Communism & Socialism: What Do They REALLY Mean?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 сер 2024
- Socialism and communism: What do these words really mean? What’s the truth? This video explains the definitions of communism and socialism, discusses the controversy and debate over their meaning, and looks at differing perspectives on how to define these terms.
(Sources/bibliography further down… keep scrolling!)
VIDEO CHAPTERS
0:00 Introduction
1:16 Defining Communism
14:12 Defining Socialism
20:27 Ambiguity and Different Interpretations
23:16 Differences Between Socialism & Communism
25:03 Each Definition is Aligned with a Different Political Philosophy
25:54 Wrap-up
26:48 Super Special Awesome Thing
========================================================
Would you like to help me and my channel? You can if you: like and comment (this feeds the
algorithm), and please also tell people about my channel.
You can also donate (monthly via patreon, one-time via PayPal, or either via Ko-fi)
/ 1luckyblackcat
paypal.com/paypalme/1LuckyBla...
ko-fi.com/LuckyBlackCat
And if you think this video has an important message, help spread it by sharing the video.
My upload schedule is unpredictable, so if you don’t want to miss a video, be sure to subscribe
and click the bell to turn on all notifications.
♥ Thank you! ♥
========================================================
►►Check out some of my other videos◄◄
► POST-CAPITALISM: A Detailed Look at How It Could Work • POST-CAPITALISM: A Det...
► Police: Reform? Defund? Abolish? • Police: Reform? Defund...
► Why Capitalism Doesn't Work: Response to PragerU • Why Capitalism Doesn't...
► Playlist (all videos) • LuckyBlackCat Videos
SOURCES / BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Listed in order of appearance in the video, not alphabetically)
Defining communism
• Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, chapter 2, 1848 libcom.org/library/communist-...
• Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, part 1, 1875 libcom.org/article/karl-marx-...
• Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Neue Rheinische Zeitung Politisch-ökonomische Revue, in: Marx & Engels Collected Works, vol. 10
• Karl Marx, Capital: Volume 2, part 3 chapter 18
• Peter Kropotkin, “Communism and Anarchy”, 1901 theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...
• Peter Kropotkin, “Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles”, 1887 theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...
• Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread libcom.org/article/conquest-b... (Audiobook: libcom.org/article/conquest-b...)
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
• Encyclopedia Britannica www.britannica.com/topic/comm...
Defining socialism
• Peter Lamb & James C. Docherty, Historical Dictionary of Socialism: 2nd Edition, The Scarecrow Press: 2006, pp. 1-2
• “Socialism” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu/entries/so...
• Wlodzimierz Brus, The Economics and Politics of Socialism, Routledge: 2013, p. 87
• Branko Horvat, “Social ownership”, Reader’s Guide to the Social Sciences, Jonathan Michie (ed.), Routledge: 2001, p. 1516
• Donald F. Busky, Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Praeger: 2000, p. 2
VISUAL CREDITS
polcompball.miraheze.org
www.freepik.com
• Animal icon vector by terdpongvector
• Background collection vector by starline
• Eyewear photo by wayhomestudio
• Surprise man photo by wayhomestudio
Tony Biddle (Economics for Everyone by Jim Stanford)
MUSIC CREDITS
• Tchaikovsky: Tea (The Nutcracker)
• Media Right Productions: Jazz In Paris
• Lauren Duski: Jindupe
• dMoney: slow-trap-drums_104bpm
• User834012884543: 90s-hip-hop-drum-loop_86bpm_C_minor
• Brian Boyko: Born Barnstormers
• Andrew Langdon: Dorian
• Scott Joplin: The Entertainer
• sad sound effect
• Kevin MacLeod: Cold Funk - Funkorama
• Kevin MacLeod: Carefree
• Kevin MacLeod’s website incompetech.com/ and CC license for songs creativecommons.org/licenses/...
DONATIONS
(Monthly) / 1luckyblackcat
(One time) paypal.com/paypalme/1LuckyBla...
(Both options) ko-fi.com/LuckyBlackCat
CONTACT
1luckyblackcat at g m a i l
/ 1luckyblackcat
SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATIONS
socialism, communism, socialist, communist, what do they really mean, differences, differences between, definition, definitions, basic definitions, explained, explaining, meaning, LuckyBlackCat, Lucky Black Cat
Thanks for watching! ♥ Wanna watch another?
POST-CAPITALISM: A Detailed Look at How It Could Work ua-cam.com/video/AuC7Qmk7TfA/v-deo.html
Or binge watch: ua-cam.com/play/PLpgXZBN8fmc0t-rRGgKwDYfkBNSd8jYDS.html
Thank you so much to everyone who has sent me donations. Your help is truly appreciated. (I made this video before I launched my patreon and ko-fi, so I couldn't add a thank you in the video.)
