" As far as I know capitalism is when a group of powerful people takes money from people, they don' care about the country, they only care about themselves" Perfect description of Russian oligarchs...
I n Russia there s no oligarchs since 2000. There s very rich people running big companies because the government allows them to. If they go against the government they are out. In the USA there s a corporate oligarchy far more powerful than people s vote. You don t have a democracy Americans, if you think you have one, you need to go and get some education.
Парень на 7.43 "СССР отстал СЕЙЧАС на 30 лет от стран, где был капитализм". Кто-нибудь, скажите ему, что СССР нет уже как раз 30 лет. И особенно забавно, что когда СССР только возник заместо ранней капиталистической Российской Империи, он отставал от стран запада примерно лет на 100.. Обидно вообще, что перевели неправильно, как будто он сказал "СССР отставал", хотя он отчётливо произнёс "СССР сейчас отстал".
Большинство опрошенных вообще не понимают, что такое капитализм. Говорят, якобы деньги даются народу. Класс, для начала надо спрашивать знают ли они хотя бы что-то в политике.
По сути все общественно эконмичечкие формации, что были до этого и включая сегодняшнюю, капиталистическую - подразумевают довольно сильную внутривидовую конкуренцию и угнетение одних другими, что совершенно не способствует развитию и выживаемости человека как вида в будущем. Иными словами: если следующие формации будут сохранить прежнюю тенденцию очень долго, то человечество никогда не покинет планету Земля и закончит своё существование навсегда здесь. Т. К. Планета это просто расходный материал, что очевидно, я думаю. Многие ресурсы здесь не восполняемы и не имеют заменителей. Само собой, это произойдет не сейчас и даже не через 200 лет, скорее всего. Но чем раньше человек сможет освоить другую планету для существования там, тем лучше.
@@zeisler7141 В идеале все рано или поздно дойдет до коммунизма (до которого еще никогда дело не доходило), но только через капитализм, как промежуточный этап. Через социализм построить здоровое общество не получится, т.к. отсутствует свобода выбора, опыт другой реальности и здравомыслие. На одной идее экспансия космоса не сможет осуществиться, нужна будет сепарация читеров на постоянной основе.
Yes, I agree. Instead of embedding the subtitles on the video itself, making them available on the youtube subtitle platform would make it better for learners. Trying to read the autogenerated subtitles in Russian is hard with the big white subtitles behind it.
@@irreadings You can move the location of the youtube subtitiles, I think many newcomers to the channel might just think that the video isn't for english speakers if they get rid of the embedded subtitiles.
@Діма Базалюк меня больше повеселил чел на 7:30 СССР, мол, отстал на 30 лет от капиталистических стран. Потому что его, блять, уже 30 лет не существует.
@@comradeking4427 сами по себе эти проценты ничего не значат. Минимальная зарплата в Испании 1108 евро в месяц, средняя - 1800-2200. В России же минимальная зп 12 792 рубля, а средняя 51 083. Такие низкие проценты получаются только за счет низкого МРОТа, на деле же среднемесячный доход более 70% россиян не превышает 25 тыс. рублей, при этом у 45% граждан доход составляет 15 тыс. рублей. С чего ты взял, что у нас нет абсолютной бедности, я не знаю. У нас все не так плохо как в Конго или Сомали, но мы определенно одна из беднейших стран Европы.
@@comradeking4427 Так-то ППС на душу населения в РФ говорит об обратном: ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%92%D0%92%D0%9F_(%D0%9F%D0%9F%D0%A1)_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%88%D1%83_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F
From the people who dislike capitalism to the ones that appreciate it, what amazed me the most were the two guys in the beginning of the video who refrained from giving any opinions because they admit they know little about it. This kind of attitude is utterly rare.
Interesting that most young people in russia are neutral or even positive about capitalism while most mature people don't like it. In the USA is exactly the other way around.
why would you suppose? in their case, not ours which is obvious. all the kids there think about money, they do not consider debt and wage slavery. I'm thinking it's the impression money grows on trees or something, freedom to buy all kinds of crap they don't want with money they don't have to impress people they don't like. I know there's a lot more to it than that, but for the average person...
@@KazzArie Education and healthcare are most often free. A lot of people have their own apartments, which used to be given for free. People live in less violent conditions, thanks to the legacy of the USSR. I think that's why the youth does not see the problems of the modern world.
just capitalism shows much better results. There was communism, socialism in Russia, and people know better all the minuses and problems of it. Therefore, the majority respect and appreciate capitalism. Don't want the objections of a bad past. From birth, people in the USSR were forced to hate the USA, Europe and capitalism. There was total censorship and propaganda. Therefore, it is already difficult for people in their 50s to change their thinking. Many more will remember their childhood and youth. They don't miss communism. It's just plain nostalgia
Большинство взрослых этого не делают. Даже те, кто думают, что нет. Человек, записавший это видео, явно не знает. Почему он спрашивает людей о «капитализме или коммунизме»? СССР был социалистическим, а не коммунистическим. Социализм не мешает вам заниматься бизнесом. Именно капитализм в конечном итоге лишает подавляющее большинство людей возможности владеть бизнесом. И Маркс, и Энгельс рекомендовали не отменять немедленно частную собственность, потому что, пока люди могут начать свое дело, они должны иметь это право. Но разные отрасли экономики естественно монополизируются по мере своего развития. Вы «постепенно», как говорится в Манифесте, переходите к социализму, перемещая все частные монополии по мере их формирования в государственный сектор. То, что делает современный Китай, ближе к тому, что первоначально предполагал классический марксизм. Вы можете начать бизнес, если хотите, в Китае. СССР не нужно было полностью восстанавливать капитализм, чтобы люди могли начать свой бизнес. Открытие бизнеса - это не капитализм.
@@bunchberry_ Это так .Просто под коммунизмом иногда подразумевают саму идею его постройки(коммунистическую идею ) и когда говорят о коммунистах ,то имеют ввиду людей с идеями построения коммунизма . .Ясно ,что в Союзе коммунизма не было ,это ведь утопия .Но социализм рассматривался, как временное явление ,последняя ступень перед коммунизмом .Я тоже считаю ,что в социализме, как таковом нет ничего плохого .Мне нравится китайская модель .Капитализм в рамках социализма .В Скандинавии тоже социализм .
@@Saint3451 Китайская критика советской модели такова. Маркс утверждал, что именно экономическое развитие порождает новые экономические системы, а не идеи. Не существует «лучшей» системы, каждая система отражает текущий уровень экономического развития того времени. Капитализм был невозможен в раннефеодальных обществах. Но в позднефеодальных обществах, когда рынки начали расширяться и началась индустриализация, остановить развитие капитализма стало невозможно, и теперь мы не можем вернуться назад. Никакая система не вечна. Продолжая улучшать нашу экономику, мы постепенно меняем ее организацию. Через тысячу лет наша экономика, возможно, медленно изменилась настолько, что тысячу лет назад она выглядела совершенно иначе. Вот почему история отмечена такими разными экономическими системами. Если экономическое развитие порождает новые экономические системы, и Маркс предсказывал, что социализм будет следующей экономической системой после капитализма, то как возможно, что Советский Союз смог построить полный социализм, когда до революции в России они были еще феодальными? Это не имеет никакого смысла. Это привело к множеству экономических и политических проблем. Вместо этого китайцы утверждают, что сам социализм следует разделить на две стадии: начальную стадию и продвинутую стадию. Вы не можете продвигаться к коммунизму, пока не достигнете продвинутой стадии. Советы пытались реализовать продвинутую стадию, даже если она несовместима с их реальными материальными реалиями, она была утопической, имела проблемы неэффективности и требовала строгого соблюдения, когда экономические системы должны развиваться естественным образом. КПК не считает, что их система является окончательной экономической моделью на все времена, «концом истории». Но эта более смешанная модель имеет больше смысла с их нынешним уровнем развития. Продвинутый социализм, вероятно, все еще появится, но для этого потребуются гораздо более передовые технологии и гораздо более крупная промышленность, которая еще не создана. Подумайте, как все выглядело иначе 100 лет назад. Через 100 лет все будет выглядеть гораздо иначе. Экономическая система всегда должна развиваться вместе с уровнем развития, и нет ничего постоянного. Советы поставили политику выше прагматизма и внедрили экономическую систему, которая была слишком продвинутой для их отсталого уровня развития.
PLS, Do not compare the USSR and North Korea!!! These are completely different states in their essence. North Korea appeared thanks to the USSR, but even the leader of the late USSR was not expected to have raised a despotic monster. In the 80s, the USSR criticized North Korea for radicalism. Even Stalin would have been surprised by the despotism of the Juche regime if he had been alive. There is little left of communism there. Some kind of wild hereditary monarchy under the guise of communism.
No, you're wrong. North Korea isn't a regime, 99% of the news and articles that talk about North Korea just spread lies about the country. North Korea is still in war with the USA and South Korea. USA during the Korean war, dropped over 600 thousands bombs against North Korea, killing 20% of the North Korean population, making the country miserable, people born with illnesses and every single building destroyed. What USA did to North Korea was a really crime war, that's why North Korea developed a Nuclear bomb, and invests a lot in military stuffs, in order to defend themselves!
Many Russians seem informed, reflected and differentiated. I'm positively surprised. I doubt that a survey of passersby in my own country would show such sophisticated results.
well, that's what happens when your parents grow in socialist utopia. they probably told them soviet stories, while american parents would rather let a smartphone brainwash their kids.
The guy who talked about the people from the village was the wisest. A lot of folk live happily and simply and that makes you question how capitalism and industrialization has effected humans as a species. My belief is that industrialization and the creation of the internet has changed humans.
exactly. many of us in today’s world have severed our connection to the rest of life on earth, to our place in the great cycle of energy and life. many indigenous people have known all along that industrialization is unnecessary when we have been given everything we need, and all we have to do is fulfill our responsibilities to the rest of our non-human relatives as they fulfill their responsibilities to us. it is why the continuing genocides against indigenous people around the world, especially in the americas, is so devastating. all the answers we’re looking for to solve the climate crisis have been there all along, we just chose to ignore (after enslaving and killing millions of) the people who knew it.
@@тито-к9в Yep and i don’t even think all technology is bad I just think the philosophical side of things is not considered enough when it’s what keeps us human.
Yep, industrialization was a mistake. We lived happily and cared for each other when we were hunters and gatherers for thousands of years. Now we are broken and separated from nature, this can be seen as we no longer live in harmony with our ecosystem. The only way to ever go back now is through communism
Industrialization is a net positive imo, because it makes goods more affordable and available for larger amounts of people. The issue is consumption and consumer culture. A company doesn't make money if it produces something that lasts forever and everyone is satisfied with it. It needs constant revenue and profit which means the goal is not to actually make a perfect product but one that will sell. I think a common example is some soviet and eastern bloc products that vanished the moment they turned capitalist like lightbulbs and cars which while not super performers were reliable and didn't require you to buy a new one frequently. I'm sure you've heard of designed obsolescence as well.
Well, everything changed humans. From the creation of paper money and gold coins, to banks, to the Industrial and French revolution and feudalism, to 1971 from the abolishment of the Gold standard to freedom and modern capitalism. Human beings evolve, just as life does. The USSR willingly chose not to adopt capitalism because it knew it could not afford to give power to the population, and while the USSR lagged behind in terms of wealth and income equality, it focused on scaring the West with big ass bombs, suppressed revolutions of other states and kept the East bloc poor well until its dissolution. People have been happy in many nations, and while communism proved that it was a failure in all occasions, it did manage to control food and money supply. It was so bad, people fled USSR to live a better life only so they would be shot at the border as they were viewed as traitors. The West neither did create Gulags and forced labor, focused on human rights and fought to a degree corruption, people can publicly speak their opinion without the fear of being punished, while enjoying freedom of movement and wealth. It is no coincidence that Russia has been left behind, while Romania was reborn from ashes and became a modern state faster than ever managed.
They are poorly misinformed, they do not seem to understand that everything is already owned,i know a Russian woman that came, she is extremely qualified but lives at poverty level and it is almost impossible to get out of it,it was the biggest mistake of her life to leave Russia for this canacant
@Matthew Sparks im talking about Canada and especially the east coast, it is extremely poor in nature just because of the sub-arctic terrain, temperatures, so what remains that exists is taken and owned all of it, and poverty for the rest.unemployment goes on for 9 months of the year du to nature, it has been that way since the 1800s,except there was no check, there is no work for current population already and will not be possible to increase it,,think of a island with low resources that is closed for 9 months,with maximum capacity on all sides,
Extremely qualified people are poor all over Russia. My family was extremely qualified yet we didn't have jack shit. Enough money to house a family in a 1 bedroom soviet era cardboard box. Those same qualifications went a lot fucking farther in Canada. Don't even imply they're comparable places to live.
From france : i really do like your content, it might help strangers to russia to have a new look at russian people by other way than TV or media in general.(and using csgo vocal xd)
the gentleman at 1:02 says it absolutely spot on. if your country was born with capitalism its much easier than trying to switch over to it. smart guy.
Kid at 6:00 speaks the truth - saw something like that with my own eyes, when I went to middle school for migrants. Bunch of Chinese students jumped in to protect one Chinese nerd from Moroccans - even though he was never a part of their group. Then when they got into shit over it with the principal - they all took the blame for it.
Русские очень автономны. Можно полностью убрать общение и контакт с людьми выведя его в цифровое пространство и мы нечего не заметем. Плевать нам на других.
I start to study the new but old enemy because of recent events. I re-learned what I forgot when I was a young man. These people are not my enemy. Politicians are those assholes who show up at a party that we wish would just leave. We need to actually talk to each other. Face to face.
2:40China uses capitalism to develop its economy ！But use socialism to control the gap between the rich and the poor!The biggest problem of the Soviet Union is to develop the economy with communism! The efficiency is too slow!
The soviet Union was the fastest growing economy from 1920s til mid fifties while building socialism. It went from an agrarian state to the first country to send men to space. It started to decline in the 60s when socialsism was being abandoned.
