Jt is as always very based. I always recomend him to new comrades and then hakim right after
I don’t trust this guy to teach me anything. He hides his power level on his main channel. He’s actually a very sussy tankie pro-modern day russia etc.
He’s not pro-Russia, he’s anti war.
Isn’t this guy pro-Russia?
Y’all know that communism and socialism are two different things, right?
This video whines about propaganda being the problem, as if we haven’t seen communism destroy the USSR.
As an economic system, communism failed. Having a central authority trying to take resources and distribute them to those with the greatest need was an absolute failure.
Capitalism thrived because of pure efficiency… as it turns out, with all the countless variables that affect people, in the end, a free market that allows people to decide on what they need at any given moment, and how much it’s worth to them, capitalism was OBVIOUSLY superior.
So, how do we move forward in a world of late-stage capitalism where the wealth became too concentrated in the hands of the ultra-wealthy and mega-corporations?
That’s where socialism can come into play. Bernie Sanders calls his policies “Democratic Socialism”, but this is a misnomer. What he actually advocates for is Socialized Capitalism.
Let’s face it: Capitalism is the greatest generator of wealth ever created. So instead of tearing it down, Bernie Sanders would have us keep the machine running, but to redistribute the wealth when it got into the hands of the super wealthy.
To me, this is a no-brainer. Keep using capitalism to generate new wealth, allow the hardest workers and innovators to become rich… but keep these in incentives to exactly the minimum level they need to be in order to motivate people.
For example… do you think college drop-out Bill Gates, working in his parents’ garage would have worked any less hard if he knew he was going to earn $50,000,000 instead of $80,000,000,000?
Of course not.
So set exponentially higher taxes that make it virtually impossible to earn more than $50 million. Allow our rich people to have great wealth, enough to motivate people to shoot for that lifestyle… but then keep that wealth to a level where it isn’t taking the bare necessities from other people.
Redistributing wealth is a great idea, but you first need to have a system that generates wealth. Communism absolutely fails at that.
It seems that in the US definitions of words related to moving past (or even mitigating the harms of) capitalism all get mixed together. Some of this is just how language evolves over time, but it’s also a result of this being a topic subject to quite a bit of propaganda. On the right they will call any regulation they disagree with communism, and on the left you mention Bernie’s “democratic socialism” vs “socialized capitalism”. At this point if one is interested in slowing profit driven harm to people and the environment (where the clock is ticking) it may be best to destigmatize words like marxism, communism, and socialism as you will be called all of them anyway.
I’m not a fan of the more authoritarian aspects of the USSR or China, but I question the claim that it was obviously an inefficient economic system. Pre-communist China and USSR were both rather poor, nearly pre-industrial nations before their revolutions and both grew to become superpowers in a very short amount of time. All while being actively opposed by the west and in Russia’s case after losing a huge chunk of their population in WW2.
I’m also not convinced that the promise of “getting rich” motivates much innovation. Or if it does I suspect it’s less the wealth and more the escape from the anxiety that comes from wondering how your family will live under capitalism. Plenty of people contribute to open source software or choose careers in science and technology research with longer hours and a fraction of the pay as using the same skill set to design algorithms that get kids to look at more ads. Where markets might be more “efficient” is in incentivizing necessary, but unpopular jobs like cleaning a sewer; markets accomplish this via the threat of eviction, prison, and starvation if you were born in the wrong group.
There must be a better way. I don’t care what it’s called, I just hope we can sort it out before climate change makes life much worse.
Y’all know that communism and socialism are two different things, right?
No, they’re not.
This video whines about propaganda being the problem, as if we haven’t seen communism destroy the USSR.
That’s not the biggest problem with the video. The biggest problem with it is the speaker speaks nothing about class struggle or the dictatorship of the proletariat, but appeals to vague notions of “change” like some kind of Obama enjoyer and expresses the desire for more careerism in communism like the opportunist he is.
As an economic system, communism failed. Having a central authority trying to take resources and distribute them to those with the greatest need was an absolute failure.