And to everyone reading this: From deep within my heart, I wish you all the best for today and everyday.
*Edit:*
An important comment by @Erika Whelan
"While I understand what's meant by "all work will be voluntary," I think it's a pernicious trope that obfuscates the actual nature of work under communism, and gives ammunition to anti-communists. Work, or labor, has never been, and will never be, voluntary; it is always performed out of the compulsion of survival. Humans work, they perform labor, because it is how we reproduce our existence.
"Work will be performed because it is necessary, as it has been performed because it is necessary under capitalism, and was necessary under previous modes of production; the difference will be why it's necessary; instead of working because of the coercion of economic forces beyond our control that owe their existence to the need to support a parasitic class that lives from the labor of others, in order to increase the surplus product at their disposal, we will work because it is necessary to ensure the reproduction of society and fulfill our need for things to consume to reproduce our existence, maintain the young, the sick, the disabled, and the elderly, and, because our labor will no longer be performed in the service of others, producing things that will be used only to further immiserate and impoverish us, we will no longer find it tedious or degrading and will instead be empowered by it."
And then some additional nuance added by @Louis Victor
"… Yes, someone needs to grow food, the work is necessary, but you still freely chose to do it yourself without any coercion. Which is one of the reasons why the wording "voluntary" is often prefered. It needs fewer clarifications, and usually people intuitively get that what is voluntary is on the individual level of chosing to perform a specific task, not on the social "but does someone still needs to do it at least a little or we all die, though" level."
I like this addition and I think we can come to a synthesis: In communism, work is voluntary for the individual, but it of course remains mandatory on a collective/societal level because this is necessary in order to meet our needs.
So glad Innuendo Studios put this in the Alt-Right Playbook playlist! This is a really good overview, and a handy link to have available next time someone wants me to explain communism to them. We really need to find a new word for Libertarians though. The right went and got its fascism cooties all over that one, and I think we've past the point of no return for taking it back. Although a video about what that word is supposed to mean, versus it's use in the popular vernacular might be a useful one as well.
Egalitarian works for my purposes. "Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people." Try it out.
While I understand what's meant by "all work will be voluntary," I think it's a pernicious trope that obfuscates the actual nature of work under communism, and gives ammunition to anti-communists. Work, or labor, has never been, and will never be, voluntary; it is always performed out of the compulsion of survival. Humans work, they perform labor, because it is how we reproduce our existence. Work will be performed because it is necessary, as it has been performed because it is necessary under capitalism, and was necessary under previous modes of production; the difference will be *why* it's necessary; instead of working because of the coercion of economic forces beyond our control that owe their existence to the need to support a parasitic class that lives from the labor of others, in order to increase the surplus product at their disposal, we will work because it is necessary to ensure the reproduction of society and fulfill our need for things to consume to reproduce our existence, maintain the young, the sick, the disabled, and the elderly, and, because our labor will no longer be performed in the service of others, producing things that will be used only to further immiserate and impoverish us, we will no longer find it tedious or degrading and will instead be empowered by it.
Very true! Hearting because I hope others will read your comment, as this should have been a point I made in my video.
I am technically speaking disabled, I could do work, but a 9 to 5 would kill me, I cannot depend on work for my survival, but would be willing to work to better the lives of others, as long as I can do it in moderation, and according to my own ability. I think labor is good, labor can give meaning to life, labor can make a society better, labor does not have to be the capitalist version of the word.
Well said. I'm sorry this system creates obstacles to your being able to contribute your labor. It's a loss for both you and for society, because I'm sure you have much to give. But of course it's the case that you also are already giving in many ways. Like I consider your comments on this video to be an important contribution of your labor, because you've gifted us with valuable insights. So thank you!
[This seems largely semantic so take my response as basically just that. So far, it seems we all are generally in agreement in what things are/ought to be anyway.]
While I see what you're saying, you've basically gone the full other way and managed to overshadow some nuance. Not all labor/work/however we call that is due to survival needs. By far and large, scientific and artistic work aren't for survival needs (maybe some of it, yeah, but in terms of just sheer volume done, most of it isn't for survival but higher quality of life). So if you're definig necessary on a survival basis, most work would still be voluntary. But there is another issue here, a more important one, is that a task being necessary for our surival/well being, and the actual doing of it being voluntary are not fully mutually exclusive, specially because they're framed from different perspectives. Yes, someone needs to grow food, the work is necessary, but you still freely chose to do it yourself without any coercion. Which is one of the reasons why the wording "voluntary" is often prefered. It needs fewer clarifications, and usually people intuitively get that what is voluntary is on the individual level of chosing to perform a specific task, not on the social "but does someone still needs to do it at least a little or we all die, though" level.
