+myriadcorp if you liked the discussion, you'll love the book too! store.pslweb.org/Imperialism-in-the-21st-Century-Updating-Lenins-Theory-a-Century-Later_p_30.html
party of socialism and liberation is fighting the good fight. They are active in the anti-war movements against a possible war against North Korea; as well as ending the imperial wars of the middle east; fighting against police brutality; fighting for living wages; and against neoliberalism
+chycho if you enjoyed the interview, you'll love the book too! store.pslweb.org/Imperialism-in-the-21st-Century-Updating-Lenins-Theory-a-Century-Later_p_30.html
+Derrick Wade if you enjoyed the interview, you'll love the book too! store.pslweb.org/Imperialism-in-the-21st-Century-Updating-Lenins-Theory-a-Century-Later_p_30.html
Unfortunately, I find most of this true. "Capital" is among 50 best books I've read but I don't talk about this issues in such manner with others, not even with my friends because I think people are not ready to accept this. Unfortunately, people still find it more important to spend hours on facebook than to learn something, than to read something that has weight.... People are not suffering enough to acknowledge how badly they've been treated, how mislead and ignorant they've been kept, to look for alternative ways of approaching to society...
Completely agree, too many people are content with their flat screen TVs and smart phones, and whatever else there is to consume in today's society. Revolution isn't a slow process and I guess society has to hit rock bottom before it can rise up and take back control. I still have hope, I'm in the U.K. By the way, love following what's happening in the states at the moment
+ZgemboBeterovic You've read and understand "Capital," agree with its politics (I'm presuming), and yet, because you believe that people aren't suffering enough in this terrible world, you won't discuss these ideas, even with your friends?! Comrade, trying times, but part of the problem today is a generalized (ruling class-inspired) cynicism towards the people. Playing the enlightened cynic does us no good. It only digs us deeper. My advice: start talking to your friends about these vital matters. As you grow more comfortable and confident, you can then start talking to acquaintances and even relative strangers. Might you turn some people off? Yes. But as your political antennae develop you will get better at talking to different types of people and in different situations.
Joey Nickles Not quite. First of all, I don't agree with all premises from "Capital" but I think it has many, many good ideas and points. I think that people aren't suffering enough TO START SEARCHING for other solutions, for different kind of organizing of society and economy and move towards more humane society. I think it's realistic perception of the micro universe around me. I don't waist time on talking with others about issues they don't want to talk about. If you push for conversation in that direction with people who are not interested in it, you get ignored or you get people annoyed and make it even worse. I am talking and will talk with my children and people that wants to listen but that's rarely the case so I'm not trying to shove it down their throat. When times get worse, when need for something else gets greater, more people will listen and then it will make sense to talk and explain some other views. Changing perception of society and changes that follows should come as evolution of society and way of thinking. That way it will stick. Trying to force it (verbally or in any other way) ends up failing every time. And in some cases you just "don't throw pearls to pigs"...
+ZgemboBeterovic How do you magically expect that the Capitalist class will just suddenly stop trying to use the economy to benefit their interest, and stop exploiting people by giving their power over to the working class? Thinking that this will happen on its own is the same a magical thinking, because it makes absolutely no sense, and at no point or movement in history have things ever happened in such a way. Apparantly the capitalist are going to grow ENORMOUS hearts and sing kumbaya and everything will live happily ever after. What a truly absurd expectation. Its so convenient for you, someone who lives in the first world to not be willing to consider alternatives while not living on the brunt end of imperialist, economic domination by the first world over the third world. Its doubly convenient, when you are an indirect benefactor of imperialism, as it funnels extremely cheap resources, computers and products to the first world, by producing them for a few dollars or cents a piece. That is literally how western capitalism thrives today, and thus it is a facade of "success" based on the extreme exploitation of other nations. This is how capitalism has evolved since Karl Marx days, as when he discussed it, it exploited first world people on a domestic level, but now it has shifted were the most extreme exploitation takes place. The capitalist system grew in scale - creating an international class divide between first world nations and second/third world nations, but did not at all change a bit how it operates or derives its profits!
Yep, he was the real deal. Little tip, anybody that uses the phrase Lenninism-Stalinism has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Those guys hated each other.
I disagree that countries aren't colonizing. Europeans are still colonizing, in fact, America is continuing to colonized countries and America itself is colonized. The Indigenous aren't free neither is the Prisoners of War in this society! The United States is at risk because it will suffer the consequences of the atrocities it committed against it's own people and the world!
Queen Bonita Henderson imperialism is kind of the same bases of colonization in that it needs to expand due to capitalism(talking about usa/free market systems of government ) which if pursued to have balanced economy, it has to find new grounds for money/value to support it's stability which lead to sometimes colonizing other regions due to their resources or grounds of infrastructure.
burt sanchez But the people aren't enriching themselves and destroying others to enrich the few is wrong. It don't matter what word you choose to call it.
There is one utopian principal that Lenin, Sanders and the Party for Socialism and Liberation all share in common: that notion that change is realized through executive power. That the overturning of capitalism is merely a matter of capturing and controlling bourgeois political institutions. That communism can be legislated into existence. The single most important lesson that communists must take away from the Leninist experiment of the 20th century is that prospect of destroying capitalism died when the Bolsheviks demobilized the councils.
If people can't come together, left and right, this ain't gonna work. don't get boggled down in labels, just come to the table with good ideas, and Bernie had the best balance of practicality and progressiveness.
You should produce a segment about Nicos Poulantzas' work!!! He elaborates on the state, social class, power and capitalism. + His Theory of the State explains class power within society convincingly. Great show!
@03:18 I really wish some Marxists would stop referring to Marxism as an "ideology." Two words : *Analytical Methodology* We use *_objective_* methods to advance a subjective view : the rights of the working masses, and the necessity for the class which produces the material basis of society to govern that society.
Americans are democratic in their nature, therefore democratic socialism is the best approach, revolutionary socialism we not end well for ANY SIDE. But, I greatly agreed with Brian Becker, we need a revolution to reform(cease) the banks.
