it for free. However, it would be incredibly foolish to suggest that all jobs are like that. There are many jobs which are monotonous and unfulfilling, but also necessary for society to function.
Is not that stated in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?", just curious.
Every time I talk to people advocating communism, they never really give any facts to support their claims. The question at 3:13 was met, not with facts but with wishful thinking, they will do this they will do that. The answer to 1:52 is something I also heard before; in a safe system nobody will want more, but a safe system IS the ultimate hotbed for manipulation and want. The reason Communism is compared to e.g. Soviet, China etc. is because it's the only comparison we got other than words.
Problem: how do you ensure transparency? Transparency, I assume, means that everybody will know about everything that everyone else does. In other words, no privacy.
The only way to ensure that nobody is conspiring or planning to seize control is to constantly watch everybody at all times. The only way to watch everybody at all times is to have a massive surveillance system that nobody can escape from. That hardly sounds like a free society to me.
@jediknight36 Hi, can you please add cc subtitles to your vid, i want to traduce it to another language, i hope you dont mind if i do it.
I hold faith that communism can succeed eventually, I just don't think we're ready for it, the human race has to mature first for it to happen.
This is why Socialism exists as a transitionary economic system.
Communism is dependent upon two factors- human mentality and overproduction.
Privatization will save health care, not ruin it. If companies have to compete for patients, they will offer the best care at the cheapest rates. Socialized health care not only stops hospitals from caring about competition, but it also drives cost up and bankrupts the nations it has been tried in.
to buy anything within his affordability curve regardless of price, while a poor person cannot afford the price due to his affordability curve. Now the question that Marx asks is: who owns the surplus value of the commodity, the worker who produces it or the capitalist who sells it? There are more examples of socialism that are in your daily life that you don't realize. If you have an insurance policy, your premiums are pooled together until you or somebody makes a claim and collects benefits.
I like the way this was made, my only sadness is that its hard to understand the computer langueage...i really am happy this is posted , very good points from a well studied person...
the problem with communism is that humans can not just take "what they need". you cannot suppress human desire.
Thank you for this video it makes so much more sense know
In this classless society, who will be the one that cleans the toilets, and who get’s to work in the office tower with a clean lucite desk, laptop computer, and a cup of coffee? Who get’s to live on the lakefront property and who will have to live inland? What of the guy that is voted to clean the toilets doesn’t want to clean the toilets, and instead wants to work in the office tower?
I’ll bet the person that made this video doesn’t think they will be the ones cleaning the toilets, or not living on the lakefront property.
I thought this video was making fun of the communist fallacies but apparently is trying to defend it ...lol
You probably should not voice an opinion regarding this matter if you cannot discern the obvious.
Danny Richardson I discern the obvious I just cant discern the meaning or purpose of your comment.
I would bet that every one who reads this knows people who do not want to work and would not work because of silly things like enjoying the company of co-workers or finding work fun and interesting.
some people love their job.
Also, people want to be a part of something(Hence gangs and terrorists), so if they don't work, they risk being excluded from society.
***** I am a RUclipsr and if I was only a RUclipsr, I'd be homeless. I work with a person who has 2 art degrees. She wants to be an artist, but it doesn't pay and there are no jobs for it. Not everyone has projects they want to work on. A lot of people just want to be lazy and hang out. Not all people want to be a part of something.
This may make me sound like a terrible person, But we can always distribute daily needs only to people who do a job and those who are lazy get nothing
***** I'm not sure what you mean by a nation completely owned by the workers? We can't ask everyone to vote on every decision that needs to be made, so representatives would have to be elected. That's basically what we have here in America.
Ones personal psychology is conditioned by ones responses to their life circumstances. All these things are modifiable. Communism works on the economic and structural levels, which also effect culture, social behavior, and the contexts our life stories and circumstances arise in (and therefore our personal psychology). This, of course, doesn't mean a planned economy would fix everything (economic determinism).
Okay, so I have to contribute to the system to get something out of it, then we have to measure my contribution against the value of what I am taking out, right?
@xpoom3 They are called communist because the parties that ruled them called themselves "Communist Parties". The parties themselves called the societies in which they ruled over "Socialist".
I know this comment will be drowned by all if the the other comments condemning all forms of a command economy, but if you do see this can someone please give me further info in the difference between communism and socialism?
+David Guevara Socialism is a stepping stone to communism. Socialism has a state run by the workers, Communism has no state whatsoever.
If you are not satisfied than what is your alternative(I know it is difficult to sum it up when RUclips only allows you 500 characters per comment)??