@@bf2229 But it still never caught up with the west, because growth in itself is not a measure of success. It's also easier to grow from nowhere to somewhere, then from somewhere to even further. The idea of socialism was never abandoned, but reached a point where the Soviets still remained an industrialized country, while the west continued to become post-industrial countries. It was full-blood socialist until the very end when it slightly opened up to capitalism. Anyway, the proof is still there; communism sets heavy limits on wealth. It can create financial equality and equity, but not wealth. The space-triumph can simply be explained like this; -Spending extreme amounts of money on military and space-missions (20-30 % of GPD?). The US was much less, with a much bigger budget. -Spending much less on everything else. I.E even though Soviet had sent a man into space, toilet paper was unavailable to the public.
If I am not wrong, Soviets were the fastest growing country till 1960 with socialism. Soviet economy got stagnant because they were too busy making new industries to create jobs. They never invested more capital in existing industries to grow their economy. That was the reason. Also, the cold war.
@@Ms.-Lily The communist planned economy can reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, but it cannot maximize economic development. Capitalism can maximize economic development because it emphasizes individual competition and market competition, but it will increase the gap between the rich and the poor. The economic development of the Soviet Union was fundamental during the Cold War. Not better than the United States,
The guy who is against capitalism is actually describing how oligarchs operate there. They are a group of people who takes money from the people (by doing business with the gov) and don't care about the country: freedom of speech, development, and improve the opportunities for people to grow financially and personally.
@@KekusMagnus In Russia it's very different. Have you ever wondered why the biggest country in the world appears to be so poor while the richest people in Russia have $600 million mega yachts and private jets all around Europe and billions laying on their Swiss bank accounts? And how all these rich people happen to be good friends with the Russian president? It's called kleptocracy - not capitalism.
@@PrisPrisca15 When a factory is owned by a company it's called capitalism. When a factory is owned by a state it's called communism. When a factory is owned by the president's buddies, the oligarchs, who are above the law, it's called kleptocracy.
If you think communism is the state owning factories, no wonder why you don't even know that oligarchs are capitalists. Instead of repeating empty phrases, do some research.
I live in the UK, I think both ideologies have their virtues but I think for the world to work in a better way for the average person we need to be somewhere between the two. Rid politics of corruption and we’ll not have anymore wars,
The USSR only "failed" because at the end they introduced neo-liberal (capitalist) reforms which damaged the economy and caused more and more rationing/long queues you hear about. Also, let's remind ourselves of sanctions against the USSR and many other socialist countries which continue even today. What she says about innovation is also not true because we had many innovations that we were not allowed to share with the world. Take Cuba today for example, they developed a lung cancer vaccine that is functional but will never be able to share it with the outside world due to sanctions against the country. Also, you can't compare the western countries which had YEARS of development under capitalism (for the rich and middle classes only...) aided by colonialism and human exploitation in the global south meanwhile the USSR arose DIRECTLY from a semi-feudal/monarchical society where the life expectancy was about 20-30 years old (increased during Soviet industrialisation to about 60-70) and they did not have as much time to develop as opposed to the centuries of development the US had. I can go on...
Life in Russia is much better now. At least there are some opportunities for a good life. My grandfather, even in the poor 90s, could afford more than in the USSR. I don't say anything about 2000. True, in the 90s, because of the non-normal government, it was completely fucked up (banditry, business could not be opened, either you pay a lot of money for the roof, or you die and many other charms). Now everything is at the level of Europe +-. If you couldn't even buy a sausage for yourself before, now you can buy anything.
@@Даниил-р2й7щ Москва почти не изменилась за это время. Только приезжих больше стало и плитку класть начали. А уровень жизни остался примерно тот же, в Москве всегда хорошо жилось. А вот регионы заметно развились, хотя некоторые, наоборот, стали хуже
@@comradeking4427 Ты сейчас про Пол Пота? Ну во первых у него там не совсем коммунистические идеи были, а какие то свои, а во вторых для коммунизма характерно отсутствие денег в принципе, но такого еще ни у кого не получилось сделать...
@@comradeking4427, Пол Пот это сумасшедший мудак, а не коммунист. Уничтожил треть населения страны, развалил промышленность, образование, уничтожил всех людей с высшим образованием. Вот Тома Санкара был настоящим коммунистом, правда из-за переворота дело завершить не удалось. Забавно, что при упоминании коммунизма все сразу вспоминают о тварях типа Сталина, Пол пота, Ким чен ына и мао цзе дуна, а о Тома Санкаре никто не знает...
@@VVGrOb Нет, об этом объявил Сталин еще раньше, но да ладно. В соответствии с 1 статьей Конституции РФ, Россия есть демократическое федеративное правовое государство с республиканской формой правления. Это так?
@@faunt07 Так себе живут, учитывая, что мы целый век развития капиталистических отношений потеряли, а слишком государство ограничивает рынок, дак ещё и приватизация Ельцинская, которая привела к обогащению в основном нечестно заработавших свои деньги людей, образующие теперь свои монополии, которые рука об руку трутся о государство.
In capitalism there are many opportunities. And it's up to the individual to make the best of those. Which is also the downside because nothing is free. And if you don't succeed, life becomes harder. But, in Europe for example, we have social market economies. Tax is used to pay healthcare from, at least mostly. So healthcare is akin to infrastructure; it's just there, because nobody gets sick on purpose. So it's not deemed fair to have someone pay for that all on their own. Higher wages typically pay more tax as well, and exploitation is countered by laws. For example, there are no "sick days" as in the USA. If you're sick, you don't have to work, period. Overtime is also regulated. And there are unemployment benefits.
In capitalism there are only opportunities when it’s convenient for the rich. The rural south in the US where I’m from has been made destitute by capitalism. If we had socialism at bare minimum we would have side walks, education, and industrial development in the south. Sounds basic probably to you but folks here dream of having those things. That’s why folks supported Trump, he pretended like he was gonna give that with fake populist rhetoric. Ideas like socialism are a lot more appealing to those of us who don’t have much to lose and only something to gain. And obviously a socialism in 21st century America would look pretty different from a socialism in 1900s Russia. But yeah we need some major equalization in America, places like where I live are among the worst places in the west. Even the UN was horrified when they visited, and poverty and lack of development are just the tip of the iceberg with our problems, let alone the rampant systemic corruption, fascist terrorists, and authoritarianism that already exists in southern states, we have nothing to lose if we ever overturn the current order, and more people are waking up to that. As America deteriorates, and the authoritarian ultranationalist forces that run rampant in states like mine completely take over, no one will be able to deny what happened here and that we have to change, I hope it’s not too late by then.
"Самое плохое при коммунизме - это государственный капитализм" Уносите, этот бракованный. Мужчина в маске фишку сечёт. Всё правильно сказал. Кто-нибудь скажите женщине в чепчике, что дефицит и тотальный крах советской экономике произошел из-за контрреволюционных действий партийной верхушки и внедрение элементов капитализма.
С бабкой в белом вообще всё грустно. Она стоит за социалистические ценности, и судя по её словам, хочет, что бы люди нашли пути к ним, но при этом отдаёт голос за капитализм, который все это не то что своей целью не ставит - стремится к прямо противоположному. И аргументы про тот же дефицит тоже своеобразные. Ты их понимаешь, но зная причину их появления, в груди щемить начинает от всей этой несправедливости. А вообще, ролик отличный, и во многом даже обнадеживающий. Население у нас все же в массе своей левое, что успокаивает.
Лозунг «свобода, равенство и братство» это лозунг ВФР, где под равенством понимали возникшие тогда гражданские права, на свободу слова, свободу ассоциаций, свободу совести. Бабушка просто поняла, что в совке не было никакого равенства, как и в любом другом левом государстве. Существовала лишь номенклатура и все остальные, которые не имели экономических и политических, гражданских свобод.
@@БаракОбама-о8б социализм появился исключительно потому, что капитализм, за который шла великая Французская революция, нас всех на это кинул, наградив вышеперечисоенным лишь очень узкие круги людей. Кстати, задам тебе тот же вопрос, который задаю всем остальным - почему минимальный экономическиц разрыв между бедными и богатыми в СССР - это "клятая номенклатура, отсутствие равенства и прочее", а гигантский разрыв между олигархами и нищими в правых капиталистических - это свобода, равенство и вообще зае...ись?
@@Торговецложками >Социализс появился Но социализм не появлялся. >Капитализм следовал за ВФР Нет, на самом деле он был уже во Франции веками ранее. Как бы сказали марксисты, надстройка последовала за базисом. >минимальные различия в доходах А, это ты про тех людей, которые не могли получить туалетную бумагу, стояли в очередях за мясом, маслом и прочим, пока другие за валюту могли покупать элитное французское вино? Вот это минимальный разрыв, ничего не скажешь, лучше Восленского почитай.
@@БаракОбама-о8б а, всё так плохо. Ладно, по пальцам. Социализм был в СССР, да и в большинстве других странах 20 века, взявших курс на левое движение. Его правда потом планомерно начали сворачивать, спасибо Хрущу, но об этом позже. Как движение, он зародился куда раньше, когда до людей начало доходить, что где-то капиталисты с " Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" их напарили. И нет, капитализма во Франции до ВРФ не было, у них был феодализм. Это, как бы, разные вещи, это гуглится за секунду. Если ты думал, что капитализм это про "я могу что-то произвести и продать на рынке за деньги", то спешу тебя расстроить, ты вообще не угадал. Ух, старая добрая туалетка, которую нафиг никто не покупал, когда она появилась в СССР. Государству пришлось целую компанию развести, что бы объяснить народу, что это вообще-то полезная и прикольная штука. Массовые очереди у нас кстати появились после начала рыночных реформ, когда владельцы предприятий смекнули, что товар можно зажимать, и не отдавать сразу по фиксированным ценам, что бы потом продать подороже. Предприимчивые сволочи оказались. Кстати, это действительно минимальный разрыв. Потому что вы показали уровень "одни не могли купить мясо, другие могли купить валюту и вино", в то время как в светлых кап странах это скорее "одни не могут купить мясо, другие могут купить четырёхэтажный дом, 20 машин, личный самолёт, личного политика, остров и так далее". Найдёшь мне кого-то из элит СССР, который мог позволить себе что-то хоть близко напоминающее то, чем у нас владеют современные олигархи, и я публично признаю своё поражение. Номенклатура при всех её минусах и близко не стоит с тем, какой аналог нам подкинул капитализм.
Government giving you the same amount as everyone else or you getting up and making your family and generations to come wealthy I herd Russia , Germany and Japen etc the people think no one should stand out and everyone should have equal stuff , but in America we have equal rights but we also have the opportunity to make ourself wealthy and our family to come , but it’s up to the individual person to go out and make it happen , being able to own businesses multiple houses , being able to hire people for work. Why would you want to be the same as everyone else ?
For true capitalism to succeed (most capitalistic countries aren't true capitalism, they are a hybrid of capitalism with some selected social services) it requires one particular condition that most people are unaware of. For capitalism to succeed for some, it requires a large percentage of the population to live in poverty, most in a slight to middle level of poverty but some must live in extreme poverty, it is the only way that capitalism actually works. A hybrid of socialism and capitalism works much better for the majority of a populace, but the elites don't like that economic model because it requires higher total taxes on them (even though as a percentage of income they may actually be paying the same or less than the middle class)
This is incorrect, you are right that we do not have pure capitalism right now, but the more Capitalism you do have, the more the middle class grows generally. Capitalism creates the most wealth when everyone is wealthy.
@@andreytsyganov2986 во-первых это не является секретом гугл в помощь. Во-вторых от 4к советских рублей (4к+ запорожец, 5к и больше жигули зависит от модели, 9к и выше волга) В-третьих русского в школе не было)
@@ВасильПідлужний-ж4я ну да, сейчас же не кто попало в гугле сайты создают, аргументация на уровне : "ну, мне так друг сказал", можете отослать сюда конкретный источник, документ, а не что-то из интернета, вот у меня другая информация, я также могу с сайта взять, что вот беслатно было, но это не аргумент - это хрень, предоставьте документы или скажите хотя бы, где искать (конкретно, где искать), я проверю источник и то, на что этот самый источник ссылается, и потом уже проверим говорите ли вы ерунду или правду. Из интернета - не аргумент, я также скажу вам из интернета, но вы и искать не будете, т.к это довольно расплывчато и к тому же почему это я искать должен ? Вы завели спор, а сами посылаете меня искать информацию за вас, чтобы подтвердить вашу точку зрения. Итак, конкретно, что за сайт, на что ссылается этот сайт?
Хз, работая в Москве накопил 400 000 тысяч за 2 года. В принципе при желании могу купить автомобиль, работал бы в ай Ти или был бы менее ленивым то и за год можно накопить, зарабатывая 100 000.
5:24 "North Korea or China" He doesn't know that China is capitalist and North Korea is not succeeding at all, does he? Походу мужик насмотрелся госпропаганды.
@@Jericho19111 Have you been in CN? i've been 5 times, and yeah there is no communism in CN but the biggest shareholder is the goverment, CAPITALISTIC GOVERMENT. It's like largest corpos in the US. May be they call themselfs a communists but they are not a real communists.
5:20 "There are still some countries attached to this idea (communism), North Korea, China, they are succeeding" Lmao what? North Korea is succeeding in what exactly.