Stalin & Mao & POL POT Were complete monsters, but Lenin & Trotsky were intellectuals, and they were only against the greed and monarchy and nobility, aristocracy, etc. etc. which was very much like the French revolution. The thing is that after the French revolution, Napoleon came to power, and then he became a dictator, which it really wasn’t too much better except Napoleon did put the money into better education and a couple years after the French revolution, the partition vans that had once belong only to nobles and the serfs or slaves live there and worked there, & were the peasants, & after the years of the French revolution destruction. The people actually had partitioned the noble lands into 1 acre farms, and there was plenty of food to go around, and when Napoleon was forced into exile, and to abdicate when King Louis the XVIII returned. He was told they were going to have a constitutional monarchy, and it was not going to be like it was before and France did better but the major difference in France came along after the European revolutions in 1848!! that’s one other countries in Europe had revolutions as well like Austria-Hungary and other countries but Russia did not, and people were waiting on Russia. Eventually when Russia did have a revolution, it was so understandable as to why, and czar Nicholas sent these poor Russian troops out to fight in World War I, and they did not have hard covers to protect them from head injuries, and most of them didn’t have weapons, and they didn’t get enough food, so they mutinied and came back to Russia and rows up against the monarch.. without the military on his side, there is nothing that Czar Nicholas could do except abdicate, but they should’ve allowed him and his family to go into exile versus executing them and I don’t know who killed that entire family, but it was the wrong
To all of you saying that Bernie is not an actual socialist, here's a quote: "I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves." -Bernie Sanders
Lenin Was RIGHT!!! Germany encouraged Austria Hungary to invade Serbia, because Germany didn’t have the big empire, Spain, France and Great Britain had had and for years until the 19th century German he wasn’t even one country but four or five different separate parts. Around 1870, Germany and Prussia were major industrialized military powers and they wanted the same riches and glory that Spain had in the 1400s 1500s and 16 hundreds etc. and that France had in the 1500s and 1600s but mostly Spain and Great Britain because they were the wealthiest colony organizers because France had a monarchy that was too lavish and King Louis XIV spent so much money on Versailles and the kings after him didn’t manage well and Louis the 16th refuse to listen to his financial advisors which led to his take down. America is not an empire, but when America was pretty isolationist, our country was a whole lot better off and the USA would trade but not get into military or political conflict around the world but after World War 2, the military industrial complex had gotten so rich during World War II that led to greed and the American people don’t want these conflicts in Ukraine or the Middle East, etc. etc. and we just want our jobs and we don’t want this globalism shit and we don’t want this climate change nonsense because even as environmentalist we believe in planting trees and no litter, but globalism only increases carbon emissions, because mass immigration destroys the environment by people laying garbage and trash everywhere and there’s thousands of miles of Slum territory we’re people through their clothes, shoes, dirty, diapers, and backpacks and mostly they are wet clothes want people across the Rio Grande coming into America and during COVID-19 they were disgusting Covid masks all over the place! Eww! People cannot afford green energy electric cars and I thought the best thing coming out were in the late 1970s the subcompact fuel economic cars were great and then in the 1990s or after 2000 and our gasoline and oil in America went through a filtering process, and that was great for the economy but the worst thing was America doing business with coming to China and allowing our manufacturing and other businesses to go overseas because Bill Clinton was naïve, and the American businesses were greedy, wanting to go to China to pay 75% of the labor cost that they paid here in America and that’s exactly why they went and now the dictator of China is Maoist and he wants to rain in any capitalist sort of government private property that’s been going on for 30 years in China and having American businesses pay Chinese workers more like American citizens, but Nike. Google INTEL & Dell knew that the money was not gonna go to the workers, but go to the CCP so they left China.
The free market was/is essential to imperialism, then and today. But I think it is not amiss to support Bernie's light socialism, especially in the primary, to help change the wider conversation. I agree with the guest that the radical left should support the Party for Socialism or the Green party in the general if Sander does not with the Democratic nomination - no one should vote for HRC or any Republican candidate; that's a vote for capitalism. But I think the reason Sanders says his supporters should vote for HRC in the general is a political maneuver. Regardless of his sincerity on the matter, if he has any chance of winning the primary he has got to play nice. Changing the Democratic party from within is the best shot socialists have in the present climate. Hopefully, with a Bernie win, the Right will implode and independents might have a better chance of establishing parties that would be more closely aligned to the Party for Socialism and Liberation's platform. To talk about Bernie's lack of radicalness from this narrow academic perspective misunderstands the wider populist radicality he represents in the mainstream conversation and speaks to the ego of this writer and the PSL. At least get behind him in the primary. I'll vote Stein or La Riva in the general, if HRC is demo pic, a lot of people will probably write in Sanders. But socialists who refuse to enroll in the system to push Sanders in the primary are missing a chance to help reconstruct the wider conversation surrounding establishment politics. A vote for Bernie in the primary is not selling out to a "lesser of two evils" mentality, it is a strategic means to gain a foothold that could lead to a widening of socialist discourse at large in US politics.
the original concentration came, not in the form of capital, but in the concentration of the European identity itself. From the perspective of the colonized, that was the original Empire. It was a consolidation of the European identity such that Europe as a collective constituted an Empire as it relates to the colonized. So while France, or Germany, or the US may not have had a singular empire, Europe as a whole was the imperial entity. Lenin may have viewed the world from the perspective of the worker, but he viewed it from the perspective of the white worker. He was concerned primarily about solving the problems of those inside of Europe, ie those resting on top of the pedestal of the colonized and oppressed people of the world
The assessment of the basic problems of the capitalism by Mr. Becker is mostly correct, but solutions trough revolution he proposing has failed many time before.The main problem of the USSR was not some "vulnerabilities of the socialism". USSR was forced together and was held together by force, in the same time practicing gross mismanagement of the natural and human resources, limitation of the progressive ideas from outside, suppression of any innovation that wasn't beneficial to nomenclature in short term. Lenin had rewrite Marxist doctrine to fit his own agenda, and from Lenin to Gorbachev soviet leaders failed to define communism in stable economical terms. "Redistribution of wealth" maybe appealing to deprived people, but this idea never succeeded before (look up Leopold II of Belgium for ex.). Non-violent, Non-political solutions of stratification problem exist, look up The Venus Project, or Jeremy Rifkin's "The Third Industrial Revolution" and "The Empathic Civilization", or Buckminster Fuller's "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth".
It would still be profit, but the profit would br shared by the workers who would become the capitalist class. This system would disincentivize Bezos like people who accrue massive amounts of wealth while treating their workers like garbage, and it would incentivize companies like Mondragon which are made up of many worker owned coops.
american comrades, riddle me this: your country holds like 1/4 of the global wealth, while your population is at best 1/20 of the world. a similar situation goes for western europe. the discrepancy in wealth is undebatably owed to imperialist superprofits. but then again, why would americans dismantle the imperialist project instead of, you know, redistributing that 1/4 of global wealth among the citizens of usa? a communist revolution that d dismantle the said imperialism is not in the economic interests of americans. it is not a coincidence that the only palatable "socialist" candidate for the majority of americans proposes nothing that would touch the imperialist pillage usa undertakes daily.
+BaskomserMesut you nailed it: "it is not a coincidence that the only palatable 'socialist' candidate for the majority of americans proposes nothing that would touch the imperialist pillage usa undertakes daily."