Good video! Although i do feel like the biggest problem with communism is it's utopian nature. The 3 problems i see with ever practically implementing communism are actually the ones you (somewhat) addressed in the video. Getting people to work without profit types of motivation, stopping classes from rising up, and establishing a civil society without organized government. Could u PM me, i'd like to discuss this with you further, thanks!
No... this is not anarcho-communism... This is communism as Marx said it would be.
Marxists also tend to a communist society without the government and the state,because the state is a capitalist structure.
I am a trotskyst and I agree with everything here.
Huffington did when she took the money from selling HP and not distributing the proceeds is the example of bourgeois capitalism.
@SimonSays288 Honestly, that last part is exactly right. They CALL themselves Communist but so did WE in similar propaganda. I dont think the video maker contests that. I think that what the writer is saying is that a better world is not only necessary, but possible once you take care of the masses, making sure their needs are met before the wealthy, and not allowing the rich to BE so manipulative. But as far as "wishful thinking" goes, the same was said about Capitalism.
I think I get it. So it's a bit like democratic-capitalism. One is the structure of society and one is the structure of economics. Is that right?
It's possible that socialism and capitalism can function properly if they are done the way they are supposed to be done. As you can see from past and present examples when they go wrong they really go wrong.
The first thing we need is not a change of men, but a change in men. A godless ideology is not a solution, for it is like jumping from the frying pan to the fire. Our actions and decisions are influenced by the way we think or by what we believe. A leader can't do anything without the cooperation of the people. This is very general and broad, but I think this would be a reasonable foundation for prudent action. From this should spring the values of altruism, patriotism, liberalism etc.
Correction! SOME Churchmen beholden to Aristotle believed, that the earth was the center of the universe. They should have heeded Cardinal Beronius, a contemporary of Galileo, who said that: The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go." Moreover, the after-life cannot be verified or falsified by science because it is beyond the empirical. And we will see later who is more logical and common sensical between us.
We wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. There are two models: Native American or aboriginal societies and the Huffington Post. In the Native American society, hunting and gathering tasks were shared by the males in the society, women raised children, etc. In many "tribes" or nations, decisions were communal as were many things. In the case of HP, contributions by individuals made it worth reading and expressed views that would not have gotten light in the commercial media. Now what Arianna
Contrary to what most are posting, I see working for fun as a positive motive. First, it wouldnt matter if someone dropped out of highschool because higher education is free in communism. Second, public works, like building a bridge would be a more common occurance because lets say our lowely friend who dropped out school had a profound desire to build a bridge, there would be nothing to stop him from obtaining the knowledge to do so, as well as no monetary/ class burden to keep him from the opportunity to construct it. The same would be said of those who would provide resources for the project (just to clearify that argument). The end product is a new bridge for all, and the personal happiness of all those who had a part in making it.
Btw, what is so terrible and evil about free healthcare, any education you desire, and never having your home claimed by a bank? Some would logically argue that the opposite would be terrible and evil.
You usually get what you pay for........If you pay nothing .....well........ I would not want a bridge built by someone who did not have an engineering background because it and you could end up in the river.
Freedom? There is no freedom in Communism and Socialism. There is always someone (government, bureaucrats, etc ) determining, who needs to do what and how and making sure everything is "fair." Those "who choose to work" become the "slaves" of those "choose" not to work until no one wants to work for the benefits of everyone and they end up getting virtually nothing in return. If you truly believe in communism and socialism, I have a PO Box that I can give you to send a portion of everything you own and earn to "spread the wealth" while I "plan the bridges" I will build.
Isnt that how it is in either system? There only difference is that in capitalism money gives the advantage over others.. Btw, the last president of the ussr was born without any advantage, what one would consider not well off. How many capitalist presidents were born on farms, poor and still have the opportunity to make a change in their country? Also, the bridge builder would have a backround, because he can learn engineering at no debt to himself because free higher education, and come on, in a socialist society, there still would be obvious qualifications to have before the area will entrust the resources with someone to build a bridge, but nothing to keep you from those qualifications
I dont believe in robbing people of their property, only having policies in place to ensure the person has certain rights which I consider to be human rights from birth like free medicine and college education, to enable that persons success to be entirely their choosing, and not the monetary and social conditions which holf a person back from their potential
Randall Smith
Nothing is free except what God gives us......Besides that, If it appears to be free - it is only because you are not paying for it and someone else is.
BTW so was Abe Lincoln. The reason we have "rich & special" Presidents is because the of the "Pressitutes" and the corrupt media. If we had a media that did their job the average "Joe Smoe" could run and have a shot of being elected.