@@MyTrickyTricks especially considering the fact that it has some of the highest amount of mineral resources, you say this as if there aren't sanctionins up its neck, and not to mention it being completely bombed in the war by the western powers yet still fixing itself becoming a nuclear power lol
5:25. North Korea is NOT THRIVING under socialism/communism rule after soviet collapsed causing the distribution to end. Many ordinary people to this day are struggling to put food on the table so their own option is to commit such crimes like bribery or being part of an illegal business such a the black market. There are about 50 classes in North Korea, the more loyal ur grandparents were to the Kim’s then the more rich you are. You should know that in North Korea the middle class eats two times a day and the lower class eats one time and sometimes they skip meals depending what their situation is. Meanwhile, the elites/rich people in Pyongyang have food on the table and have the ability to eat 3 times a day every single day along with eating out at restaurants, where the countryside does not have any restaurants. According to the UN, an estimate about 40% of North Koreans are starving right now, it didn’t got any better since the abundant March. It is true that the government provides a place for you to stay and assigns a city or town for you to live at but the only thing is in North Korea that the wealthy gets to live in nice place while the middle and poor live in run down houses out in the countryside. Yes, they have money to make nukes and bombs but it’s a socialist paradise meaning it controls production and economy so the government have the right to spend it on other stuff instead of giving to the people. You can see North Koreans are not unequal at all. As you can see, North Korea is underdeveloped and its way behind than any other place in the world even Africa is ahead of North Korea. On the other hand, China adapted to state capitalism causing them to open up so people can have the opportunity to succeed in life so it’s easier for people to survive on a daily basis unlike North Koreans.
North Korea has been living under blockade and economic sanctions for a quarter of a century. Whatever you think..This will have a positive impact on the standard of living of the population? Here you have to thank the United States and South Korea.
@@ГалактическийПатриарх North Korea violates human rights and is a threat to the world so no wonder why they are facing sanctions even without sanctions, they will still suffer until the regime collapses.
@@wolfyyyranchh1 During the Korean War of 1950-1953, the United States subjected almost the entire territory of North Korea to" lunar terraforming". More bombs were dropped than on Germany. They bombed literally everything (and civilian buildings). As a result, 20% of the population of North Korea was killed, 90% of enterprises were destroyed, and a humanitarian disaster occurred. When the war ended, the South Korean government did not even conclude a truce. In fact, they have the right to start shooting at any time. South-has more fertile land than the North. More people can actually live there.But the northern part is more mountainous. The standard of living and the level of industrial production in the 70s in North Korea was higher than in South Korea. The rise in South Korea began after Japan began to export production there (where cheap labor is available). South Korea is included in the world trade system (unlike North Korea). North Korea is extremely dependent on energy supply. There is practically no oil and gas. In the 90s, North Korea wanted to build a nuclear power plant (to stop being dependent on purchases). The US intervened and construction stopped. The United States signed a contract with the North for the construction of one power station, but did not build anything. But they imposed international sanctions. Because of this they have: - the yield fell due to the lack of fertilizers. - forced to use gas generators (which were still used in the mid-20th century). - there is nothing to fill the equipment with. - huge use of manual labor. Seasonal work. - save on everything (even on hot water). - In the 90s, many people died of starvation Is North Korea a threat to the world? Ahaha. Its military budget is smaller than that of South Korea. And if there is a war, then the United States and Japan will act on the side of the South. For example, in Mexico (democratic), there has been a war between the government and drug cartels for more than 10 years. According to official statistics, several tens of thousands of people died. And these drugs are then redirected to the United States. Because of this, hundreds of thousands of people die there every year.
@@ГалактическийПатриарх yes, North Korea will not start a war but I’m talking about the dangers Kim Jong Un poses to the world. He tried to start a bomb at a subway one time, deleted a patients history at the hospital, counterfeit money, and all those other horrible things. Kim Jong Un makes so much money but he doesn’t spend it on his people.
People with ambitions can do very well in capitalist countries, but obviously it's not for everyone. Some people just want to leave peacfully, doing their own thing, they don't need big dreams to make them happy, socialism or communism would sute them more.
@@stuckonearth4967 I was talking more about ambition to make money. If you want to make a lot of it, you won't be able to gain that many. Government will give you enough to live with. USSR was closed country, no products and brands from other countries, no travelling abroad.
@@didinau ye basically just don't be useful or a kulak and you will live a good life In communism before it completely collapses and you are forced to go capitalism and then repeat the process.
That's not true thought. Who do you think lives better - normal everyday people in Germany or normal everyday people in Cuba? A capitalistic system may have some problems, but it's never going to fail to provide a supply of food and medicines. You say that some people don't need much to be happy, but what if communism can't provide you even with the bare essentials like food and medicines? Which btw inevitably has happened in every single country that has tried socialism.
See but here is the thing about capitalism; You can go ahead and study a profession or a trade and become your own boss and your own business. Look at it in that perspective.
@ניקאָלאַי ברומאָווסקי You wanted to blame 'the system' for people making bad financial decisions Or is this somehow the mistake of those big bad monopolies which don't prevent anyone from starting their own business..?
"If everyone who couldn’t afford student loans just decided not to go to college 70% of college students in the US wouldn’t be in college." Which is great! Then supply&demand can reestablish. There are so many people wasting their time and money on degrees worth nothing. And do you really think that with the lack of employment employers are just not going to hire new people because they lack some worthless college degree? "but they make it infinitely harder to succeed in certain markets." Then don't try to start a business in those markets, ez fix. In all seriousness, it's up to consumers if they want to support local businesses (which I do) or not. If some large cooperation has better products for the price then maybe it is more desirable to have large cooperations. (But usually there is a cost to being large as well.) "either way I’m glad my country doesn’t operate like the hellhole that is the US social safety system" I personally hate living in a 'social country'. The taxes are insanely high, the market is overregulated, I am forced to pay for the poor choices of others and the housing prices are through the roof. The middle class gets slowly destroyed here. @ניקאָלאַי ברומאָווסקי
6:47 even though she lived under USSR, she has no idea what is Communism. She already said that they have been in that "stage" but the thing is, there was never a Communism yet because Communism is a World Phenomenon or a World Stage of Human Development. Even the Anti Communist Google Wikipedia says that it is the abolishment of State means that the would be no country or separation to each other anymore.
2 роки тому+10
"North Korea is succeeding" OK OK, that is just enough internet for me today. (Love your channel, keep up the great work!)
2:39-2:55, 4:02- 4:14, 6:45- 7:29 The lady wearing the whitecoat/black hat had the most balanced answers. She explained both capitalism and communism the best. 7:17 sums up the debate between which is better "It is not possible for everyone to be equal. it is not possible for everyone to live good"
As a Chinese, I admire the socialist system with Chinese characteristics very much. 1. You can obtain private property through your struggle. After you master capital, you cannot influence politics. 2. The government is not controlled by capital and can constrain capital. The fields related to people's livelihood and national security are controlled by state-owned companies, such as public transportation, medical care, education, energy and so on. These areas cannot prioritize profit, but consider the public interest. 3. The people, government, and capital have reached a very good balance. The government can constrain capital, and the government can also constrain populism. The happiness of people’s lives reflects how well the government is in power. In this way, the advantages of capitalism and socialism have been obtained. Don't tell me about China's ethnic minorities. They are all lies made up by the western media. There are 56 ethnic groups in China, 55 of which are VIP citizens (they can have more children, get bonus points in University, and get interest free or low interest loans in business). The Han nationality with the largest number has the least rights.
As an American socialist, I actually think this is a better economic system than what we do in the US and the old planned economies in communist countries. My desired economic system would have more worker control, but this is a huge improvement on the standard capitalist model. In my opinion if China socially liberalized (stronger protections on rights such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, criminal justice protections), and became more Democratic, it could become the gold standard around the world on how a country should be run, and be a major force for freeing the workers of the world from their current masters. Maybe call it “socialism with Chinese and American characteristics”. Much love and respect to China from the USA.
A people can get rid of communism, but never capitalism. Argentina has lived in liberal corporatism since 1976 and has not been able to leave since then. There people with money do what they want and they make them believe that it is Socialism
If the USSR didn't have to spend so much in the arms race they could have applied more of the common resources in wellbeing industries. It's all circumstancial
@@mouwersor As opposed to letting the economy sway uncontrollably in random directions so long as there is profit for the rich. In fact the "free" market requires more interventions and efforts to function than the soviets ever put in their planning. Weapons were a must for the USSR's survival, how much weapons they needed exactly was a difficult question which the free market could never answer
@@KekusMagnus But the economy is not random. It is determined by the desires of people. And in a society where people can at least own land which they can live off the worst-case scenario for any kind of free economy is the natural state. As opposed to the worst-case scenario in planned economies which is mass starvation and genocide.
They wanted it to stay tho 78 percent wanted to keep the ussr it was illegally dissolved by Gorbachev hints why he can’t never come back and he’s uninversally hated in Russia
@@lorenzograham7854 Their economy collapsed, under Communism nobody is motivated to work because everybody gets paid the same amount no matter what they do. Thats why Russia has no industry other than selling the oil in the ground. What happens when they run out of oil?
@@Yo-ps2pf It collapsed because the people got tired of being poor. People want freedom and the ability to make themselves a better life. Thats why they come to the US, thats why so many people try to immigrate to the US we have to build walls and fences to slow them down. The communist countries build walls and fences to keep them inside.
@@ellenorbovay5226 Literally the only country to EVER build a wall to keep its people inside was the GDR, and the only reason the GDR done that because its economic problems wasnt because of its communist ideals but rather because it had to compensate for the harsh soviet impact of the world war brought on them by the Nazis, which meant the soviets extracted resources, aside from the fact that majority of Eastern Germans prefer communism than their modern solution, if the Soviet people really got tired of "being poor" (despite real income raising by 370%, having free healthcare, housing, and education) then answer me as to why did 80% of the soviet people voted to preserve the USSR in an official referendrum? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#:~:text=7%20External%20links-,Overview,and%20freedoms%20of%20any%20nationality. The only reason the Russians don't have communism is because of Yeltsin and Gorbachev, Yeltsin's unpopular democratic movement made him decide to illegally coup the USSR, kill people, bomb the parliament, take over and then as the drunk capitalist he is, left Russia in a decade of financial crisis, and Gorbachev's decision to allow western sentiments made it worser than it is, which the West intervened into collapsing the USSR. Please don't spread misinformation because the only wall America built was a wall against Mexico as your previous president was afraid of illegal immigrants, TLDR; bro fr stop tryna BS people lmao
0:26 - у людей такая каша в голове)) Причём здесь люди у власти? Капитализм - это частная собственность, это средства производства в руках частников, и т.д. Власть при этом должна быть наоборот строго отделена от бизнеса.
@@KlimovArtem1 государство и бизнес в капитализме нужны друг другу. Предприниматели всегда ищут возможность расширения и укрепления, которое государство может легко предоставить. Государство заинтересовано в крупном бизнесе, т.к. это большая эффективность производства и финансирования. Условный концерн с десятью заводами и бюджетом в 10 миллионов создаст больше товара, чем десять отдельных заводов с бюджететом в 1 миллион. Так что появление закона, позволяющее бизнесу влиять на государство - это вопрос времени.
@@Торговецложками "Предприниматели всегда ищут возможность расширения и укрепления, которое государство может легко предоставить" - рынок предоставляет возможности, а не гос-во. "заинтересовано в крупном бизнесе" - как раз таки наоборот. Самый большой работодатель при капитализме - это мелкий и средний бизнес, поэтому об его поддержке всегда столько разговоров. Укрупнение и монополизация бизнеса - это то, с чем гос-во должно бороться, для этого создаются ФАС. Но в условиях глобализации и глобальной конкуренции между гос-вами, власти вынуждены позволять бизнесам превращаться в мега корпорации. Это не очень хорошо и в принципе противоречит принципам рыночной экономики. "появление закона, позволяющее бизнесу влиять на государство" - какого закона?
@@KlimovArtem1 я что-то не пойму, а как не дать компаниям расширяться? В конкурентной среде, выживает сильнейший и поглощает проигравшего, усиливая свои позиции. Это раз. В рыночных условиях, где во главе приоритетов стоит прибыль, а всё является товаром, коррупцию упразднить не возможно. Услуги государства тоже в таких условиях становятся товаром и продаются под тем или иным соусом. (Лобби в сенате США, часть акций компаний передаются властям в самом "не коррумпированном" Сингапуре, путей много) Это два.
6:40 - вот послушайте мудрую бабусю и не фантазируйте по поводу как хорошо было. Перед этим парень сказал что, типо, все прекрасно, все было... по талонам... ппц.
Первые в космосе, быстрая индустриализация, отличное вооружение и первая по мощи армия, бесплатная медицина, учёба, жильё, авто - "Коммунизм тормозит прогресс..." Понимаю, зато при нашей капиталистической России мы...А что мы? Мы есть. The first in space, rapid industrialization, excellent weapons and the first powerful army, free medicine, education, housing, cars - "Communism slows down progress..." I understand, but under our capitalist Russia we are...What about us? We are.
Like people everywhere, most have no idea what Capitalism or Socialism (economic systems) or Communism and Democracy (political systems) are--their definitions and impressions are usually quite wrong and therefore they're unable to give intelligent/informed answers. Having said that, I love to hear the opinions and beliefs of Russian people--very enlightening.
Uhm you probably mean "capitalism vs communism" (economic systems) and democracy vs dictatorship (political systems). Socialism is the idea communism takes to become what we have seen so far, and it can be put under a democracy (like modern day Germany, the Netherlands and England - these are very socialist countries) or a dictatorship (China, Cuba...).
Every society has rich and poor. With this said the advent of capitilism and the united states system was the first time in history where the individual had the means to succeed then any other time in history.
Интересно что женщины в возрасте попались довольно мудрые в отличии от молодых коммуняк готовых пожертвовать всем за драную квартиру по очереди через 10 лет и даже просить разрешения у чинушей покидать собственную страну. Я рот топтал той страны которая ограничивает выезд из своего "социалистического рая", хоть там какие блага, вы себя хоть маленько уважаете - евреям разрешили уезжать в 1974 году, а вот если "русачок" то сиди дома! Это как вообще понимать?
Guy at 7.43 told in fact that "USSR is far behind capitalistic countries RIGHT NOW". Somebody tell him there´s no more USSR just right for 30 years. It´s also funny because when USSR was born instead of early capitalistic Russian Empire it was approximately 100 years behind USA and European countries.