+tommybrown187 kind of what i got from this was that the most important thing the people can do to stiffle the velocity towards oppressive faschism and rampant militarist imperialism is to occupy the banks and control the source of money that ultimately leads to the purchase of arms and the selling of them as well, once the people control the money than they can control the policy and maneuvarability and policies behind the actions of the military. Occupy wallstreet was right it was we who were to complacent, to beholden to corporate roles, to brainwashed by the monopoly media, it is we who followed the opinions of idiots like Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper who used their media monopoly to carve the opinion of the public towards these young men and women who really know that the heart of the problem is the corporate domination of the bank. " 100 years ago they were an entity that gave you a loan when you needed one, now the banks dominate every avenue of human life".
Bernie's gesticulation resembles Lenin's. Lenin was somewhat monaural while Bernie is full Hi-Fi stereo. He developed this pose where he seems to be casting a spell. This is a smart move because the messages of the two are somewhat worn out. Well, it runs in the family
This is helpful to understanding. What will stop another Bolshevik revolution from killing millions upon millions of people in the process? How will we manage to avoid the tyranny of Lenin and and Stalin?
+Jesse Francis Democracy for the people and not for corporation. Socialism isn't about the leader it's about the economy and how wealth is distributed to the work force. This can still allow people to grow wealthy but without making them so wealthy as to stop others from reaching the same goals. Also it give every one a basic standard of living that allows all to have the same opportunities as every one else. That last part is what the elites hate since that would mean their children would have to do what other children do and prove themselves not just inherit there wealth.
+Jesse Francis avoiding the "tyranny" of lenin and stalin means that the flag of the third reich would be waved on the supreme soviet instead of the red flag being waved on the reichstag, hope this helps
i m actually on stalin s side on that subject comrade, that pact was the greatest diplomatic maneuver of 20th century and stalin was completely right for doing that
"It wasn't because the Arch duke of Serbia was shot" that statement makes everything further this man has to say is garbage. He has no actual ground base knowledge of the first world war.
Bob Dillahunty buddy.. the arch duke of the Austro hungary was shot and killed. He had his shit mixed up thus, I have no further need to listen to some commie. Lol
Lenin did not lead the Russian Revolution nor was he an orthodox Marxist. The Bolsheviks seized power in a military coup d'etat that overthrew the provisional government led by Kerensky. It was NOT a popular revolution at all nor did the Bolsheviks enjoy popular support in Russia except in Petersberg and Moscow. Lenin only managed to maintain power by the most brutal repression of the workers and soldiers, especially the sailors of Kronstadt who provided the military backing for Lenin's seizure of power. Lenin imposed a terror state on the Russian people that led to Stalin's terror and the suppression of democracy in Russia for a century. There is nothing about Lenin that anyone should regard favorably. He did more to crush democracy in Russia than anyone. In addition, Lenin was not a Marxist. Marxist teaching is based on the idea that socialism is born of the collapse of capitalism. Russia had not even entered the capitalist stage when Lenin seized power and nationalized all industry. Russia was a country of illiterate peasants. Lenin crushed the independent labor unions and the worker's and soldier's soviets. Lenin destroyed the basis of socialism while acting in the name of Marx. As far as imperialism is concerned, imperialism is as old as civilization, from the time of the pharoahs until today. It is not a function of capitalism per se - it is a function of greed and the lust for power which has been around forever. Ancient Athens had an empire, so did Sparta, so did Rome. Were these capitalist systems? Hardly!
Much of what he says is right on the money. In the overall context of this discussion it comes down to reform vs. revolution. He is correct on the Democratic Party question and Sanders. Unfortunately, PSL does support individual liberal Democrats in elections. Local elections, in particular. Negating what he says. The PSL is a Stalinist party with a history of stealing money and setting up a myriad of front groups to divert money to its coffers. For this and other reasons they have a very high turnover of members. People join and many leave because they come to realize that PSL is very crooked. Other things can be said about their politics (apologists for the govt. of North Korea, for example) and actions, but that is enough for now.
Honestly this is so uncritical it's astonishing. You don't have to be a capitalist to have a distaste for Lenin and his policies. Recall how he treated radicals and even union organizers, never mind women
This pillock starts off wrong, with utter BS, from the word "go" - what happened in October (or November, depending on your calender) 1917 was a coup d'etat, not a revolution, and it benefitted only the Bolshevik party (which killed all opposition and a lot of "friends"). And it didn't "spread", it was spread - using Soviet funds, mostly while the Soviet people suffered from all kinds of shortages. And then he goes on to say the SU was "joined" by the countries of Eastern Eutrope, as if their enslavement to communism was voluntary. Appaling garbage.
As much as I am sympathetic to social justice and solidarity and am critical of imperialism and corporatism, asking people to look to Lenin and the Soviet Union as an alternative to our current problems is a fools errand. My family is from Cuba, my girlfriend is from Venezuela; both of which are disasters. I have no desire to follow in their footsteps and asking people to do so will get you absolutely nowhere. I love The Real News because of its freedom from State and Corporate influence but The Real News also has it's own ideology. I would be interested in seeing more videos describing why it believes in what it believes in and to be honest in the failures of Socialist regimes, past and present. I am interested in new forms of social and economic arrangements but if you're going to recommend Lenin and a one-party system I'm going to tune out. And I'm sure i won't be alone.
+BM C You say you are "critical of imperialism" and yet you fail to mention the role of said imperialism in the social difficulties in Venezuela and Cuba. Certainly many socialists have their own critiques of these governments, but we all certainly understand the role in particular of U.S. imperialist, its banks, its military, its State Department and CIA, in sabotaging the efforts of these governments. Being that you're a critic of imperialism, I would suggest you do some more research on just how U.S. imperialism in particular has affected these governments.
+Joey Nickles What you said! BM C, seriously, The way imperialism operates Uses a mixture of CIA Sabotage, Secret funding of Coup movements, direct or indirect uses of military power to forcefully bend the world to western interest, The implementation of Western-aligned dictators, enforced Trade embargoes, and sanctions. The embargoe of cuba for example, is enforced by fleets of US ships block the main ports of cuba and literally prevents cuba from getting any resources from the outside world what-so-ever. You also fail to recognize what cuba has done *in spite of this*.. Cuba has both world class education and health care and everyones needs are satisfied. It was the first nation to abolsh parent to child HIV, and it has one of the highest doctors to population ratio, along with them being some of the best trained... they send these doctors in troves to other nations as a form of aid, again one of the top nations in this area. as a result of their embargoe circumstances, they have developed an amazing recycling economy, such as updating old cars with brand new engines. Of course cuba will be low on computers as well, because it cannot trade with the US, which also exploits the vast majority of its computers from china for virtually a few dollars for each computer. You say that Cuba is a "disaster", yet cannot seem to recognize that the western "success" of capitalism is a complete facade based on the extreme, crippling exploitation of third world nations. Imperialism is the life blood of capitalism and the enemy of communism. This is a big part of the reality of how the world works today, and there are far more examples than just china to prove it.