Money gives you advantage, okay so what. Life is not fair, get over it. Money could be a curse too. A lot of people have worked hard and made a lot of money because of capitalism (at least that is way it use to be.) Now everything has to be fair and redistributed and equal. Give me a hand out, please because it is not fair.. Get off your rear-end and earn it you lazy bum! The more a person receives (in most cases) the more dependent and lazier he becomes (causing him NOT TO REACH HIS FULL POTENTIAL)
There is place where were everyone has a job, free healthcare, free food and a place to sleep. It even has free education - it is called prison. So how free are you?
You are free to give to others you choose which is yours. You are not free to give which is other's.
Yes, every form of government/society has some form of taxes and rules. If you believe that Socialism/Communism gives you the most freedom - You should move to Cuba or China or the UK.
"The goal of socialism is communist. Of the Socialist, 20% are communist and the 80% are the 'Useful Idiots' that help them accomplish their goal." - V Lenin
Punishing the successful and rewarding lazy destroys society and the country.
Tyranny resides in any form under any political structure if left unchecked. I think all that needs to be addressed here is morality. Get that in check and you'll have your utopian society.
I was looking for a good explanation for socialism. All I was able to find before this was extremely biased and hateful before this. You pretty much answered all the questions I had in less than five minutes.
Thanks a bunch!
Because being a doctor is a harder job than being a street cleaner. Harder jobs deserve more pay.
For all you hard core utopians out there, I have one question:
In a society in which no one owns anything and everything is free, am I required to contribute to the system in order to get anything out of it?
Not sure if it's correct to say that Socialism is merely a step toward, or 'transition' to Communism. Communism is a further left ideology compared to Socialism. Communism denotes more complex state planning and a central government with fairly large state bureaucracy.
You're correct to say Socialism grows out of Capitalism and can therefore lead on to Communism, however, Communism is more of a political AND economic belief than solely economic like Socialism.
@MARIJUANA41011 If you're asking me what I mean by "legalized theft", I'm referring to the taxes that are required to fund a communist regime. That's what taxes are: money exacted from civilians' pockets with or without the civilians' consent. Communism is impossible without legalized theft because when communism is put into practice, people invariably look to expanding the government in order to have their communist utopia.
Like I said I don't think Marx was evil or bad he was just wrong, those in power are hard to flush out . The USSR went at it for only 70 years and I do not think the horrible living conditions those people endured justify the end result, especially when no one has ever been able to gain that end result. What we see is bread lines slave labor (China and apple for example) and lots of dead people who for what ever reason didn't fit the mold or were enemies of the state.
are you saying that the communist ideology is the same as fascism? im just asking.
Establish service to the community and they will develop loyalty because they will see who is doing for them and their interests. The only avenue that the existing powers have is through force, if they don't have the opportunity to use it, then it is useless as a weapon.
Thats the point,in communism people learnt from a tenet,that internal feeling e.g that guide you to do not kill others .
today we need "law" to prevent murder, but if the people start to recognize the law and internalize that tenet, then the law is no longer necessary for the people.
Communism is a progressive goal,not a fact in itself, if you want to achieve the de-legalization you need laws first.
Something concrete that proves a nonmaterial reality exists; an actual discovery, not just some fantasy theory.
The opposite of fascism is not communism, but anachism. There are two types of fascism and two types of anarchism (libertarianism). There is a fascist left, which was the state imposed collectivism that the USSR, China, and NK operate under. Then there is a fascist right, which countries like the USA, UK, and other UN countries operate under. Then there is voluntary-regional collectivism (anarcho-communsm) that has never existed. Same for the right (anarcho-capitalism).
I realize that communism does have a bad name, but a higher power telling us what to do is a terrible idea.
wow most informative video about socialism and communism on youtube, great!
I feel that this only happens because people are too lazy to take care of themselves, or don't know how. For instance, in a school the children and teachers don't take care of their rooms very well. This is why you "need" janitors. So really, It's about responsibility towards others, something that capitalism doesn't encourage. In fact, to me, it seems that capitalism encourages the opposite. It's about looking out for yourself, and stepping on others along the way.
people from violating the rules of the communist community. (like taking too much, or starting to privately produce something, or whatever) This is the reason most communist countries decided to install a central government and a strong unity-party.
This of course opens the doors for tyranny and corruption.
I do believe that communism can work in small societies, or in a light version (for example only SOME things like water are common goods)...but the main problem of communism is to keep
everyone in capitalism has the equal opportunity and freedom to achieve what they desire. the amount of work and creativity depends on them. it is voluntarism at its best.
We trade with the People's Republic of China, Russia is now being run by oligarchs, every country who swallowed the supply side, free economy b.s. is facing the prospect of "austerity" or severe recession. This is the 2nd severe downturn in 80 years and we've had 11 downturns in the past 30 years. Now, given all of that, how is capitalism going to produce the next economic boom?