I don't think either Capitalism nor Communism works well with the way our society is structured. The size of the communities is way too big to successfully work out a sense of democracy and union within - it's too anonymous. That is why under capitalism there is this huge gap between rich and poor; why it is so easy for people to exploit humans and to deprive them of their fundamental rights. And it is why communism is often seen as a system too rigid, too strict and underdeveloped - because it is simply not working if we don't integrate the individual in the process of politics. In a matter of happiness and satisfaction I think one of the best systems is any that includes the individual in a fundamental way, that allows a community to interact in the process of forming a union. Therefore, smaller communities would be beneficial to reach that goal. It wouldn't even really matter what kind of higher political structure one would have there as long as the members are convinced of it.
USSR was never a Communist. She ain't a Communist so she would never understand what communism's goal is. USSR was a Socialist state and Communism never failed because it has never been Implemented yet, hence it is still just called a Theory and not an actual Stage of Human Development.
another take on this very contemporary debate : - maybe those supporting the past system are just remembering only the good parts, their (in some cases acquired) nostalgia won't let them see things for how they really were - maybe those supporting communism because it obviously wasn't what happened in the eastern block are right but will always appear unjustified (and utopian) to the majority of those who cling to historical examples (even if there is no such thing as a pure historical proof, but I mean philosophy isn't for everybody so maybe it's unfair to blame people people for that) because they have none - maybe those supporting the current system are either just wishful thinkers, people who like doing what they're told, or simply see the problems in the two above opinions, and think looking at the current system's best is better for them (similarly to the nostalgics, ironically) (disclaimer : these three points do not claim to close the debate, much more can be said beyond them, ofc) bottomline... people looking at this video as providing some deeper "truth" are either picking the side that they had already chosen, or being painfully blind to the fact that political theory (and what can be understood from history at a conceptual level) is not something you can solve by asking random (and was it really THAT random ??, one could add) people on the street. I mean, if it is science (or at least some form of philosophy that tries to accept the scientific facts), not belief and individual taste and choices that can point to the better system, then the likelihood of any of those people (that I don't blame personally, they can have their opinion, it sure can be interesting, and it's always fun to discover contemporary russia) seeing the whole picture with objectivity is really, really low.
There is no correct answer to political questions because these big questions like the mode of production largely are determined by the economic base of society, the current level of material development, which are far beyond any individual's control. Liberals did not invent capitalism. When the French Revolution and the American Revolution happened, capitalism already largely existed, and the monarchies were just trying to hold it back. The feudal governments could not prevent the industrialization and expansion of markets from naturally giving rise to capitalism. In _Wealth of Nations,_ Smith also criticizes the notion that the feudal system came into existence because of feudal law, but that feudal law was placed over a system that had already come into existence largely naturally on its own. The point is, there is no "correct" answer to what is the "best" system. Feudalism was not possible in early ancient times. Capitalism was not possible in early feudal times. But feudalism or the ancient system is no longer possible to implement today. There is no way, unless we began reversing economic progress and started a nuclear war or something, that we could ever return to hunter-gatherer or feudal societies. This is not a result of individuals simply having "better ideas", but the material level of development, the economic base, is no longer compatible with it. What system you can implement effectively supersedes a person's personal feelings on what system is better, and this differs from time and place. No genuine Marxist would deny that capitalism can't ever be a good system. It has been a good system. But it is specific to an era, and epoch in the development of human history, and cannot be viewed as eternal. You have to analyze how capitalism slowly changes in order to predict what new system it would give rise to. The Chinese criticism of Soviet model was that they did not understand how gradual these transitions are, and tried to jump to full socialism even though they were basically semifeudal under the Tsar, with only a few short years of capitalism under Lenin. This was placing the superstructure far ahead of the actual economic base, it was placing _politics_ above _reality_ and inevitably would lead to economic problems. Hence, they should have simply accepted that nationalizing all industries was fundamentally not possible to maintain efficiently and naturally, and that they'd have to maintain a somewhat high level of markets for a long long time. Although, most socialist countries knew that by the 1980s and were trying to reform. The USSR just had much deeper political problems that prevented any sort of reform from actually working.
@@bunchberry_ the infrastructure being out of the individual's reach does not imply no correct statement can be made about an economic system... it's just that the information needed is difficult to acquire. also, information, as well as other parts of the superstructure, as well as control over parts of the infrastructure, are not evenly distributed to the population. those possessing most of those are the bourgeoisie, thus, the common folk are less likely to have a clearer understanding (less likely not meaning impossible) of the economic and political situation. also, as I hinted in the OP, one can ask a philosophical question in abstraction to the economic reality of one's time. one can - it does not necessarily mean those questions are relevant, but in the end, if one tries to make an argument about how things should be, then one necessarily strays away from how things are. and I don't think those thoughts are futile, in some respects, they are essential to culture. and superstructure is not fully determined by the infrastructure, it is mostly determined by it (and I believe Marx did not contradict this, because in his eyes the communist may succeed because they understand the economy and its historical evolution, but that alone is not enough, they have to organize, and to organize implies some superstructural productions/actions). of course, there is room for mistakes when debating such ideas with limited information. but that is precisely the reason why even the hardcore materialists can have a biased view of the political situation (Lenin in your example), and further criticism might not be anything else than "captain hindsight" (the Chinese, which is pretty ironic with today's hindsight). also, I'm not sure marxian thought can be correctly said to point out to a "good" system... of course capitalism is necessary to the development of a newer system, but that does not make it ethical until the newer system exists and proves to be profoundly and durably qualitatively superior than capitalism was. which could be the case if we reach a classless society, but before that, society's moral standard will always be the bourgeois' one (or any ruling class, which in our age all have ties to the bourgeoisie) so morally qualifying any economic system is bound to be a worthless individual opinion (or at least to be perceived as such) unless it aligns with the dominant ideologies (a necessarily biased ethical position, if social inequality is considered unjustified). my point being, there is a difference between a system being better than the previous one, and a system being inherently good and able to put a term to the previous long-term dynamics of political economy (now as for the question whether one can actually know if a system is inherently good and able to make such an improvement to human history : I'd say let's hope for it, but let's not rely too much on that, as you have said, consistent knowledge of the infrastructure is crucial anyway).
@Hakim Habib the reason those attempts failed was much more complicated than you think. It was not the inherent flaws of Communism, but rather, the stubbornness of Capitalism and its domination of the globe. Capitalism isolates countries that want to free themselves from it and sanctions and invades them. Just take a look at USSR. Lasted for nearly a century and then was undemocratically dissolved thanks to Gorbachev. The hard part of Communism is the global revolution, which was squashed back in the early 20th century by Capitalist powers. This here is not the case of you burning your hand, it's you trying to put out the fire and someone else just stoking the fire. Common sense tells you to remove that someone else from the equation.
I believe in socialism and communism. However, the current level of productivity makes human beings only in the stage of capitalist society. There must be a long period of capitalism before going to communism.
@@comradeking4427 Yes, China will always be a third world country, and I am very proud of it. But I don't think the US system will dominate forever. Capitalism is not the end of humanity. If all the third world countries can be integrated, the neoliberal framework can be dismantled. The replacement of feudal society by capitalist society is a long-term process. Neoliberalism is no longer a myth after 2008, and the West has begun to slowly decline. Of course, capitalism will exist for a long time. The failure of socialism and communism in the Soviet Union and China lies in the fact that these two countries have hardly experienced capitalist society, and the country’s productivity does not match the social system. If you think about it, the Industrial Revolution allowed the system of monarch power to be conferred, and feudalism quickly fell apart in the world. Do you think mankind will never have a similar industrial revolution in the future, or have learned to use fire for qualitative changes? The communist society I am talking about is not what has happened in China or the communism of the Soviet Union. Marx is studying the law of objective development of human science. He believed that capitalism would definitely collapse and be replaced by communism, but Russia and China did not have the conditions to enter communism at that time.
@@FarisMoringstar "Косплей" внешних атрибутов и тоталитарный централизм в Китае никуда не делись.И "Падж" говорил про кошко-жён,а не про коммунистическую партию...
@@comradeking4427 Are you a historical nihilist? Serfdom in Russia was abolished in 1861. In 1914, Russia was considered a country with a very low degree of industrialization in Europe. Otherwise, how would the Russian Empire be defeated by Germany in World War I. Russia developed rapidly during the Stalin era, when the capitalist world economy was in the Great Depression. The Soviet Union quickly imported American lathes and technology by exporting grain, and became the number one industrial power in Europe. American industry was number one in the world at the time. The Cultural Revolution is indeed the CCP’s fault, but it is not as exaggerated as you think. The Cultural Revolution broke away China's feudal superstition and created equal rights for men and women. The Cultural Revolution was a tragedy caused by the proliferation of populism and low productivity.
-что вам нравится в капитализме?
-деньги.
А когда деньги еще и у тебя, то вообще зашибись))
someone translate for an American :)
@@daveschillz -what do you like in capitalism?
-MoNeY.
Ясно, чел фанат мистера крабса
@@magatopizza7170 он его аватар
This is a quality channel! Teaching us about the Russian people. Keep up the good work 1420, Love from Colombia!
russians sure have good taste in jackets
Effects of being 12 months of the year living in winter
@@pepemosquera6005 bruh I'm fucking weak 😂😂😂 so true though lmao
классная куртка, где у купил?
@@murraymoore7784 куда у купил
@@murraymoore7784 *воспламеняется*
1:10 talking neutraly about capitalism with the Lenin statue behind him :)
irony
aaaaaaaaaaah xD so i was not only one rofling about it!!! :D
@@nazranhaziq8061 Nothing ironic about it. Too bad Americas tear down statues that disagree with their personal politics.
@@levvy3006 Agree.
@@levvy3006 There are still many statues of slavers in America, so I guess the don't completely disagree with them.
" As far as I know capitalism is when a group of powerful people takes money from people, they don' care about the country, they only care about themselves" Perfect description of Russian oligarchs...
How is the USA different? :-)
I don't understand how he doesn't get the irony of disliking capitalism because he thinks it is the exact definition of communism.
@@wessexdruid7598 Top 1% in USA own 37% of stuff. Top 1% in Russia own 75% of stuff. As bad as the wealth gap is in US, it is twice as bad in Russia.
Communism is removing the difference between market and exchange value, nothing to do with "groups"
I n Russia there s no oligarchs since 2000. There s very rich people running big companies because the government allows them to. If they go against the government they are out. In the USA there s a corporate oligarchy far more powerful than people s vote. You don t have a democracy Americans, if you think you have one, you need to go and get some education.
I really like how honest they all were. Thanks for a diverse group of answers. Nice editing btw. Greetings from the US.
Парень на 7.43 "СССР отстал СЕЙЧАС на 30 лет от стран, где был капитализм". Кто-нибудь, скажите ему, что СССР нет уже как раз 30 лет.
И особенно забавно, что когда СССР только возник заместо ранней капиталистической Российской Империи, он отставал от стран запада примерно лет на 100..
Обидно вообще, что перевели неправильно, как будто он сказал "СССР отставал", хотя он отчётливо произнёс "СССР сейчас отстал".
01:04 символичный задний план
:-)
@@heliumagain2964 смайлики наших дедов :-)
Я умираю от смеха 🤣
5:37 dude got his drip fr sheeeesh
Большинство опрошенных вообще не понимают, что такое капитализм. Говорят, якобы деньги даются народу. Класс, для начала надо спрашивать знают ли они хотя бы что-то в политике.
По сути все общественно эконмичечкие формации, что были до этого и включая сегодняшнюю, капиталистическую - подразумевают довольно сильную внутривидовую конкуренцию и угнетение одних другими, что совершенно не способствует развитию и выживаемости человека как вида в будущем. Иными словами: если следующие формации будут сохранить прежнюю тенденцию очень долго, то человечество никогда не покинет планету Земля и закончит своё существование навсегда здесь. Т. К. Планета это просто расходный материал, что очевидно, я думаю. Многие ресурсы здесь не восполняемы и не имеют заменителей. Само собой, это произойдет не сейчас и даже не через 200 лет, скорее всего. Но чем раньше человек сможет освоить другую планету для существования там, тем лучше.
@@zeisler7141 В идеале все рано или поздно дойдет до коммунизма (до которого еще никогда дело не доходило), но только через капитализм, как промежуточный этап. Через социализм построить здоровое общество не получится, т.к. отсутствует свобода выбора, опыт другой реальности и здравомыслие. На одной идее экспансия космоса не сможет осуществиться, нужна будет сепарация читеров на постоянной основе.
@@zeisler7141 начал с одного закончил другим.
@@zeisler7141 я думаю люди как споры грибов соберутся в зонитик, одни улетят, а другие останутся))
it is better than communism
Could you please include both Russian and English subtitles as it would help
learners
Yes, I agree. Instead of embedding the subtitles on the video itself, making them available on the youtube subtitle platform would make it better for learners. Trying to read the autogenerated subtitles in Russian is hard with the big white subtitles behind it.
@@irreadings You can move the location of the youtube subtitiles, I think many newcomers to the channel might just think that the video isn't for english speakers if they get rid of the embedded subtitiles.
Woah don’t ask that on this channel, your lucky 1420 hasn’t ripped you a new asshole for even asking
- какие плюсы капитализма?
- знаем, что Байден делает
@Діма Базалюк меня больше повеселил чел на 7:30 СССР, мол, отстал на 30 лет от капиталистических стран. Потому что его, блять, уже 30 лет не существует.
@@comradeking4427 слишком толсто.
@@comradeking4427 сами по себе эти проценты ничего не значат. Минимальная зарплата в Испании 1108 евро в месяц, средняя - 1800-2200. В России же минимальная зп 12 792 рубля, а средняя 51 083. Такие низкие проценты получаются только за счет низкого МРОТа, на деле же среднемесячный доход более 70% россиян не превышает 25 тыс. рублей, при этом у 45% граждан доход составляет 15 тыс. рублей.
С чего ты взял, что у нас нет абсолютной бедности, я не знаю.