BM C Also, one party state is run by the workers, so that the capitalist class don't takeover through fifth column actuvities! Down with rhe bourgeosis that want to strangle the state.
BM C Venezuela is perfect example of Liberal ideals. All of liberals loved Hugo that tok over the means pf production to give to the workers. It's still a capitalists regime that is sabotaging the workers. The government needs complete takeover so that the profiteerings are taken out.
this is the problem he confusing mercantilism and capitalism. Mercantilism and capitalism there is no such thing as monopoly capitalism it's mercantilism.
Lenin destroyed real democratic forces during the Russian Revolution (the anarchists), and created a power system no different than the one that powerful private business tyrannies have today. In truth, Lenin was a right-wing deviation of the Russian revolution.
+bootleg42 makhnovites were as "top-down" as bolsheviks though, it was an unpleasant necessity of a country that went thru a world war and another civil war that was supported by foreign capitalist imperialist countries. i mean, the brits even gave tanks to the whites. in fact in earlier days of the revolution you see this weird naiveté among the bolsheviks. in the early days of the revolution, they arrested the majority of the people who would in the future lead the white army and let them free after they signed papers who said that they wouldnt resist the revolution. that naiveté turned into (rightfully) some kind of cynicism given what those people did and how the workers of the west betrayed the rest of the poor people of the world.
the debate about authority vs decentralization only harms the left, it s just the obsession of the pseudoleftists who dont want to get their hands dirty. i d recommend engels' "on authority" on the subject as it is a short&good read
this dude's opinion of lenin is exactly how Chomsky refers to Lenin. He's almost copied Chomsky's stance on Lenin word by word. besides Luxemborg was also a friend of Lenin and called the Bolshevik revolution "the revolution all socialists" or something like that, though they did disagree on centralization
without lenin s politics ussr would ve been destroyed during the civil war lol, even if it had somewhat miraculously survived, it wouldnt ve survived the onslaught of the reich
So he wants to replace the current bankers with new bankers. The workers got nothing but misery from their new rulers. A statist is a statist is a statist.
+raystinsky How exactly do you maintain and build upon the best of a complex modern society without a credit creating mechanism? The kind of bank that genuine socialists favor is not for profit. Its purpose is merely to allocate direct society's resources towards the fulfillment of human needs. A socialist "bank" is essentially a planning organ, and the bank's board consists of people making modest salaries, salaries in line with those of ordinary workers in productive sectors of the economy.
Who said there wouldn't be credit? If I have money to loan, I can loan it, or have an agent who loans it for me. None of this requires a State. If someone performs this service for even a "modest" salary, that is a form of profit. If a group of people lend their property (whatever form that property takes) to this endeavour, should they not realize a profit from this? If I have a shoe shine stand and I decide to not work at it on weekends, but let someone else use it, would it be wrong for me to charge them a fee for its use?
Unfortunately the Party for Socialism and Liberation winning anything and having any effect on national politics is a fantasy. In the presidential race I'm supporting Bernie cause I'm tired of the talk I hear on this show and so many others. Its just talk.
Ahh yes I agree but it seems very clear that the RNN refuses to be positive on Sanders on any issue. He certainly has weaknesses that deserve criticism but there are a lot of strengths too. I wish all of the left would rally around him WHILE criticizing him on those issues.
+Tweek Jones Believing that installing a new general manager of capitalism will accomplish anything is the real fantasy. History isn't made by 'great men,' it's made by the masses. The PSL's objective is to create a party at the head of the masses that leads them to revolution, not to win political office. Sanders, on the other hand, seeks to co-opt the masses and divert them harmlessly into the capitalist-to-the-core Democratic Party.
Those are lovely words about the PSL which I like a lot but they don't mean anything. I'll take a FDR style democrat who will do something over talk any day and if he doesn't win I'll vote third party. That seems to be the most practical approach to this election but practicality and actually doing something are not always leftist strong points. Incidentally this video is about Lenin, if hes not a "great man" by your definition I don't know who is.
+Tweek Jones I think you're fundamentally misinterpreting the way that the world works. For example, the New Deal wasn't the result of Roosevelt being elected to the presidency, it was the product of both the objective material conditions (i.e., the Great Depression, the existence of the Soviet Union) and the subjective forces (i.e., a strong, radical labor movement) that existed at that time. Roosevelt was merely the figurehead responsible for directing the capitalist class's response to those circumstances. Those sort of conditions do not exist today. The capitalist class at present has no need to make concessions to the working class, and therefore whoever is elected president, as the general manager of capitalism, will merely continue the same neoliberal policies of austerity that we've seen for the last three decades. To his credit, even Sanders has admitted as much.
Americans are democratic in their nature, therefore democratic socialism is the best approach, revolutionary socialism we not end well for ANY SIDE. But, I greatly agreed with Brian Becker, we need a revolution to reform(cease) the banks.
Brian is a great organizer. I just learned about his book through this video. Sounds like a must read!
I am going to read his book. That was a substantive discussion!
I really enjoyed this.
+myriadcorp if you liked the discussion, you'll love the book too! store.pslweb.org/Imperialism-in-the-21st-Century-Updating-Lenins-Theory-a-Century-Later_p_30.html
+myriadcorp Me too. I converted it to an mp3 and have listened to it over and over.
Very eloquent person. Please bring him again sometime.
party of socialism and liberation is fighting the good fight. They are active in the anti-war movements against a possible war against North Korea; as well as ending the imperial wars of the middle east; fighting against police brutality; fighting for living wages; and against neoliberalism
The interviewer is amazing!
The guest is really good
Great info, great channel!
Subbed!
Excellent information. Thanks.
+chycho if you enjoyed the interview, you'll love the book too! store.pslweb.org/Imperialism-in-the-21st-Century-Updating-Lenins-Theory-a-Century-Later_p_30.html
so much truth...so sad most of us live as though we don't know what's been up for generations
REAL EDUCATIONAL NEWS. GREAT WORK
great interview
+Derrick Wade if you enjoyed the interview, you'll love the book too! store.pslweb.org/Imperialism-in-the-21st-Century-Updating-Lenins-Theory-a-Century-Later_p_30.html
Excellent conversation! I am going to buy Brian's book!
Unfortunately, I find most of this true. "Capital" is among 50 best books I've read but I don't talk about this issues in such manner with others, not even with my friends because I think people are not ready to accept this. Unfortunately, people still find it more important to spend hours on facebook than to learn something, than to read something that has weight.... People are not suffering enough to acknowledge how badly they've been treated, how mislead and ignorant they've been kept, to look for alternative ways of approaching to society...