Where exactly have I expressed my wish for a communist dictatorship. In fact I said that communism opens the door to corruption and tyranny which can hardly be interpreted as an endorsement...can it?
And no...I wouldn't be happy in a communist country, like all those people that I know of whom most of them don't liked it, too.
But with a lot more democratic elements I think some ideas from communism can be very helpful for modern turbo capitalist societies.
What about the charge that Socialism lacks productivity and can only work when there is an element of tyranny imposed on the people to ensure that they pull their weight. I cite Russia as an example: during the 1930s was it's most productive period and when the most mass murders were taking place. When Gorbachev attempted to remove the fear element (secret police, etc) in the 1980s the whole system collapsed.
The problem is that no central government is bad. Who will protect us from the other governments who see us as defenseless? Communism would work if there were no criminals, and was world spread. But it's not, so how would it work in any country?
Its real simple....BETTER DEAD THAN RED>!
Only in a country with a big, intrusive government is this an issue. If the government does not have the power or authority to get involved with private enterprise, then pharmaceuticals don't have to bribe or coerce anyone.
Hold on. If there is no government it is anarchistic. That is the very definition of Anarchy. Might there be a chance that true Marxist theory was anarchistic? Okay. If it is, there's no need to hyphenate it with "Anarcho" if the principle of communism included it but it's still anarchistic. You cannot argue that. You said it yourself. No government.
Are you trying to say that competition INCREASES costs? The company that can sell the best medicine at the best price will get most of the customers. The same goes for hospitals.
Government subsidizing research is a socialistic measure. In a capitalistic society private businesses and corporations invest in research, not the taxpayer.
What do you mean by proper proof? Please elaborate.
When you die you do not consume energy because you do not belong any more to the physical realm, but to the spiritual realm. The key to the whole argument is the contingency of material reality, for there was a moment in the past when the universe, made up of atoms and stars, did not exist. Otherwise, are you ready to argue for the proposition that the universe is eternal or infinite or has always been here and therefore does not need a Creator?
This Requires a Great Leap of Faith to believe any of this will happen.
Great video. I'm going to show this to my friend, who is as socially liberal as you can get, but has been brainwashed into being fiscally conservative just from his dad watching a dude cry about how awful it is that Obama wants to raise his and other billionaires taxes by a few dollars to help homeless people.
You're wrong about work. If we did not have to work for the necessities, then who would provide these necessities? The farmer grows food because he gets money, not because he wants to have fun at work. Also, why would anyone work at all? Many people would expect the government to give them everything and then complain when it doesn't.
We really don't need money. My ansetors made a life without money for centuries. Sure they weren't technological advance compared to the rest of the world but that's their religious beliefs. Having a life were we go to work for fun and to better advance the community based your own ambitious and effort. Receive food, water, shelter, clothing and entertainment just because you used your skills and labour to get the things you need and a bit of wants. The capital way drives our wants and let's go our needs. Minus the fact we still need a home and food and clothes. But look around your house, how many things do you need comparing to you bought because you wanted it. We grew up in this so that's why everyone that lives in that kind of world finds it so hard to let go. Before you disagree with others. Understand that you don't know what is like living in that kind of world.
i feel like you misted out a small alternative in the being paid or not at all part as there is a alternative in socialism that say you get paid but most of your wage is taken to lower the over all price on goods needed or in high demand within the country or community,this usually is consider to be used to make food free along with water,electricity,gas for heat/cooking and also service such as health care and may end up being used in development of defence's for the people and government.
Nah bro you're not listening. He's saying people who make the items which companies sell aren't getting what's worth what they put in. So socialism isn't taking from the rich and giving to the poor its everyone getting what they make for themselves.
It's hard to find useful information in these commentaries without running into an instance of one RUclips-er insulting another. Can we ever have an objective argument regarding Communism, Socialism and Capitalism?
Problem: how do you create a world of abundance where no one has to work? I can conceive of no feasible method of providing for the basic necessities of life without work.
Indeed, work seems to be the ONLY method by which the necessities of life can possibly be attained. Unless you can invent a way to make food, shelter, and clothing all materialize without any work being required whatsoever, then a world in which work is unnecessary will continue to be a nothing but an impossible fantasy.
We were different for a while. But we have always been an explotative society. We exploit workers around the world, that is why our labor is down. Im not a communist, but i employ the best ideas I find in each system. Even capitalism. I'm just saying socialism is someone getting what they make for themeselves. Im just telling you what it is.