У нас все не так плохо как в Конго или Сомали, но мы определенно одна из беднейших стран Европы.
@@СерГей-я2щ6н цифры не имеют никакого значения. Надо смотреть на то, что люди имеют. А россияне имеют намного больше, чем западники
@@comradeking4427
Так-то ППС на душу населения в РФ говорит об обратном:
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%92%D0%92%D0%9F_(%D0%9F%D0%9F%D0%A1)_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%88%D1%83_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F
From the people who dislike capitalism to the ones that appreciate it, what amazed me the most were the two guys in the beginning of the video who refrained from giving any opinions because they admit they know little about it. This kind of attitude is utterly rare.
Interesting that most young people in russia are neutral or even positive about capitalism while most mature people don't like it.
In the USA is exactly the other way around.
why would you suppose? in their case, not ours which is obvious. all the kids there think about money, they do not consider debt and wage slavery. I'm thinking it's the impression money grows on trees or something, freedom to buy all kinds of crap they don't want with money they don't have to impress people they don't like. I know there's a lot more to it than that, but for the average person...
@@KazzArie Education and healthcare are most often free. A lot of people have their own apartments, which used to be given for free. People live in less violent conditions, thanks to the legacy of the USSR. I think that's why the youth does not see the problems of the modern world.
Did You even watch the video, lol? It´s excactly the opposite 😂
@@Karloskarluts That's right, I'm Russian.
just capitalism shows much better results. There was communism, socialism in Russia, and people know better all the minuses and problems of it. Therefore, the majority respect and appreciate capitalism. Don't want the objections of a bad past. From birth, people in the USSR were forced to hate the USA, Europe and capitalism. There was total censorship and propaganda. Therefore, it is already difficult for people in their 50s to change their thinking. Many more will remember their childhood and youth. They don't miss communism. It's just plain nostalgia
Как можно будучи взрослым человеком не знать ,что такое капитализм ...
Люди вообще не очень умный вид. Мы тысячилетиями развивали медицину, что бы в 21 веке иметь антипрививочников.
Большинство взрослых этого не делают. Даже те, кто думают, что нет. Человек, записавший это видео, явно не знает. Почему он спрашивает людей о «капитализме или коммунизме»? СССР был социалистическим, а не коммунистическим. Социализм не мешает вам заниматься бизнесом. Именно капитализм в конечном итоге лишает подавляющее большинство людей возможности владеть бизнесом. И Маркс, и Энгельс рекомендовали не отменять немедленно частную собственность, потому что, пока люди могут начать свое дело, они должны иметь это право. Но разные отрасли экономики естественно монополизируются по мере своего развития. Вы «постепенно», как говорится в Манифесте, переходите к социализму, перемещая все частные монополии по мере их формирования в государственный сектор. То, что делает современный Китай, ближе к тому, что первоначально предполагал классический марксизм. Вы можете начать бизнес, если хотите, в Китае. СССР не нужно было полностью восстанавливать капитализм, чтобы люди могли начать свой бизнес. Открытие бизнеса - это не капитализм.
@@bunchberry_ Это так .Просто под коммунизмом иногда подразумевают саму идею его постройки(коммунистическую идею ) и когда говорят о коммунистах ,то имеют ввиду людей с идеями построения коммунизма . .Ясно ,что в Союзе коммунизма не было ,это ведь утопия .Но социализм рассматривался, как временное явление ,последняя ступень перед коммунизмом .Я тоже считаю ,что в социализме, как таковом нет ничего плохого .Мне нравится китайская модель .Капитализм в рамках социализма .В Скандинавии тоже социализм .
@@Saint3451 Китайская критика советской модели такова.
Маркс утверждал, что именно экономическое развитие порождает новые экономические системы, а не идеи. Не существует «лучшей» системы, каждая система отражает текущий уровень экономического развития того времени. Капитализм был невозможен в раннефеодальных обществах. Но в позднефеодальных обществах, когда рынки начали расширяться и началась индустриализация, остановить развитие капитализма стало невозможно, и теперь мы не можем вернуться назад.
Никакая система не вечна. Продолжая улучшать нашу экономику, мы постепенно меняем ее организацию. Через тысячу лет наша экономика, возможно, медленно изменилась настолько, что тысячу лет назад она выглядела совершенно иначе. Вот почему история отмечена такими разными экономическими системами.
Если экономическое развитие порождает новые экономические системы, и Маркс предсказывал, что социализм будет следующей экономической системой после капитализма, то как возможно, что Советский Союз смог построить полный социализм, когда до революции в России они были еще феодальными? Это не имеет никакого смысла.
Это привело к множеству экономических и политических проблем. Вместо этого китайцы утверждают, что сам социализм следует разделить на две стадии: начальную стадию и продвинутую стадию. Вы не можете продвигаться к коммунизму, пока не достигнете продвинутой стадии. Советы пытались реализовать продвинутую стадию, даже если она несовместима с их реальными материальными реалиями, она была утопической, имела проблемы неэффективности и требовала строгого соблюдения, когда экономические системы должны развиваться естественным образом.
КПК не считает, что их система является окончательной экономической моделью на все времена, «концом истории». Но эта более смешанная модель имеет больше смысла с их нынешним уровнем развития. Продвинутый социализм, вероятно, все еще появится, но для этого потребуются гораздо более передовые технологии и гораздо более крупная промышленность, которая еще не создана.
Подумайте, как все выглядело иначе 100 лет назад. Через 100 лет все будет выглядеть гораздо иначе. Экономическая система всегда должна развиваться вместе с уровнем развития, и нет ничего постоянного. Советы поставили политику выше прагматизма и внедрили экономическую систему, которая была слишком продвинутой для их отсталого уровня развития.
Финансовая грамотность России би лайк
PLS, Do not compare the USSR and North Korea!!! These are completely different states in their essence. North Korea appeared thanks to the USSR, but even the leader of the late USSR was not expected to have raised a despotic monster. In the 80s, the USSR criticized North Korea for radicalism. Even Stalin would have been surprised by the despotism of the Juche regime if he had been alive. There is little left of communism there. Some kind of wild hereditary monarchy under the guise of communism.
This.
No, you're wrong. North Korea isn't a regime, 99% of the news and articles that talk about North Korea just spread lies about the country. North Korea is still in war with the USA and South Korea. USA during the Korean war, dropped over 600 thousands bombs against North Korea, killing 20% of the North Korean population, making the country miserable, people born with illnesses and every single building destroyed. What USA did to North Korea was a really crime war, that's why North Korea developed a Nuclear bomb, and invests a lot in military stuffs, in order to defend themselves!
Many Russians seem informed, reflected and differentiated. I'm positively surprised. I doubt that a survey of passersby in my own country would show such sophisticated results.
Same in my country
I don't think most young Americans can even adequately explain what capitalism is.
well, that's what happens when your parents grow in socialist utopia. they probably told them soviet stories, while american parents would rather let a smartphone brainwash their kids.
The guy who talked about the people from the village was the wisest. A lot of folk live happily and simply and that makes you question how capitalism and industrialization has effected humans as a species. My belief is that industrialization and the creation of the internet has changed humans.
exactly. many of us in today’s world have severed our connection to the rest of life on earth, to our place in the great cycle of energy and life. many indigenous people have known all along that industrialization is unnecessary when we have been given everything we need, and all we have to do is fulfill our responsibilities to the rest of our non-human relatives as they fulfill their responsibilities to us. it is why the continuing genocides against indigenous people around the world, especially in the americas, is so devastating. all the answers we’re looking for to solve the climate crisis have been there all along, we just chose to ignore (after enslaving and killing millions of) the people who knew it.
@@тито-к9в Yep and i don’t even think all technology is bad I just think the philosophical side of things is not considered enough when it’s what keeps us human.
Yep, industrialization was a mistake. We lived happily and cared for each other when we were hunters and gatherers for thousands of years. Now we are broken and separated from nature, this can be seen as we no longer live in harmony with our ecosystem. The only way to ever go back now is through communism
Industrialization is a net positive imo, because it makes goods more affordable and available for larger amounts of people. The issue is consumption and consumer culture. A company doesn't make money if it produces something that lasts forever and everyone is satisfied with it. It needs constant revenue and profit which means the goal is not to actually make a perfect product but one that will sell. I think a common example is some soviet and eastern bloc products that vanished the moment they turned capitalist like lightbulbs and cars which while not super performers were reliable and didn't require you to buy a new one frequently. I'm sure you've heard of designed obsolescence as well.
Well, everything changed humans. From the creation of paper money and gold coins, to banks, to the Industrial and French revolution and feudalism, to 1971 from the abolishment of the Gold standard to freedom and modern capitalism. Human beings evolve, just as life does. The USSR willingly chose not to adopt capitalism because it knew it could not afford to give power to the population, and while the USSR lagged behind in terms of wealth and income equality, it focused on scaring the West with big ass bombs, suppressed revolutions of other states and kept the East bloc poor well until its dissolution. People have been happy in many nations, and while communism proved that it was a failure in all occasions, it did manage to control food and money supply. It was so bad, people fled USSR to live a better life only so they would be shot at the border as they were viewed as traitors. The West neither did create Gulags and forced labor, focused on human rights and fought to a degree corruption, people can publicly speak their opinion without the fear of being punished, while enjoying freedom of movement and wealth. It is no coincidence that Russia has been left behind, while Romania was reborn from ashes and became a modern state faster than ever managed.
They are poorly misinformed, they do not seem to understand that everything is already owned,i know a Russian woman that came, she is extremely qualified but lives at poverty level and it is almost impossible to get out of it,it was the biggest mistake of her life to leave Russia for this canacant
@Matthew Sparks im talking about Canada and especially the east coast, it is extremely poor in nature just because of the sub-arctic terrain, temperatures, so what remains that exists is taken and owned all of it, and poverty for the rest.unemployment goes on for 9 months of the year du to nature, it has been that way since the 1800s,except there was no check, there is no work for current population already and will not be possible to increase it,,think of a island with low resources that is closed for 9 months,with maximum capacity on all sides,
Extremely qualified people are poor all over Russia. My family was extremely qualified yet we didn't have jack shit. Enough money to house a family in a 1 bedroom soviet era cardboard box. Those same qualifications went a lot fucking farther in Canada. Don't even imply they're comparable places to live.
@@honesty_-no9he And there's a lot more in Russia.
What is canacant ?
@@unfairfight3625 Почему они просто не уедут? ведь рынок должен решить эту проблему.
From france : i really do like your content, it might help strangers to russia to have a new look at russian people by other way than TV or media in general.(and using csgo vocal xd)
2:12 hahah these grandmas are gorgeous!😃
это якуты
@@АндрейТерлецкий-ж5х не, это эвенки
@@АндрейТерлецкий-ж5х или тувинцы
или корейцы
@@АндрейТерлецкий-ж5х или китайцы
the gentleman at 1:02 says it absolutely spot on. if your country was born with capitalism its much easier than trying to switch over to it. smart guy.
Kid at 6:00 speaks the truth - saw something like that with my own eyes, when I went to middle school for migrants. Bunch of Chinese students jumped in to protect one Chinese nerd from Moroccans - even though he was never a part of their group. Then when they got into shit over it with the principal - they all took the blame for it.
Русские очень автономны. Можно полностью убрать общение и контакт с людьми выведя его в цифровое пространство и мы нечего не заметем. Плевать нам на других.
I start to study the new but old enemy because of recent events. I re-learned what I forgot when I was a young man. These people are not my enemy. Politicians are those assholes who show up at a party that we wish would just leave. We need to actually talk to each other. Face to face.
2:40China uses capitalism to develop its economy ！But use socialism to control the gap between the rich and the poor!The biggest problem of the Soviet Union is to develop the economy with communism! The efficiency is too slow!
The soviet Union was the fastest growing economy from 1920s til mid fifties while building socialism. It went from an agrarian state to the first country to send men to space. It started to decline in the 60s when socialsism was being abandoned.
So there is no poor people in China? Might be a wonderful place for everyone, a real utopia.
@@bf2229 But it still never caught up with the west, because growth in itself is not a measure of success. It's also easier to grow from nowhere to somewhere, then from somewhere to even further. The idea of socialism was never abandoned, but reached a point where the Soviets still remained an industrialized country, while the west continued to become post-industrial countries. It was full-blood socialist until the very end when it slightly opened up to capitalism. Anyway, the proof is still there; communism sets heavy limits on wealth. It can create financial equality and equity, but not wealth. The space-triumph can simply be explained like this;
-Spending extreme amounts of money on military and space-missions (20-30 % of GPD?). The US was much less, with a much bigger budget.
-Spending much less on everything else. I.E even though Soviet had sent a man into space, toilet paper was unavailable to the public.
If I am not wrong, Soviets were the fastest growing country till 1960 with socialism. Soviet economy got stagnant because they were too busy making new industries to create jobs. They never invested more capital in existing industries to grow their economy. That was the reason. Also, the cold war.
@@Ms.-Lily The communist planned economy can reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, but it cannot maximize economic development. Capitalism can maximize economic development because it emphasizes individual competition and market competition, but it will increase the gap between the rich and the poor. The economic development of the Soviet Union was fundamental during the Cold War. Not better than the United States,
The guy who is against capitalism is actually describing how oligarchs operate there. They are a group of people who takes money from the people (by doing business with the gov) and don't care about the country: freedom of speech, development, and improve the opportunities for people to grow financially and personally.
you could call them "entrepreneurs" or "investors" elsewhere, capitalists are all the same no matter what image they try to push
@@KekusMagnus In Russia it's very different. Have you ever wondered why the biggest country in the world appears to be so poor while the richest people in Russia have $600 million mega yachts and private jets all around Europe and billions laying on their Swiss bank accounts? And how all these rich people happen to be good friends with the Russian president? It's called kleptocracy - not capitalism.
@@Rib_bs it's capitalism. Who owns the means of production? It's not the workers. They are owned by capitalists under the name of oligarchs.