Completely agree, too many people are content with their flat screen TVs and smart phones, and whatever else there is to consume in today's society. Revolution isn't a slow process and I guess society has to hit rock bottom before it can rise up and take back control. I still have hope, I'm in the U.K. By the way, love following what's happening in the states at the moment
+ZgemboBeterovic You've read and understand "Capital," agree with its politics (I'm presuming), and yet, because you believe that people aren't suffering enough in this terrible world, you won't discuss these ideas, even with your friends?! Comrade, trying times, but part of the problem today is a generalized (ruling class-inspired) cynicism towards the people. Playing the enlightened cynic does us no good. It only digs us deeper.
My advice: start talking to your friends about these vital matters. As you grow more comfortable and confident, you can then start talking to acquaintances and even relative strangers. Might you turn some people off? Yes. But as your political antennae develop you will get better at talking to different types of people and in different situations.
Joey Nickles Not quite. First of all, I don't agree with all premises from "Capital" but I think it has many, many good ideas and points.
I think that people aren't suffering enough TO START SEARCHING for other solutions, for different kind of organizing of society and economy and move towards more humane society. I think it's realistic perception of the micro universe around me.
I don't waist time on talking with others about issues they don't want to talk about. If you push for conversation in that direction with people who are not interested in it, you get ignored or you get people annoyed and make it even worse. I am talking and will talk with my children and people that wants to listen but that's rarely the case so I'm not trying to shove it down their throat. When times get worse, when need for something else gets greater, more people will listen and then it will make sense to talk and explain some other views.
Changing perception of society and changes that follows should come as evolution of society and way of thinking. That way it will stick. Trying to force it (verbally or in any other way) ends up failing every time.
And in some cases you just "don't throw pearls to pigs"...
+ZgemboBeterovic How do you magically expect that the Capitalist class will just suddenly stop trying to use the economy to benefit their interest, and stop exploiting people by giving their power over to the working class? Thinking that this will happen on its own is the same a magical thinking, because it makes absolutely no sense, and at no point or movement in history have things ever happened in such a way.
Apparantly the capitalist are going to grow ENORMOUS hearts and sing kumbaya and everything will live happily ever after. What a truly absurd expectation.
Its so convenient for you, someone who lives in the first world to not be willing to consider alternatives while not living on the brunt end of imperialist, economic domination by the first world over the third world. Its doubly convenient, when you are an indirect benefactor of imperialism, as it funnels extremely cheap resources, computers and products to the first world, by producing them for a few dollars or cents a piece. That is literally how western capitalism thrives today, and thus it is a facade of "success" based on the extreme exploitation of other nations. This is how capitalism has evolved since Karl Marx days, as when he discussed it, it exploited first world people on a domestic level, but now it has shifted were the most extreme exploitation takes place. The capitalist system grew in scale - creating an international class divide between first world nations and second/third world nations, but did not at all change a bit how it operates or derives its profits!
+Sokami Mashibe Ok... So, why are you angry at me?
Fantastic segment. Thank you so much. Really helps put so much in perspective.
excellent.........
linin was the liberator's inspiration of third world country
Fantastic interview. I want to learn more. I'm going to read Becker's book.
Can you put the link for the book in the description ?
For the 1st time I learned a little bit about Lenin no one talks about it in this country
So he was a true revolutionary who fought for workers right
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Yep, he was the real deal. Little tip, anybody that uses the phrase Lenninism-Stalinism has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Those guys hated each other.
I disagree that countries aren't colonizing. Europeans are still colonizing, in fact, America is continuing to colonized countries and America itself is colonized. The Indigenous aren't free neither is the Prisoners of War in this society! The United States is at risk because it will suffer the consequences of the atrocities it committed against it's own people and the world!
Queen Bonita Henderson imperialism is kind of the same bases of colonization in that it needs to expand due to capitalism(talking about usa/free market systems of government ) which if pursued to have balanced economy, it has to find new grounds for money/value to support it's stability which lead to sometimes colonizing other regions due to their resources or grounds of infrastructure.
burt sanchez But the people aren't enriching themselves and destroying others to enrich the few is wrong. It don't matter what word you choose to call it.
All people groups have wage war to steel other people's land this isn't a white person problem.
I think Michael Hudson has done the best work describing how modern imperialism and global financialized capitalism functions.
This is a brilliant video
BROTHERS PLEASE KEEP IT UP !!!
A very good information. This should be tought in schools.
Excellent interview.
Super useful and relevant discussion.
There is one utopian principal that Lenin, Sanders and the Party for Socialism and Liberation all share in common: that notion that change is realized through executive power. That the overturning of capitalism is merely a matter of capturing and controlling bourgeois political institutions. That communism can be legislated into existence.
The single most important lesson that communists must take away from the Leninist experiment of the 20th century is that prospect of destroying capitalism died when the Bolsheviks demobilized the councils.
This was great. I wish I could ask Brian Becker why he seemed to use socialism an communism interchangeably
If people can't come together, left and right, this ain't gonna work. don't get boggled down in labels, just come to the table with good ideas, and Bernie had the best balance of practicality and progressiveness.
I really liked this, my next book I reckon ☺️
+tidyjimmy here's the book if you're interested! store.pslweb.org/Imperialism-in-the-21st-Century-Updating-Lenins-Theory-a-Century-Later_p_30.html
+Ben Becker thanks
I appreciate the Steve Biko allusion
You should produce a segment about Nicos Poulantzas' work!!!
He elaborates on the state, social class, power and capitalism.
+ His Theory of the State explains class power within society convincingly.
Great show!
@03:18 I really wish some Marxists would stop referring to Marxism as an "ideology." Two words : *Analytical Methodology*
We use *_objective_* methods to advance a subjective view : the rights of the working masses, and the necessity for the class which produces the material basis of society to govern that society.
Americans are democratic in their nature, therefore democratic socialism is the best approach, revolutionary socialism we not end well for ANY SIDE. But, I greatly agreed with Brian Becker, we need a revolution to reform(cease) the banks.
And yet America exists because of a revolution, supposedly. So at some level, aren't Americans also revolutionary?
Stalin & Mao & POL POT Were complete monsters, but Lenin & Trotsky were intellectuals, and they were only against the greed and monarchy and nobility, aristocracy, etc. etc. which was very much like the French revolution. The thing is that after the French revolution, Napoleon came to power, and then he became a dictator, which it really wasn’t too much better except Napoleon did put the money into better education and a couple years after the French revolution, the partition vans that had once belong only to nobles and the serfs or slaves live there and worked there, & were the peasants, & after the years of the French revolution destruction. The people actually had partitioned the noble lands into 1 acre farms, and there was plenty of food to go around, and when Napoleon was forced into exile, and to abdicate when King Louis the XVIII returned. He was told they were going to have a constitutional monarchy, and it was not going to be like it was before and France did better but the major difference in France came along after the European revolutions in 1848!! that’s one other countries in Europe had revolutions as well like Austria-Hungary and other countries but Russia did not, and people were waiting on Russia. Eventually when Russia did have a revolution, it was so understandable as to why, and czar Nicholas sent these poor Russian troops out to fight in World War I, and they did not have hard covers to protect them from head injuries, and most of them didn’t have weapons, and they didn’t get enough food, so they mutinied and came back to Russia and rows up against the monarch.. without the military on his side, there is nothing that Czar Nicholas could do except abdicate, but they should’ve allowed him and his family to go into exile versus executing them and I don’t know who killed that entire family, but it was the wrong
To all of you saying that Bernie is not an actual socialist, here's a quote:
"I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves."