Danemark, for example, is socialist. It is recognized to be a very pleasant place to live. Far more than United States. Norse country socialism is socialism as supposed to be. Eventually, this socialism would refine to the point of communism. Look, wage slavery or cooperation? I don't know for you, but I'd like people to share and work together instead of competing with each other. I know our animal nature is strong, but we must put it aside and be rational in order to have a true civilization.
The mass murders of Stalin. Mao and Pol Pot as a matter of ideological policy pale in comparison to the Crusades and the Inquisition whose mass murdering rampage occurred because of the shortsightedness of some churchmen and the imprudent entaglement of the Church with the state--a lesson that the Church learned well.
@MARIJUANA41011 (continued) Look at Cuba and Eastern Europe: one has its citizens constantly trying to go over to the U.S., and the other is distinctly poorer than the rest of Europe. In my opinion, Eastern Europe is poorer than the rest of Europe because of how heavily the Soviets taxed and regulated them. If the people aren't allowed to operate and trade freely, how can a society be rich and full of new technologies?
Your assertion that we Indians were communist is laughably ignorant. American Indians held private property very dear, personal items and personal expression were extremely important. The more successful a person was, the more he had and the more he traded for more wealth(horses, weapons, bigger lodges, etc) currency was trade goods. People did work together for the good of the tribal group and help was given when needed, but it was expected that individuals provide for their families first.
The question is how will anything get done and the communist says that people will do things because of personal interest. Then he lists a few things that are essentially hobbies. The question is who will clean the toilets and take out the trash and till the lands, not who will provide opinions in online forums or who will make operating systems. If people only do things that interest them than we will have 100000 baseball players and 5 farmers, and then we all die of starvation.
Thanks for the info, but here are the biggest issues that came up for me. The first one is the lack of incentive. The reasons for people to work stated in the video seem very utopian. Maybe some people in society will work for those reasons but a large percent won't. There are lazy people. Now this could change with time but the incentive of monetary success that is available in a capitalist system is what has led to a majority of the innovations we've seen over the past 30 years...
communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
it all sounds so nice :)
but what do you do, if someone doesn't want to give you "what you need"? And what if that person needs you to not be so needy? :)
But more seriously, what do you do with people who don't want to simply give up hours of their life and work and energy they invested into building something, just because someone comes along and claims he needs it?
Either use force (in which case, the ugliness is revealed) or let them keep it (in which case, it's free market not communism)
You obviously are an opposing to thee great "Huge Chavaz". If he was a poor leader why did he win elections continuously until his death. He protected the defenceless which was the poor. He gave free healthcare, free education and welfare. He distributed the wealth equally and fairly. In cuba the life expectancy is higher than Americas, so the quality of life is not "poor"
They are judging him based on his words, deeds, and policies, which are all socialistic.
@MrGunman11 Sure, since the communion model would be in motion I'll just take it to be fixed at the local electronics, or heck have it replaced - thanks!
And no sorry, theres no "tradeing" in the communion since material possesions are easily obtained for "nothing" save your labore, you work for "fre" and get "free" shit to put bluntly. So Tradeing with you would have no point really since anything you have I could get for "free" :P
You are not addressing the main contention of the contingency argument but you are sticking to the peripherals. Cardinal Bellarmine advised Galileo not to preach his theory as gospel truth. This was the time when the Church, steeped in Aristotelian concepts, had no way of knowing the advances of science and had to protect herself from theories that would undermined her authority. The same does not obtain today, for that belongs to a historical past from which she has learned her lessons.
A stateless society promotes self-organisation, problems like that can and will be solved by people simply because noone wants to be ruled. Also, in a classless society, it would be considered illogical for someone to believe that he is more suitable than others to rule over them. It's all a matter of ideological hegemony, And last but not least, why would someone want power if he lives freely, working on projects he's interested in, what purpose would that serve?
(first off i'll let you know i'm a libertarian) ok, the problem you overlook is that to get to communism you must have a transition. It must be orchestrated. What is keeping the orchestrators of this system from rigging it? The ones whom would have the power to lead this change would be the ones best positioned to do so.. The ones best positioned would have the backing of corporations (secretly) to fund and propagate the message to the masses.. Are you trusting them to be benevolent?
Thanks
He is describing "pure" communism which is anarcho-comminism which has no centralised government to to be corrupted (made impure).
correct however you must admit that regimes like USSR did call themselves at the very least socialists. I think communists are in bad company when it comes to previous examples because there are very few creditable ones. We libertarians share the same stigma unfortunately
everyone under capitalism should be able to achieve the same amount of wealth as Bill Gates or more. however, how they get it depends on the individuals own wit. one may get it quicker than the other with more work. one may get it quicker with less work. that is the beauty of individuality everyone is different.