@@PrisPrisca15 When a factory is owned by a company it's called capitalism. When a factory is owned by a state it's called communism. When a factory is owned by the president's buddies, the oligarchs, who are above the law, it's called kleptocracy.
If you think communism is the state owning factories, no wonder why you don't even know that oligarchs are capitalists. Instead of repeating empty phrases, do some research.
I live in the UK, I think both ideologies have their virtues but I think for the world to work in a better way for the average person we need to be somewhere between the two. Rid politics of corruption and we’ll not have anymore wars,
Ditto.
The corruption is inherent to the state.
More state means more taxes and burocracy. More burocracy is more corruption.
1:37 clearing throat subtitles 😂
🥰😎
what some people like acout communism - the free stuff you get without lifting a finger
what are the downsides - everything else.
The USSR only "failed" because at the end they introduced neo-liberal (capitalist) reforms which damaged the economy and caused more and more rationing/long queues you hear about. Also, let's remind ourselves of sanctions against the USSR and many other socialist countries which continue even today. What she says about innovation is also not true because we had many innovations that we were not allowed to share with the world. Take Cuba today for example, they developed a lung cancer vaccine that is functional but will never be able to share it with the outside world due to sanctions against the country. Also, you can't compare the western countries which had YEARS of development under capitalism (for the rich and middle classes only...) aided by colonialism and human exploitation in the global south meanwhile the USSR arose DIRECTLY from a semi-feudal/monarchical society where the life expectancy was about 20-30 years old (increased during Soviet industrialisation to about 60-70) and they did not have as much time to develop as opposed to the centuries of development the US had. I can go on...
Life in Russia is much better now. At least there are some opportunities for a good life. My grandfather, even in the poor 90s, could afford more than in the USSR. I don't say anything about 2000. True, in the 90s, because of the non-normal government, it was completely fucked up (banditry, business could not be opened, either you pay a lot of money for the roof, or you die and many other charms). Now everything is at the level of Europe +-. If you couldn't even buy a sausage for yourself before, now you can buy anything.
@@Антонфикалис-п1л This is complete nonsense, are you from Moscow?
@@Даниил-р2й7щ Москва почти не изменилась за это время. Только приезжих больше стало и плитку класть начали. А уровень жизни остался примерно тот же, в Москве всегда хорошо жилось. А вот регионы заметно развились, хотя некоторые, наоборот, стали хуже
@@Антонфикалис-п1л Это вообще не так.
Changing the thumbnail from a normal guy to a handsome guy? Well played.
Gotta get the clicks, humans like to see good looking people lol
This channel is really good, keep up the good work 👏
Incredible channel. Just found it. The elderly lady in the beret was wonderful! Have a nice day Paloma.🥰
Lenin wake up, we need comrade Dzershinsky
Меня смущает, когда люди сравнивают коммунизм и СССР.
Начнём с того, что Союз Советских СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКИХ Республик.
Коммунизма ещё нигде не было...
@@comradeking4427 Ты сейчас про Пол Пота? Ну во первых у него там не совсем коммунистические идеи были, а какие то свои, а во вторых для коммунизма характерно отсутствие денег в принципе, но такого еще ни у кого не получилось сделать...
@@comradeking4427, Пол Пот это сумасшедший мудак, а не коммунист. Уничтожил треть населения страны, развалил промышленность, образование, уничтожил всех людей с высшим образованием. Вот Тома Санкара был настоящим коммунистом, правда из-за переворота дело завершить не удалось. Забавно, что при упоминании коммунизма все сразу вспоминают о тварях типа Сталина, Пол пота, Ким чен ына и мао цзе дуна, а о Тома Санкаре никто не знает...
Социализма тоже нигде не было.
@@АлистерДугин на 24(?) съезде 1959г. Никита Хрущёв объявил, что в СССР - настал социализм...
@@VVGrOb Нет, об этом объявил Сталин еще раньше, но да ладно.
В соответствии с 1 статьей Конституции РФ, Россия есть демократическое федеративное правовое государство с республиканской формой правления. Это так?
Россиянам для начала знать бы что такое капитализм.
Так они знают, они живут при нем.
Народную соляночку перепрошел уже?
А, ну да, у нас же наменклатурный капитализм, а не свободный рыночек
@@faunt07 Так себе живут, учитывая, что мы целый век развития капиталистических отношений потеряли, а слишком государство ограничивает рынок, дак ещё и приватизация Ельцинская, которая привела к обогащению в основном нечестно заработавших свои деньги людей, образующие теперь свои монополии, которые рука об руку трутся о государство.
@@faunt07 Если ты живёшь при нём, еще не значит что ты знаешь что это такое...
Закажите Ежи
не надо он и тут обосхется
5:51 It's funny about this part because in China we would say Chinese are the indifferent ones.
Spanish subtitles please. I like your channel.
0:23
Да, Пелевин уже давно сдаёт позиции. Чего только его «Искусство лёгких касаний» стоит.
Да по делу всё сказал. Как всегда умён наш диско-эстет
Absolutely fantastic channel!
👏👏👏👍
I love this channel. It gives Russians an opportunity to tells what they think. It is a debate of views and ideas
I like the old woman, She is wise. She lives in the real world. Many could learn from her.
In capitalism there are many opportunities. And it's up to the individual to make the best of those. Which is also the downside because nothing is free. And if you don't succeed, life becomes harder.
But, in Europe for example, we have social market economies. Tax is used to pay healthcare from, at least mostly. So healthcare is akin to infrastructure; it's just there, because nobody gets sick on purpose. So it's not deemed fair to have someone pay for that all on their own. Higher wages typically pay more tax as well, and exploitation is countered by laws. For example, there are no "sick days" as in the USA. If you're sick, you don't have to work, period. Overtime is also regulated. And there are unemployment benefits.
In capitalism there are only opportunities when it’s convenient for the rich. The rural south in the US where I’m from has been made destitute by capitalism. If we had socialism at bare minimum we would have side walks, education, and industrial development in the south. Sounds basic probably to you but folks here dream of having those things. That’s why folks supported Trump, he pretended like he was gonna give that with fake populist rhetoric. Ideas like socialism are a lot more appealing to those of us who don’t have much to lose and only something to gain. And obviously a socialism in 21st century America would look pretty different from a socialism in 1900s Russia. But yeah we need some major equalization in America, places like where I live are among the worst places in the west. Even the UN was horrified when they visited, and poverty and lack of development are just the tip of the iceberg with our problems, let alone the rampant systemic corruption, fascist terrorists, and authoritarianism that already exists in southern states, we have nothing to lose if we ever overturn the current order, and more people are waking up to that. As America deteriorates, and the authoritarian ultranationalist forces that run rampant in states like mine completely take over, no one will be able to deny what happened here and that we have to change, I hope it’s not too late by then.
Europe mostly so social democratic.
You need to succeed by being born into the right families. Capitalism is a hereditary system for the most part.
The most of them don't know anything about capitalism.
Interviewing the dude about Capitalism while the statue of the promoter of Communism is on the background.
"Самое плохое при коммунизме - это государственный капитализм" Уносите, этот бракованный.
Мужчина в маске фишку сечёт. Всё правильно сказал.
Кто-нибудь скажите женщине в чепчике, что дефицит и тотальный крах советской экономике произошел из-за контрреволюционных действий партийной верхушки и внедрение элементов капитализма.
Я так понимаю, он просто имел ввиду плановую экономику и ее просчеты при управлении.
We have free university and healthcare in Sweden? No just high taxes and no politicians that steals the money.
С бабкой в белом вообще всё грустно. Она стоит за социалистические ценности, и судя по её словам, хочет, что бы люди нашли пути к ним, но при этом отдаёт голос за капитализм, который все это не то что своей целью не ставит - стремится к прямо противоположному. И аргументы про тот же дефицит тоже своеобразные. Ты их понимаешь, но зная причину их появления, в груди щемить начинает от всей этой несправедливости.
А вообще, ролик отличный, и во многом даже обнадеживающий. Население у нас все же в массе своей левое, что успокаивает.
Лозунг «свобода, равенство и братство» это лозунг ВФР, где под равенством понимали возникшие тогда гражданские права, на свободу слова, свободу ассоциаций, свободу совести. Бабушка просто поняла, что в совке не было никакого равенства, как и в любом другом левом государстве. Существовала лишь номенклатура и все остальные, которые не имели экономических и политических, гражданских свобод.
Бабка совка хлебнула
@@БаракОбама-о8б социализм появился исключительно потому, что капитализм, за который шла великая Французская революция, нас всех на это кинул, наградив вышеперечисоенным лишь очень узкие круги людей. Кстати, задам тебе тот же вопрос, который задаю всем остальным - почему минимальный экономическиц разрыв между бедными и богатыми в СССР - это "клятая номенклатура, отсутствие равенства и прочее", а гигантский разрыв между олигархами и нищими в правых капиталистических - это свобода, равенство и вообще зае...ись?
@@Торговецложками >Социализс появился
Но социализм не появлялся.
>Капитализм следовал за ВФР
Нет, на самом деле он был уже во Франции веками ранее. Как бы сказали марксисты, надстройка последовала за базисом.
>минимальные различия в доходах
А, это ты про тех людей, которые не могли получить туалетную бумагу, стояли в очередях за мясом, маслом и прочим, пока другие за валюту могли покупать элитное французское вино? Вот это минимальный разрыв, ничего не скажешь, лучше Восленского почитай.
@@БаракОбама-о8б а, всё так плохо. Ладно, по пальцам.
Социализм был в СССР, да и в большинстве других странах 20 века, взявших курс на левое движение. Его правда потом планомерно начали сворачивать, спасибо Хрущу, но об этом позже. Как движение, он зародился куда раньше, когда до людей начало доходить, что где-то капиталисты с " Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" их напарили.
И нет, капитализма во Франции до ВРФ не было, у них был феодализм. Это, как бы, разные вещи, это гуглится за секунду. Если ты думал, что капитализм это про "я могу что-то произвести и продать на рынке за деньги", то спешу тебя расстроить, ты вообще не угадал.
Ух, старая добрая туалетка, которую нафиг никто не покупал, когда она появилась в СССР. Государству пришлось целую компанию развести, что бы объяснить народу, что это вообще-то полезная и прикольная штука. Массовые очереди у нас кстати появились после начала рыночных реформ, когда владельцы предприятий смекнули, что товар можно зажимать, и не отдавать сразу по фиксированным ценам, что бы потом продать подороже. Предприимчивые сволочи оказались.
Кстати, это действительно минимальный разрыв. Потому что вы показали уровень "одни не могли купить мясо, другие могли купить валюту и вино", в то время как в светлых кап странах это скорее "одни не могут купить мясо, другие могут купить четырёхэтажный дом, 20 машин, личный самолёт, личного политика, остров и так далее". Найдёшь мне кого-то из элит СССР, который мог позволить себе что-то хоть близко напоминающее то, чем у нас владеют современные олигархи, и я публично признаю своё поражение. Номенклатура при всех её минусах и близко не стоит с тем, какой аналог нам подкинул капитализм.
The person saying North Korea is succeding is massively misinformed
0:16 я не знаю что такое капитализм
6:18 поэтому при комунизме лучше)
Разве это не всякий антикоммунист?
Он прав.
Government giving you the same amount as everyone else or you getting up and making your family and generations to come wealthy
I herd Russia , Germany and Japen etc the people think no one should stand out and everyone should have equal stuff , but in America we have equal rights but we also have the opportunity to make ourself wealthy and our family to come , but it’s up to the individual person to go out and make it happen , being able to own businesses multiple houses , being able to hire people for work.
Why would you want to be the same as everyone else ?
For true capitalism to succeed (most capitalistic countries aren't true capitalism, they are a hybrid of capitalism with some selected social services) it requires one particular condition that most people are unaware of. For capitalism to succeed for some, it requires a large percentage of the population to live in poverty, most in a slight to middle level of poverty but some must live in extreme poverty, it is the only way that capitalism actually works. A hybrid of socialism and capitalism works much better for the majority of a populace, but the elites don't like that economic model because it requires higher total taxes on them (even though as a percentage of income they may actually be paying the same or less than the middle class)
This is incorrect, you are right that we do not have pure capitalism right now, but the more Capitalism you do have, the more the middle class grows generally. Capitalism creates the most wealth when everyone is wealthy.
I love the Clothing Brand idea! :)
Интересно лучше в очереди 4 года постоять или купить ? Ну, не знаю как вы, но я за четыре года на машину точно не накоплю
Машину всёравно приходилось покупать
@@ВасильПідлужний-ж4я во-первых откуда информация ? Во-вторых, если приходилось, то за сколько ? В-третьих, все равно пишется раздельно.
@@andreytsyganov2986 во-первых это не является секретом гугл в помощь.
Во-вторых от 4к советских рублей (4к+ запорожец, 5к и больше жигули зависит от модели, 9к и выше волга)
В-третьих русского в школе не было)
@@ВасильПідлужний-ж4я ну да, сейчас же не кто попало в гугле сайты создают, аргументация на уровне : "ну, мне так друг сказал", можете отослать сюда конкретный источник, документ, а не что-то из интернета, вот у меня другая информация, я также могу с сайта взять, что вот беслатно было, но это не аргумент - это хрень, предоставьте документы или скажите хотя бы, где искать (конкретно, где искать), я проверю источник и то, на что этот самый источник ссылается, и потом уже проверим говорите ли вы ерунду или правду. Из интернета - не аргумент, я также скажу вам из интернета, но вы и искать не будете, т.к это довольно расплывчато и к тому же почему это я искать должен ? Вы завели спор, а сами посылаете меня искать информацию за вас, чтобы подтвердить вашу точку зрения. Итак, конкретно, что за сайт, на что ссылается этот сайт?
Хз, работая в Москве накопил 400 000 тысяч за 2 года.
В принципе при желании могу купить автомобиль, работал бы в ай Ти или был бы менее ленивым то и за год можно накопить, зарабатывая 100 000.