-Bernie Sanders
lets vote for a democratic country.
Lenin Was RIGHT!!! Germany encouraged Austria Hungary to invade Serbia, because Germany didn’t have the big empire, Spain, France and Great Britain had had and for years until the 19th century German he wasn’t even one country but four or five different separate parts. Around 1870, Germany and Prussia were major industrialized military powers and they wanted the same riches and glory that Spain had in the 1400s 1500s and 16 hundreds etc. and that France had in the 1500s and 1600s but mostly Spain and Great Britain because they were the wealthiest colony organizers because France had a monarchy that was too lavish and King Louis XIV spent so much money on Versailles and the kings after him didn’t manage well and Louis the 16th refuse to listen to his financial advisors which led to his take down. America is not an empire, but when America was pretty isolationist, our country was a whole lot better off and the USA would trade but not get into military or political conflict around the world but after World War 2, the military industrial complex had gotten so rich during World War II that led to greed and the American people don’t want these conflicts in Ukraine or the Middle East, etc. etc. and we just want our jobs and we don’t want this globalism shit and we don’t want this climate change nonsense because even as environmentalist we believe in planting trees and no litter, but globalism only increases carbon emissions, because mass immigration destroys the environment by people laying garbage and trash everywhere and there’s thousands of miles of Slum territory we’re people through their clothes, shoes, dirty, diapers, and backpacks and mostly they are wet clothes want people across the Rio Grande coming into America and during COVID-19 they were disgusting Covid masks all over the place! Eww! People cannot afford green energy electric cars and I thought the best thing coming out were in the late 1970s the subcompact fuel economic cars were great and then in the 1990s or after 2000 and our gasoline and oil in America went through a filtering process, and that was great for the economy but the worst thing was America doing business with coming to China and allowing our manufacturing and other businesses to go overseas because Bill Clinton was naïve, and the American businesses were greedy, wanting to go to China to pay 75% of the labor cost that they paid here in America and that’s exactly why they went and now the dictator of China is Maoist and he wants to rain in any capitalist sort of government private property that’s been going on for 30 years in China and having American businesses pay Chinese workers more like American citizens, but Nike. Google INTEL & Dell knew that the money was not gonna go to the workers, but go to the CCP so they left China.
If SOLAR, ROBOT, COMPUTER grow? That old economy system make trouble (or crisis) !we do support Socialist USA.
The free market was/is essential to imperialism, then and today. But I think it is not amiss to support Bernie's light socialism, especially in the primary, to help change the wider conversation. I agree with the guest that the radical left should support the Party for Socialism or the Green party in the general if Sander does not with the Democratic nomination - no one should vote for HRC or any Republican candidate; that's a vote for capitalism. But I think the reason Sanders says his supporters should vote for HRC in the general is a political maneuver. Regardless of his sincerity on the matter, if he has any chance of winning the primary he has got to play nice. Changing the Democratic party from within is the best shot socialists have in the present climate. Hopefully, with a Bernie win, the Right will implode and independents might have a better chance of establishing parties that would be more closely aligned to the Party for Socialism and Liberation's platform. To talk about Bernie's lack of radicalness from this narrow academic perspective misunderstands the wider populist radicality he represents in the mainstream conversation and speaks to the ego of this writer and the PSL. At least get behind him in the primary. I'll vote Stein or La Riva in the general, if HRC is demo pic, a lot of people will probably write in Sanders. But socialists who refuse to enroll in the system to push Sanders in the primary are missing a chance to help reconstruct the wider conversation surrounding establishment politics. A vote for Bernie in the primary is not selling out to a "lesser of two evils" mentality, it is a strategic means to gain a foothold that could lead to a widening of socialist discourse at large in US politics.
"You look a little like Lenin". Lol
the original concentration came, not in the form of capital, but in the concentration of the European identity itself. From the perspective of the colonized, that was the original Empire. It was a consolidation of the European identity such that Europe as a collective constituted an Empire as it relates to the colonized. So while France, or Germany, or the US may not have had a singular empire, Europe as a whole was the imperial entity. Lenin may have viewed the world from the perspective of the worker, but he viewed it from the perspective of the white worker. He was concerned primarily about solving the problems of those inside of Europe, ie those resting on top of the pedestal of the colonized and oppressed people of the world
nice video recommending
This is the problem with us on the left, each faction wants to do it their way & that means that we never take power in the system we have.
you mean the archduke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire got shot, not Serbia, he was shot by a Serbian Gavrilo Princip
The assessment of the basic problems of the capitalism by Mr. Becker is mostly correct, but solutions trough revolution he proposing has failed many time before.The main problem of the USSR was not some "vulnerabilities of the socialism". USSR was forced together and was held together by force, in the same time practicing gross mismanagement of the natural and human resources, limitation of the progressive ideas from outside, suppression of any innovation that wasn't beneficial to nomenclature in short term. Lenin had rewrite Marxist doctrine to fit his own agenda, and from Lenin to Gorbachev soviet leaders failed to define communism in stable economical terms. "Redistribution of wealth" maybe appealing to deprived people, but this idea never succeeded before (look up Leopold II of Belgium for ex.).
Non-violent, Non-political solutions of stratification problem exist, look up The Venus Project, or Jeremy Rifkin's "The Third Industrial Revolution" and "The Empathic Civilization", or Buckminster Fuller's "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth".
Stan Aizin what kind of revolutionary are you?
If companies become worker owned, what becomes the motivation to start a company?
It would still be profit, but the profit would br shared by the workers who would become the capitalist class. This system would disincentivize Bezos like people who accrue massive amounts of wealth while treating their workers like garbage, and it would incentivize companies like Mondragon which are made up of many worker owned coops.
Host Penny Hess.
american comrades, riddle me this: your country holds like 1/4 of the global wealth, while your population is at best 1/20 of the world. a similar situation goes for western europe. the discrepancy in wealth is undebatably owed to imperialist superprofits. but then again, why would americans dismantle the imperialist project instead of, you know, redistributing that 1/4 of global wealth among the citizens of usa? a communist revolution that d dismantle the said imperialism is not in the economic interests of americans. it is not a coincidence that the only palatable "socialist" candidate for the majority of americans proposes nothing that would touch the imperialist pillage usa undertakes daily.