You know this happens in capitalism right? It’s called primitive accumulation and it’s the reason capitalism was able to effectively establish itself. While they happened in the earlier colonial periods in the liberal democratic capitalist countries, the collectivization in early capitalist China and Russia represented a more recent primitive accumulation.
Why Russia is not socialist (1970)
Schematic Chronology of the Chinese National Epic (2006)
There was no socialism/communism in Russia - there was a brief DotTP that failed after 1923 due to the failures of the European revolutions. In China the revolution was entirely bourgeois to begin with. Your raving betrays your ignorance on the subject.
a free market that allows people to decide on what they need at any given moment, and how much it’s worth to them, capitalism was OBVIOUSLY superior.
Lol the old bourgeoisie exclamation “They can buy whatever they want!!!”. More like the little they can buy with their crap wages.
To me, this is a no-brainer. Keep using capitalism to generate new wealth, allow the hardest workers and innovators to become rich… but keep these in incentives to exactly the minimum level they need to be in order to motivate people.
This is a complete fantasy world. You’re imagining an idealist world where classes still exist, but class struggle doesn’t. First of all, capitalism “generates wealth” ie. augments Capital by exploiting the proletariat to begin with. This exploitation is in direct proportion to the Capital generated. Second, it ignores the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. As competition intensifies, as Capital grows, it becomes more and more difficult for the capitalist to make a profit. This pushes capitalism towards crises of overproduction and even war. No matter how much wealth we distribute, these tendencies would still hold and push us towards capitalist crises.
For example… do you think college drop-out Bill Gates, working in his parents’ garage would have worked any less hard if he knew he was going to earn $50,000,000 instead of $80,000,000,000?
More bourgeoisie claptrap. “The rich just work so much harder than everyone else!!!”. This needs no further comment.
So set exponentially higher taxes that make it virtually impossible to earn more than $50 million. Allow our rich people to have great wealth, enough to motivate people to shoot for that lifestyle… but then keep that wealth to a level where it isn’t taking the bare necessities from other people.
This is all just a petty bourgeois scheme to save wealthy business owners money. More welfare will simply diminish the cost of the reproduction of labor-power and cause a fall in wages. The workers are still exploited and suppressed, you’re just arguing (imagining, really) a slightly more tolerable exploitation where the working class happily accepts its subordinate role. None of this junk could be further from socialism.
Redistributing wealth is a great idea, but you first need to have a system that generates wealth. Communism absolutely fails at that.
“Redistributing wealth” is not the goal of communism. It can be a step on the way there, but the ultimate goal is the abolition of the bourgeois state, money, wage-labor, and commodity production.
JT is trying his best bro
Communism is about shared ownership. Socialism is about fair distribution of privately owned resources.
You should really learn the basics of your political ideology before trying to lecture people.
Communism is about shared ownership
This could mean literally anything. What’s ‘ownership’ in this context? Is my neighborhood HOA communist because it has shared assets?
Socialism is about fair distribution of privately owned resources.
What’s ‘fair’? Fair to whom? How do you decide how to distribute the resources?
You should really learn the basics of your political ideology before trying to lecture people.
Lmao, the irony. You’re the one that came into a Socialist sub with a hammer and sickle as the avatar and started having a schizo meltdown about communism while advocating Kautskyist nonsense. Fuck outta here with your petty bourgeois opportunism.
You’re just digging yourself deeper.
You don’t even understand the concept of private ownership?
Communism was the system that made russia the superpower it is today, and was far from the only factor in the downfall of the ussr, which was an incredibly undemocratic move brought about by gorbachev and hid cooperation with american companies. If ‘generating wealth’ is more important to you than the livelihood and wellbeing of the people you might want to reconsider your stance on the purpose of an economy
Russia was a superpower because it has 30% of the world’s natural resources.
it still has plenty of resources, but some events led to destroying all the factories so it’s now a shell of “its” former self, hmmm i wonder which ones
@flossdaily @voxov7 Wow. This high quality brainrot.