5:24 "North Korea or China"
He doesn't know that China is capitalist and North Korea is not succeeding at all, does he?
Походу мужик насмотрелся госпропаганды.
Nice joke about China!Call China capitalist with communictic part in chief it's oximoron
Yeah, five-years plans and state-owned companies in key economic sectors it is very capitalistic.
@@Subwd But rule with Communistic partie?Yeaahh that is veeryyy "capitalistic"
@@Jericho19111 Have you been in CN? i've been 5 times, and yeah there is no communism in CN but the biggest shareholder is the goverment, CAPITALISTIC GOVERMENT. It's like largest corpos in the US. May be they call themselfs a communists but they are not a real communists.
@@albemic516 You don't know anything about communism.First of all, China is socialist.It takes hundreds of years from socialism to communism!
5:20 "There are still some countries attached to this idea (communism), North Korea, China, they are succeeding"
Lmao what? North Korea is succeeding in what exactly.
In equality, free healthcare, and improvement of life quality for civilians despite the western sanctions?
@@Yo-ps2pf you're telling me North Korea has improved the life quality for its citizens? Get outta here.
@@MyTrickyTricks especially considering the fact that it has some of the highest amount of mineral resources, you say this as if there aren't sanctionins up its neck, and not to mention it being completely bombed in the war by the western powers yet still fixing itself becoming a nuclear power lol
5:25. North Korea is NOT THRIVING under socialism/communism rule after soviet collapsed causing the distribution to end. Many ordinary people to this day are struggling to put food on the table so their own option is to commit such crimes like bribery or being part of an illegal business such a the black market. There are about 50 classes in North Korea, the more loyal ur grandparents were to the Kim’s then the more rich you are. You should know that in North Korea the middle class eats two times a day and the lower class eats one time and sometimes they skip meals depending what their situation is. Meanwhile, the elites/rich people in Pyongyang have food on the table and have the ability to eat 3 times a day every single day along with eating out at restaurants, where the countryside does not have any restaurants. According to the UN, an estimate about 40% of North Koreans are starving right now, it didn’t got any better since the abundant March. It is true that the government provides a place for you to stay and assigns a city or town for you to live at but the only thing is in North Korea that the wealthy gets to live in nice place while the middle and poor live in run down houses out in the countryside. Yes, they have money to make nukes and bombs but it’s a socialist paradise meaning it controls production and economy so the government have the right to spend it on other stuff instead of giving to the people. You can see North Koreans are not unequal at all. As you can see, North Korea is underdeveloped and its way behind than any other place in the world even Africa is ahead of North Korea. On the other hand, China adapted to state capitalism causing them to open up so people can have the opportunity to succeed in life so it’s easier for people to survive on a daily basis unlike North Koreans.
North Korea has been living under blockade and economic sanctions for a quarter of a century. Whatever you think..This will have a positive impact on the standard of living of the population?
Here you have to thank the United States and South Korea.
@@ГалактическийПатриарх North Korea violates human rights and is a threat to the world so no wonder why they are facing sanctions even without sanctions, they will still suffer until the regime collapses.
@@wolfyyyranchh1 During the Korean War of 1950-1953, the United States subjected almost the entire territory of North Korea to" lunar terraforming". More bombs were dropped than on Germany. They bombed literally everything (and civilian buildings). As a result, 20% of the population of North Korea was killed, 90% of enterprises were destroyed, and a humanitarian disaster occurred.
When the war ended, the South Korean government did not even conclude a truce. In fact, they have the right to start shooting at any time.
South-has more fertile land than the North. More people can actually live there.But the northern part is more mountainous.
The standard of living and the level of industrial production in the 70s in North Korea was higher than in South Korea. The rise in South Korea began after Japan began to export production there (where cheap labor is available). South Korea is included in the world trade system (unlike North Korea).
North Korea is extremely dependent on energy supply. There is practically no oil and gas.
In the 90s, North Korea wanted to build a nuclear power plant (to stop being dependent on purchases). The US intervened and construction stopped. The United States signed a contract with the North for the construction of one power station, but did not build anything. But they imposed international sanctions.
Because of this they have:
- the yield fell due to the lack of fertilizers.
- forced to use gas generators (which were still used in the mid-20th century).
- there is nothing to fill the equipment with.
- huge use of manual labor. Seasonal work.
- save on everything (even on hot water).
- In the 90s, many people died of starvation
Is North Korea a threat to the world? Ahaha. Its military budget is smaller than that of South Korea. And if there is a war, then the United States and Japan will act on the side of the South.
For example, in Mexico (democratic), there has been a war between the government and drug cartels for more than 10 years. According to official statistics, several tens of thousands of people died. And these drugs are then redirected to the United States. Because of this, hundreds of thousands of people die there every year.
@@ГалактическийПатриарх yes, North Korea will not start a war but I’m talking about the dangers Kim Jong Un poses to the world. He tried to start a bomb at a subway one time, deleted a patients history at the hospital, counterfeit money, and all those other horrible things. Kim Jong Un makes so much money but he doesn’t spend it on his people.
@@ГалактическийПатриарх also North Korea relied on the Soviet Union more so that’s why it was richer than South Korea.
People with ambitions can do very well in capitalist countries, but obviously it's not for everyone. Some people just want to leave peacfully, doing their own thing, they don't need big dreams to make them happy, socialism or communism would sute them more.
My thoughts exactly
@@stuckonearth4967 I was talking more about ambition to make money. If you want to make a lot of it, you won't be able to gain that many. Government will give you enough to live with.
USSR was closed country, no products and brands from other countries, no travelling abroad.
@@stuckonearth4967 I didn't say communism is about being poor. I said that you would only get the amount of money that government gives you.
@@didinau ye basically just don't be useful or a kulak and you will live a good life In communism before it completely collapses and you are forced to go capitalism and then repeat the process.
That's not true thought. Who do you think lives better - normal everyday people in Germany or normal everyday people in Cuba? A capitalistic system may have some problems, but it's never going to fail to provide a supply of food and medicines. You say that some people don't need much to be happy, but what if communism can't provide you even with the bare essentials like food and medicines? Which btw inevitably has happened in every single country that has tried socialism.
Today Russian is not capitalist country like West.
See but here is the thing about capitalism; You can go ahead and study a profession or a trade and become your own boss and your own business. Look at it in that perspective.
Yes, if you take out a loan then you have to pay it... That is logical.@ניקאָלאַי ברומאָווסקי
@ניקאָלאַי ברומאָווסקי You wanted to blame 'the system' for people making bad financial decisions Or is this somehow the mistake of those big bad monopolies which don't prevent anyone from starting their own business..?
"If everyone who couldn’t afford student loans just decided not to go to college 70% of college students in the US wouldn’t be in college." Which is great! Then supply&demand can reestablish. There are so many people wasting their time and money on degrees worth nothing. And do you really think that with the lack of employment employers are just not going to hire new people because they lack some worthless college degree? "but they make it infinitely harder to succeed in certain markets." Then don't try to start a business in those markets, ez fix. In all seriousness, it's up to consumers if they want to support local businesses (which I do) or not. If some large cooperation has better products for the price then maybe it is more desirable to have large cooperations. (But usually there is a cost to being large as well.) "either way I’m glad my country doesn’t operate like the hellhole that is the US social safety system" I personally hate living in a 'social country'. The taxes are insanely high, the market is overregulated, I am forced to pay for the poor choices of others and the housing prices are through the roof. The middle class gets slowly destroyed here. @ניקאָלאַי ברומאָווסקי
6:47 even though she lived under USSR, she has no idea what is Communism. She already said that they have been in that "stage" but the thing is, there was never a Communism yet because Communism is a World Phenomenon or a World Stage of Human Development. Even the Anti Communist Google Wikipedia says that it is the abolishment of State means that the would be no country or separation to each other anymore.
"North Korea is succeeding" OK OK, that is just enough internet for me today. (Love your channel, keep up the great work!)
What he actually said is closer to "North Korea is managing to do this" (to follow the idea of communism)
@@ledkicker2392 in north koria dictatorship not communizm
@@madinamuratkuzu7163North Korea is Proletarian Dictatorship so it is a sense of Socialism that is going for Communism.
2:39-2:55, 4:02- 4:14, 6:45- 7:29 The lady wearing the whitecoat/black hat had the most balanced answers. She explained both capitalism and communism the best. 7:17 sums up the debate between which is better "It is not possible for everyone to be equal. it is not possible for everyone to live good"
As a Chinese, I admire the socialist system with Chinese characteristics very much.
1. You can obtain private property through your struggle. After you master capital, you cannot influence politics.
2. The government is not controlled by capital and can constrain capital. The fields related to people's livelihood and national security are controlled by state-owned companies, such as public transportation, medical care, education, energy and so on. These areas cannot prioritize profit, but consider the public interest.
3. The people, government, and capital have reached a very good balance. The government can constrain capital, and the government can also constrain populism. The happiness of people’s lives reflects how well the government is in power.
In this way, the advantages of capitalism and socialism have been obtained.
Don't tell me about China's ethnic minorities. They are all lies made up by the western media. There are 56 ethnic groups in China, 55 of which are VIP citizens (they can have more children, get bonus points in University, and get interest free or low interest loans in business). The Han nationality with the largest number has the least rights.
@Pakifag no thanks
As an American socialist, I actually think this is a better economic system than what we do in the US and the old planned economies in communist countries. My desired economic system would have more worker control, but this is a huge improvement on the standard capitalist model. In my opinion if China socially liberalized (stronger protections on rights such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, criminal justice protections), and became more Democratic, it could become the gold standard around the world on how a country should be run, and be a major force for freeing the workers of the world from their current masters. Maybe call it “socialism with Chinese and American characteristics”. Much love and respect to China from the USA.
Everything about this comment is horrifying.
5:13 +5000 social credit points glorious comrade
A people can get rid of communism, but never capitalism. Argentina has lived in liberal corporatism since 1976 and has not been able to leave since then.
There people with money do what they want and they make them believe that it is Socialism
Argentina is far more Socialist than capitalist. You can vote your way out of Capitalism, but you have to shoot your way out of Socialism.
“ a people can never get rid of capitalism “ North Korea, GDR, China, USSR, The eastern bloc:
The guy with the Russian flag on his cap gave a beautiful description of capitalism, I wonder how many people in the west would able to do it.
If the USSR didn't have to spend so much in the arms race they could have applied more of the common resources in wellbeing industries. It's all circumstancial
Well, that's the problem of socialism. One group of people controls the economy. You can't expect that much power to be used responsibly.
@@mouwersor As opposed to letting the economy sway uncontrollably in random directions so long as there is profit for the rich. In fact the "free" market requires more interventions and efforts to function than the soviets ever put in their planning. Weapons were a must for the USSR's survival, how much weapons they needed exactly was a difficult question which the free market could never answer
@@KekusMagnus But the economy is not random. It is determined by the desires of people. And in a society where people can at least own land which they can live off the worst-case scenario for any kind of free economy is the natural state. As opposed to the worst-case scenario in planned economies which is mass starvation and genocide.
THis is very interesting. Is it possible to get translating for some of the Russian comments? Thank you.
I recommend trying Google translator. It works very correctly. For example, I am now writing in Russian in instant translation mode.
В социализме есть деньги , но нет продукции.
В капитализме есть продукты , но нет денег.
Вывод - Отто и Броз помогите !(
You could ask them, if communism was so good, why don't they still have it?
They wanted it to stay tho 78 percent wanted to keep the ussr it was illegally dissolved by Gorbachev hints why he can’t never come back and he’s uninversally hated in Russia
@@lorenzograham7854 Their economy collapsed, under Communism nobody is motivated to work because everybody gets paid the same amount no matter what they do. Thats why Russia has no industry other than selling the oil in the ground. What happens when they run out of oil?
The ussr collapsing doesn’t mean it collapsed due to its ideals.
@@Yo-ps2pf It collapsed because the people got tired of being poor. People want freedom and the ability to make themselves a better life. Thats why they come to the US, thats why so many people try to immigrate to the US we have to build walls and fences to slow them down. The communist countries build walls and fences to keep them inside.
@@ellenorbovay5226 Literally the only country to EVER build a wall to keep its people inside was the GDR, and the only reason the GDR done that because its economic problems wasnt because of its communist ideals but rather because it had to compensate for the harsh soviet impact of the world war brought on them by the Nazis, which meant the soviets extracted resources, aside from the fact that majority of Eastern Germans prefer communism than their modern solution,
if the Soviet people really got tired of "being poor" (despite real income raising by 370%, having free healthcare, housing, and education) then answer me as to why did 80% of the soviet people voted to preserve the USSR in an official referendrum?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#:~:text=7%20External%20links-,Overview,and%20freedoms%20of%20any%20nationality.
The only reason the Russians don't have communism is because of Yeltsin and Gorbachev, Yeltsin's unpopular democratic movement made him decide to illegally coup the USSR, kill people, bomb the parliament, take over and then as the drunk capitalist he is, left Russia in a decade of financial crisis, and Gorbachev's decision to allow western sentiments made it worser than it is, which the West intervened into collapsing the USSR.
Please don't spread misinformation because the only wall America built was a wall against Mexico as your previous president was afraid of illegal immigrants, TLDR; bro fr stop tryna BS people lmao
0:26 4:17 4:53 6:19 BASED
alot of common sense wisdom in these people. hello from beautiful NY state USA.
0:26 - у людей такая каша в голове)) Причём здесь люди у власти? Капитализм - это частная собственность, это средства производства в руках частников, и т.д. Власть при этом должна быть наоборот строго отделена от бизнеса.
А кто отделит бизнес от власти?)
@@nikola01 закон.
@@KlimovArtem1 государство и бизнес в капитализме нужны друг другу. Предприниматели всегда ищут возможность расширения и укрепления, которое государство может легко предоставить. Государство заинтересовано в крупном бизнесе, т.к. это большая эффективность производства и финансирования. Условный концерн с десятью заводами и бюджетом в 10 миллионов создаст больше товара, чем десять отдельных заводов с бюджететом в 1 миллион. Так что появление закона, позволяющее бизнесу влиять на государство - это вопрос времени.