+BaskomserMesut you nailed it: "it is not a coincidence that the only palatable 'socialist' candidate for the majority of americans proposes nothing that would touch the imperialist pillage usa undertakes daily."
buhu - so jelly
you jell, Bro ?
you jell ?
yes i am jealous for not having the privilege that comes with ethnically cleansing a continent and enslaving millions
+BaskomserMesut Which "Americans"? What do you know about the lowest and deepest sections of the proletariat in the U.S.?
aside from those of the black belt, your average poor american lives a better life than the average (not poor) third worlder tbh
Baltimore or 'the cops are kicking down the door......'.
Archduke of Serbia?
so he's calling for war in the streets?
+tommybrown187 kind of what i got from this was that the most important thing the people can do to stiffle the velocity towards oppressive faschism and rampant militarist imperialism is to occupy the banks and control the source of money that ultimately leads to the purchase of arms and the selling of them as well, once the people control the money than they can control the policy and maneuvarability and policies behind the actions of the military. Occupy wallstreet was right it was we who were to complacent, to beholden to corporate roles, to brainwashed by the monopoly media, it is we who followed the opinions of idiots like Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper who used their media monopoly to carve the opinion of the public towards these young men and women who really know that the heart of the problem is the corporate domination of the bank. " 100 years ago they were an entity that gave you a loan when you needed one, now the banks dominate every avenue of human life".
Oliver Green theoreticalls are one thing but calling on many ppl to shed their blood in the streets is another.
Bernie's gesticulation resembles Lenin's. Lenin was somewhat monaural while Bernie is full Hi-Fi stereo. He developed this pose where he seems to be casting a spell. This is a smart move because the messages of the two are somewhat worn out. Well, it runs in the family
This is helpful to understanding. What will stop another Bolshevik revolution from killing millions upon millions of people in the process? How will we manage to avoid the tyranny of Lenin and and Stalin?
There's a huge difference between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin even said something like (I can't remember exact quote) "Don't let Stalin inherit me".
+Jesse Francis Democracy for the people and not for corporation. Socialism isn't about the leader it's about the economy and how wealth is distributed to the work force. This can still allow people to grow wealthy but without making them so wealthy as to stop others from reaching the same goals. Also it give every one a basic standard of living that allows all to have the same opportunities as every one else. That last part is what the elites hate since that would mean their children would have to do what other children do and prove themselves not just inherit there wealth.
+Jesse Francis avoiding the "tyranny" of lenin and stalin means that the flag of the third reich would be waved on the supreme soviet instead of the red flag being waved on the reichstag, hope this helps
+Ikallicrates how on earth is the molotov - ribbentrop is "inexplicable"
i m actually on stalin s side on that subject comrade, that pact was the greatest diplomatic maneuver of 20th century and stalin was completely right for doing that
"It wasn't because the Arch duke of Serbia was shot" that statement makes everything further this man has to say is garbage. He has no actual ground base knowledge of the first world war.
Bob Dillahunty buddy.. the arch duke of the Austro hungary was shot and killed. He had his shit mixed up thus, I have no further need to listen to some commie. Lol
Lenin did not lead the Russian Revolution nor was he an orthodox Marxist. The Bolsheviks seized power in a military coup d'etat that overthrew the provisional government led by Kerensky. It was NOT a popular revolution at all nor did the Bolsheviks enjoy popular support in Russia except in Petersberg and Moscow. Lenin only managed to maintain power by the most brutal repression of the workers and soldiers, especially the sailors of Kronstadt who provided the military backing for Lenin's seizure of power. Lenin imposed a terror state on the Russian people that led to Stalin's terror and the suppression of democracy in Russia for a century. There is nothing about Lenin that anyone should regard favorably. He did more to crush democracy in Russia than anyone. In addition, Lenin was not a Marxist. Marxist teaching is based on the idea that socialism is born of the collapse of capitalism. Russia had not even entered the capitalist stage when Lenin seized power and nationalized all industry. Russia was a country of illiterate peasants. Lenin crushed the independent labor unions and the worker's and soldier's soviets. Lenin destroyed the basis of socialism while acting in the name of Marx. As far as imperialism is concerned, imperialism is as old as civilization, from the time of the pharoahs until today. It is not a function of capitalism per se - it is a function of greed and the lust for power which has been around forever. Ancient Athens had an empire, so did Sparta, so did Rome. Were these capitalist systems? Hardly!
Much of what he says is right on the money. In the overall context of this discussion it comes down to reform vs. revolution. He is correct on the Democratic Party question and Sanders. Unfortunately, PSL does support individual liberal Democrats in elections. Local elections, in particular. Negating what he says.
The PSL is a Stalinist party with a history of stealing money and setting up a myriad of front groups to divert money to its coffers. For this and other reasons they have a very high turnover of members. People join and many leave because they come to realize that PSL is very crooked. Other things can be said about their politics (apologists for the govt. of North Korea, for example) and actions, but that is enough for now.
I think Sanders is a reincarnation of V. Lenin
Honestly this is so uncritical it's astonishing. You don't have to be a capitalist to have a distaste for Lenin and his policies. Recall how he treated radicals and even union organizers, never mind women
+justTheMadLib How DID Lenin treat women?
ask Emma Goldman
He was a man with many faults, but his theory was impeccable.
This pillock starts off wrong, with utter BS, from the word "go" - what happened in October (or November, depending on your calender) 1917 was a coup d'etat, not a revolution, and it benefitted only the Bolshevik party (which killed all opposition and a lot of "friends"). And it didn't "spread", it was spread - using Soviet funds, mostly while the Soviet people suffered from all kinds of shortages. And then he goes on to say the SU was "joined" by the countries of Eastern Eutrope, as if their enslavement to communism was voluntary. Appaling garbage.
As much as I am sympathetic to social justice and solidarity and am critical of imperialism and corporatism, asking people to look to Lenin and the Soviet Union as an alternative to our current problems is a fools errand. My family is from Cuba, my girlfriend is from Venezuela; both of which are disasters. I have no desire to follow in their footsteps and asking people to do so will get you absolutely nowhere. I love The Real News because of its freedom from State and Corporate influence but The Real News also has it's own ideology. I would be interested in seeing more videos describing why it believes in what it believes in and to be honest in the failures of Socialist regimes, past and present. I am interested in new forms of social and economic arrangements but if you're going to recommend Lenin and a one-party system I'm going to tune out. And I'm sure i won't be alone.
+BM C You say you are "critical of imperialism" and yet you fail to mention the role of said imperialism in the social difficulties in Venezuela and Cuba.
Certainly many socialists have their own critiques of these governments, but we all certainly understand the role in particular of U.S. imperialist, its banks, its military, its State Department and CIA, in sabotaging the efforts of these governments.
Being that you're a critic of imperialism, I would suggest you do some more research on just how U.S. imperialism in particular has affected these governments.
+Joey Nickles What you said!
BM C, seriously, The way imperialism operates Uses a mixture of CIA Sabotage, Secret funding of Coup movements, direct or indirect uses of military power to forcefully bend the world to western interest, The implementation of Western-aligned dictators, enforced Trade embargoes, and sanctions. The embargoe of cuba for example, is enforced by fleets of US ships block the main ports of cuba and literally prevents cuba from getting any resources from the outside world what-so-ever.
You also fail to recognize what cuba has done *in spite of this*.. Cuba has both world class education and health care and everyones needs are satisfied. It was the first nation to abolsh parent to child HIV, and it has one of the highest doctors to population ratio, along with them being some of the best trained... they send these doctors in troves to other nations as a form of aid, again one of the top nations in this area. as a result of their embargoe circumstances, they have developed an amazing recycling economy, such as updating old cars with brand new engines. Of course cuba will be low on computers as well, because it cannot trade with the US, which also exploits the vast majority of its computers from china for virtually a few dollars for each computer.
You say that Cuba is a "disaster", yet cannot seem to recognize that the western "success" of capitalism is a complete facade based on the extreme, crippling exploitation of third world nations. Imperialism is the life blood of capitalism and the enemy of communism. This is a big part of the reality of how the world works today, and there are far more examples than just china to prove it.
BM C you are probably on the wrong network judging by the comments.
BM C Also, one party state is run by the workers, so that the capitalist class don't takeover through fifth column actuvities! Down with rhe bourgeosis that want to strangle the state.
BM C Venezuela is perfect example of Liberal ideals. All of liberals loved Hugo that tok over the means pf production to give to the workers. It's still a capitalists regime that is sabotaging the workers. The government needs complete takeover so that the profiteerings are taken out.
this is the problem he confusing mercantilism and capitalism. Mercantilism and capitalism there is no such thing as monopoly capitalism it's mercantilism.
Try actually talking to people from the former Soviet Block who lived under Socialism, or anyone from Venezuela or Cuba.
I lived a little under socialism ( the era of perestroika ) and can not say that it was too bad.
Lenin destroyed real democratic forces during the Russian Revolution (the anarchists), and created a power system no different than the one that powerful private business tyrannies have today. In truth, Lenin was a right-wing deviation of the Russian revolution.
+bootleg42 makhnovites were as "top-down" as bolsheviks though, it was an unpleasant necessity of a country that went thru a world war and another civil war that was supported by foreign capitalist imperialist countries. i mean, the brits even gave tanks to the whites.
in fact in earlier days of the revolution you see this weird naiveté among the bolsheviks. in the early days of the revolution, they arrested the majority of the people who would in the future lead the white army and let them free after they signed papers who said that they wouldnt resist the revolution. that naiveté turned into (rightfully) some kind of cynicism given what those people did and how the workers of the west betrayed the rest of the poor people of the world.
+bootleg42 you have read way too much Chomsky...
the debate about authority vs decentralization only harms the left, it s just the obsession of the pseudoleftists who dont want to get their hands dirty. i d recommend engels' "on authority" on the subject as it is a short&good read
this dude's opinion of lenin is exactly how Chomsky refers to Lenin. He's almost copied Chomsky's stance on Lenin word by word. besides Luxemborg was also a friend of Lenin and called the Bolshevik revolution "the revolution all socialists" or something like that, though they did disagree on centralization
without lenin s politics ussr would ve been destroyed during the civil war lol, even if it had somewhat miraculously survived, it wouldnt ve survived the onslaught of the reich
So he wants to replace the current bankers with new bankers.
The workers got nothing but misery from their new rulers. A statist is a statist is a statist.
+raystinsky How exactly do you maintain and build upon the best of a complex modern society without a credit creating mechanism?
The kind of bank that genuine socialists favor is not for profit. Its purpose is merely to allocate direct society's resources towards the fulfillment of human needs.
A socialist "bank" is essentially a planning organ, and the bank's board consists of people making modest salaries, salaries in line with those of ordinary workers in productive sectors of the economy.
Who said there wouldn't be credit? If I have money to loan, I can loan it, or have an agent who loans it for me. None of this requires a State. If someone performs this service for even a "modest" salary, that is a form of profit. If a group of people lend their property (whatever form that property takes) to this endeavour, should they not realize a profit from this? If I have a shoe shine stand and I decide to not work at it on weekends, but let someone else use it, would it be wrong for me to charge them a fee for its use?
Unfortunately the Party for Socialism and Liberation winning anything and having any effect on national politics is a fantasy. In the presidential race I'm supporting Bernie cause I'm tired of the talk I hear on this show and so many others. Its just talk.
Tweek Jones But if it gets you to vote then how is it just talk?
Ahh yes I agree but it seems very clear that the RNN refuses to be positive on Sanders on any issue.
He certainly has weaknesses that deserve criticism but there are a lot of strengths too.
I wish all of the left would rally around him WHILE criticizing him on those issues.
+Tweek Jones Believing that installing a new general manager of capitalism will accomplish anything is the real fantasy. History isn't made by 'great men,' it's made by the masses. The PSL's objective is to create a party at the head of the masses that leads them to revolution, not to win political office. Sanders, on the other hand, seeks to co-opt the masses and divert them harmlessly into the capitalist-to-the-core Democratic Party.
Those are lovely words about the PSL which I like a lot but they don't mean anything. I'll take a FDR style democrat who will do something over talk any day and if he doesn't win I'll vote third party.
That seems to be the most practical approach to this election but practicality and actually doing something are not always leftist strong points.
Incidentally this video is about Lenin, if hes not a "great man" by your definition I don't know who is.
+Tweek Jones I think you're fundamentally misinterpreting the way that the world works. For example, the New Deal wasn't the result of Roosevelt being elected to the presidency, it was the product of both the objective material conditions (i.e., the Great Depression, the existence of the Soviet Union) and the subjective forces (i.e., a strong, radical labor movement) that existed at that time. Roosevelt was merely the figurehead responsible for directing the capitalist class's response to those circumstances. Those sort of conditions do not exist today. The capitalist class at present has no need to make concessions to the working class, and therefore whoever is elected president, as the general manager of capitalism, will merely continue the same neoliberal policies of austerity that we've seen for the last three decades. To his credit, even Sanders has admitted as much.
Facts do not change. Facts have never changed. Times change interpretation of things but facts are facts.
Americans are democratic in their nature, therefore democratic socialism is the best approach, revolutionary socialism we not end well for ANY SIDE. But, I greatly agreed with Brian Becker, we need a revolution to reform(cease) the banks.