@@Торговецложками "Предприниматели всегда ищут возможность расширения и укрепления, которое государство может легко предоставить" - рынок предоставляет возможности, а не гос-во. "заинтересовано в крупном бизнесе" - как раз таки наоборот. Самый большой работодатель при капитализме - это мелкий и средний бизнес, поэтому об его поддержке всегда столько разговоров. Укрупнение и монополизация бизнеса - это то, с чем гос-во должно бороться, для этого создаются ФАС. Но в условиях глобализации и глобальной конкуренции между гос-вами, власти вынуждены позволять бизнесам превращаться в мега корпорации. Это не очень хорошо и в принципе противоречит принципам рыночной экономики. "появление закона, позволяющее бизнесу влиять на государство" - какого закона?
@@KlimovArtem1 я что-то не пойму, а как не дать компаниям расширяться? В конкурентной среде, выживает сильнейший и поглощает проигравшего, усиливая свои позиции. Это раз.
В рыночных условиях, где во главе приоритетов стоит прибыль, а всё является товаром, коррупцию упразднить не возможно. Услуги государства тоже в таких условиях становятся товаром и продаются под тем или иным соусом. (Лобби в сенате США, часть акций компаний передаются властям в самом "не коррумпированном" Сингапуре, путей много) Это два.
6:40 - вот послушайте мудрую бабусю и не фантазируйте по поводу как хорошо было. Перед этим парень сказал что, типо, все прекрасно, все было... по талонам... ппц.
Я согласен с ней
Что за красавец в начале?
тоже интересно
Чистый славянин.красивый,умный и деньги любит!
Communism продемонстрував досконалість над капіталізмом під час пандемії Covid
Nice joke do another one
Первые в космосе, быстрая индустриализация, отличное вооружение и первая по мощи армия, бесплатная медицина, учёба, жильё, авто - "Коммунизм тормозит прогресс..." Понимаю, зато при нашей капиталистической России мы...А что мы? Мы есть.
The first in space, rapid industrialization, excellent weapons and the first powerful army, free medicine, education, housing, cars - "Communism slows down progress..." I understand, but under our capitalist Russia we are...What about us? We are.
По талонам всё, классно, чувак по талонам хочет, дешево, по талонам =)))
Like people everywhere, most have no idea what Capitalism or Socialism (economic systems) or Communism and Democracy (political systems) are--their definitions and impressions are usually quite wrong and therefore they're unable to give intelligent/informed answers. Having said that, I love to hear the opinions and beliefs of Russian people--very enlightening.
Uhm you probably mean "capitalism vs communism" (economic systems) and democracy vs dictatorship (political systems). Socialism is the idea communism takes to become what we have seen so far, and it can be put under a democracy (like modern day Germany, the Netherlands and England - these are very socialist countries) or a dictatorship (China, Cuba...).
dante dante: Russia doesn't have democracy under capitalism either. Capitalism And democracy Are totally unrelated.
@@Anastazka00, if you can point out where I said they’re related that would mean something. But I didn’t, did I?
@@fredpearson5204 Sorry, I meant to reply to Dante Dante.
Lol the guy at 0.40 describes commumisn.
So, the whole world is communist now.
Добрый вечер я Мистер Крабс, я люблю деньги
Every society has rich and poor. With this said the advent of capitilism and the united states system was the first time in history where the individual had the means to succeed then any other time in history.
Интересно что женщины в возрасте попались довольно мудрые в отличии от молодых коммуняк готовых пожертвовать всем за драную квартиру по очереди через 10 лет и даже просить разрешения у чинушей покидать собственную страну. Я рот топтал той страны которая ограничивает выезд из своего "социалистического рая", хоть там какие блага, вы себя хоть маленько уважаете - евреям разрешили уезжать в 1974 году, а вот если "русачок" то сиди дома! Это как вообще понимать?
0:24 he is the most correct
Capitalism sounds bad and works good.
Communism sounds good and works bad.
yeah that’s not at all how it works
@@stxrdustedYeah, that pretty much is.
Russian people are very honest. They hate hypocrits.
Guy at 7.43 told in fact that "USSR is far behind capitalistic countries RIGHT NOW". Somebody tell him there´s no more USSR just right for 30 years.
It´s also funny because when USSR was born instead of early capitalistic Russian Empire it was approximately 100 years behind USA and European countries.
I don't think either Capitalism nor Communism works well with the way our society is structured. The size of the communities is way too big to successfully work out a sense of democracy and union within - it's too anonymous. That is why under capitalism there is this huge gap between rich and poor; why it is so easy for people to exploit humans and to deprive them of their fundamental rights. And it is why communism is often seen as a system too rigid, too strict and underdeveloped - because it is simply not working if we don't integrate the individual in the process of politics.
In a matter of happiness and satisfaction I think one of the best systems is any that includes the individual in a fundamental way, that allows a community to interact in the process of forming a union. Therefore, smaller communities would be beneficial to reach that goal. It wouldn't even really matter what kind of higher political structure one would have there as long as the members are convinced of it.
@6:53 Respect this woman. She has gone through communism for decades so she knows exactly how poor the communists brought it upon their citizens.
USSR was never a Communist. She ain't a Communist so she would never understand what communism's goal is. USSR was a Socialist state and Communism never failed because it has never been Implemented yet, hence it is still just called a Theory and not an actual Stage of Human Development.
I'd say dancing with vodka is so much better than kungfu.
another take on this very contemporary debate :
- maybe those supporting the past system are just remembering only the good parts, their (in some cases acquired) nostalgia won't let them see things for how they really were
- maybe those supporting communism because it obviously wasn't what happened in the eastern block are right but will always appear unjustified (and utopian) to the majority of those who cling to historical examples (even if there is no such thing as a pure historical proof, but I mean philosophy isn't for everybody so maybe it's unfair to blame people people for that) because they have none
- maybe those supporting the current system are either just wishful thinkers, people who like doing what they're told, or simply see the problems in the two above opinions, and think looking at the current system's best is better for them (similarly to the nostalgics, ironically)
(disclaimer : these three points do not claim to close the debate, much more can be said beyond them, ofc)
bottomline... people looking at this video as providing some deeper "truth" are either picking the side that they had already chosen, or being painfully blind to the fact that political theory (and what can be understood from history at a conceptual level) is not something you can solve by asking random (and was it really THAT random ??, one could add) people on the street.
I mean, if it is science (or at least some form of philosophy that tries to accept the scientific facts), not belief and individual taste and choices that can point to the better system, then the likelihood of any of those people (that I don't blame personally, they can have their opinion, it sure can be interesting, and it's always fun to discover contemporary russia) seeing the whole picture with objectivity is really, really low.
There is no correct answer to political questions because these big questions like the mode of production largely are determined by the economic base of society, the current level of material development, which are far beyond any individual's control. Liberals did not invent capitalism. When the French Revolution and the American Revolution happened, capitalism already largely existed, and the monarchies were just trying to hold it back. The feudal governments could not prevent the industrialization and expansion of markets from naturally giving rise to capitalism. In _Wealth of Nations,_ Smith also criticizes the notion that the feudal system came into existence because of feudal law, but that feudal law was placed over a system that had already come into existence largely naturally on its own.
The point is, there is no "correct" answer to what is the "best" system. Feudalism was not possible in early ancient times. Capitalism was not possible in early feudal times. But feudalism or the ancient system is no longer possible to implement today. There is no way, unless we began reversing economic progress and started a nuclear war or something, that we could ever return to hunter-gatherer or feudal societies. This is not a result of individuals simply having "better ideas", but the material level of development, the economic base, is no longer compatible with it.
What system you can implement effectively supersedes a person's personal feelings on what system is better, and this differs from time and place. No genuine Marxist would deny that capitalism can't ever be a good system. It has been a good system. But it is specific to an era, and epoch in the development of human history, and cannot be viewed as eternal. You have to analyze how capitalism slowly changes in order to predict what new system it would give rise to.
The Chinese criticism of Soviet model was that they did not understand how gradual these transitions are, and tried to jump to full socialism even though they were basically semifeudal under the Tsar, with only a few short years of capitalism under Lenin. This was placing the superstructure far ahead of the actual economic base, it was placing _politics_ above _reality_ and inevitably would lead to economic problems. Hence, they should have simply accepted that nationalizing all industries was fundamentally not possible to maintain efficiently and naturally, and that they'd have to maintain a somewhat high level of markets for a long long time.
Although, most socialist countries knew that by the 1980s and were trying to reform. The USSR just had much deeper political problems that prevented any sort of reform from actually working.
@@bunchberry_ the infrastructure being out of the individual's reach does not imply no correct statement can be made about an economic system... it's just that the information needed is difficult to acquire.
also, information, as well as other parts of the superstructure, as well as control over parts of the infrastructure, are not evenly distributed to the population. those possessing most of those are the bourgeoisie, thus, the common folk are less likely to have a clearer understanding (less likely not meaning impossible) of the economic and political situation.
also, as I hinted in the OP, one can ask a philosophical question in abstraction to the economic reality of one's time. one can - it does not necessarily mean those questions are relevant, but in the end, if one tries to make an argument about how things should be, then one necessarily strays away from how things are. and I don't think those thoughts are futile, in some respects, they are essential to culture. and superstructure is not fully determined by the infrastructure, it is mostly determined by it (and I believe Marx did not contradict this, because in his eyes the communist may succeed because they understand the economy and its historical evolution, but that alone is not enough, they have to organize, and to organize implies some superstructural productions/actions).
of course, there is room for mistakes when debating such ideas with limited information. but that is precisely the reason why even the hardcore materialists can have a biased view of the political situation (Lenin in your example), and further criticism might not be anything else than "captain hindsight" (the Chinese, which is pretty ironic with today's hindsight).
also, I'm not sure marxian thought can be correctly said to point out to a "good" system... of course capitalism is necessary to the development of a newer system, but that does not make it ethical until the newer system exists and proves to be profoundly and durably qualitatively superior than capitalism was. which could be the case if we reach a classless society, but before that, society's moral standard will always be the bourgeois' one (or any ruling class, which in our age all have ties to the bourgeoisie) so morally qualifying any economic system is bound to be a worthless individual opinion (or at least to be perceived as such) unless it aligns with the dominant ideologies (a necessarily biased ethical position, if social inequality is considered unjustified). my point being, there is a difference between a system being better than the previous one, and a system being inherently good and able to put a term to the previous long-term dynamics of political economy (now as for the question whether one can actually know if a system is inherently good and able to make such an improvement to human history : I'd say let's hope for it, but let's not rely too much on that, as you have said, consistent knowledge of the infrastructure is crucial anyway).
Lady @ 7:00 knows something the others don't
Забайкальский край....
“But some people cant afford things”
Yeah im pretty sure thats not the best thing
07:06 OMG! Love that Lady!
All she did was repeat the same junk arguments you see on the internet. I guess you're happy some laywoman validated your junk beliefs.
@@prs_81 yep..
I love her too. Very smart and good articulation
@Hakim Habib "commons sense" is relative.
@Hakim Habib the reason those attempts failed was much more complicated than you think. It was not the inherent flaws of Communism, but rather, the stubbornness of Capitalism and its domination of the globe. Capitalism isolates countries that want to free themselves from it and sanctions and invades them. Just take a look at USSR. Lasted for nearly a century and then was undemocratically dissolved thanks to Gorbachev. The hard part of Communism is the global revolution, which was squashed back in the early 20th century by Capitalist powers. This here is not the case of you burning your hand, it's you trying to put out the fire and someone else just stoking the fire. Common sense tells you to remove that someone else from the equation.
What ist tgis city?
"I like money." xD
North Korea is doing good? Did I miss something?
I believe in socialism and communism. However, the current level of productivity makes human beings only in the stage of capitalist society. There must be a long period of capitalism before going to communism.
2 кошкожены от товарища Xi
@@comradeking4427 Yes, China will always be a third world country, and I am very proud of it. But I don't think the US system will dominate forever. Capitalism is not the end of humanity. If all the third world countries can be integrated, the neoliberal framework can be dismantled. The replacement of feudal society by capitalist society is a long-term process. Neoliberalism is no longer a myth after 2008, and the West has begun to slowly decline. Of course, capitalism will exist for a long time. The failure of socialism and communism in the Soviet Union and China lies in the fact that these two countries have hardly experienced capitalist society, and the country’s productivity does not match the social system. If you think about it, the Industrial Revolution allowed the system of monarch power to be conferred, and feudalism quickly fell apart in the world. Do you think mankind will never have a similar industrial revolution in the future, or have learned to use fire for qualitative changes? The communist society I am talking about is not what has happened in China or the communism of the Soviet Union. Marx is studying the law of objective development of human science. He believed that capitalism would definitely collapse and be replaced by communism, but Russia and China did not have the conditions to enter communism at that time.
@@ПаджЗаждался The CCP does not mean communism. China is now a capitalist country, not a communist country.
@@FarisMoringstar "Косплей" внешних атрибутов и тоталитарный централизм в Китае никуда не делись.И "Падж" говорил про кошко-жён,а не про коммунистическую партию...
@@comradeking4427 Are you a historical nihilist? Serfdom in Russia was abolished in 1861. In 1914, Russia was considered a country with a very low degree of industrialization in Europe. Otherwise, how would the Russian Empire be defeated by Germany in World War I. Russia developed rapidly during the Stalin era, when the capitalist world economy was in the Great Depression. The Soviet Union quickly imported American lathes and technology by exporting grain, and became the number one industrial power in Europe. American industry was number one in the world at the time. The Cultural Revolution is indeed the CCP’s fault, but it is not as exaggerated as you think. The Cultural Revolution broke away China's feudal superstition and created equal rights for men and women. The Cultural Revolution was a tragedy caused by the proliferation of populism and low productivity.