@@louisvictor3473 "scientific and artistic work aren't for survival needs" I have to disagree with you here. Most work in science and art is done for the same reason work in manufacturing or agriculture is done; people need money, so they do a job that produces a commodity that's sold on the market. In fact, most work in science and art *is* manufacturing.
I would further submit that, in fact, science and art *are* necessary for survival. Not merely on a brute, physical level, but for the production of full human beings. That we've come to understand survival primarily in terms of the bare physical needs (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) is a testament to the (for lack of a better word) spiritual impoverishment of capitalism. Human beings need things like science and art to survive because we are more than mere automata. While science has historically always been an effective monopoly of the ruling class, art was not; the advent of capitalism, and especially the industrial revolution, was responsible for its alienation from the producing classes. Once so alienated, however, such pursuits are effectively monopolized by the ruling class and labor devoted to science qua science or art qua art, i.e., intellectual production, becomes surplus labor. The bourgeoisie constantly seek to reduce to a minimum the time available to the working class to perform such surplus labor because it reduces the time available to *them* to perform it. Here, again, however, we see that this production is not voluntary; it's a necessary part of the production of human beings, but, because the working class is reduced to a mere instrument of labor, an appendage of the machinery employed by the capitalist class to reproduce its own existence, we are conditioned to see it as something to be engaged in purely voluntarily.
Having said that, however, I do take your point about the nuance of it being voluntary for the individual. I'm not sure that nuance is understood, but it's a good point.
Good stuff LBC! I think this is a solid exploration of fundamentals and a perfect entry point for anyone looking to learn more about communism and socialism (and a little dash of anarchism).
Hey Phil! ☺ It's really nice to hear from you after my long absence from youtube. Thanks for your support.
Sadly, over the last few years I've seen more and more people (almost exclusively online, I'm not a very online person and thankfully haven't seen it in real world spaces, but it definitely seems to have some juice with some people) claim that their ideal communism is actually a utopian benevolent state that handles everything behind the scenes. It's weird. But I think I even saw something where Zizek said something similar.
I hate to say it, I sometimes think the over emphasis on socialism/communism and not enough on the reasons why, ending all forms of alienation, domination, imperialism, colonialism, exploitation, ect, and towards a world of freedom, autonomy, equality, solidarity, peace, justice, security, dignity, and ecological living as well as some currents divorcing means from ends is exactly what leads to many of these divisions 🏴
Yeah, these labels cause so much trouble and confusion. The reason I don't abandon them completely is because there is a rich history of both theory and actual social struggle/movements connected with these terms, and although a lot of that is not anything I'd endorse, a lot of it is really beautiful and insightful and inspiring. So I don't want us to lose touch with that.
But yeah, never mind labels, it's all about substance. As you say: "ending all forms of alienation, domination, imperialism, colonialism, exploitation, ect, and towards a world of freedom, autonomy, equality, solidarity, peace, justice, security, dignity, and ecological living"
Great definitions! But with so many, no wonder it gets confusing, thank you for the video!
It's confusing indeed! Glad you liked the video ☺
"They lie, because all politicians lie"
It's worse than that, they believed their own lies.
I'm glad you're making these videos, IMHO they were VERY needed! I can't think of any other channel that can explain these topics in such an understandable way.
Thanks comrade, that really means a lot to me today. Been feeling kinda down since this video is performing below average in views and watch time. But I know that it's bad to focus on this stuff, I just need to focus on doing the best work I can and keep moving forward. But still, I was feeling a little bit down, and your comment helped. Since one of my big goals with my videos is to explain things in a very understandable way, it feels good to hear you say that I've achieved this, so thank you.
@@LuckyBlackCatThis is great! Please, don't be down about the view count.
It is THE definitive video essay guide on UA-cam as far as I know... and I've searched. It also manages to be non-partisan in tone, which is absolutely amazing.
I am sending this to everyone I've ever had a political discussion with... (it's the only kind of discussion I consider worthwhile nowadays).
This has now become a recommended viewing for my students, community, friends, family, etc. on the topic.
Thank you.
@@LuckyBlackCat Your video have some flaws and shortcomings, but you're just one person doing it! And that's incredible. IMHO they're the perfect basis to build upon. Either as an introduction to the topics, or in the future possibly a remake that can address the issues to better refine the message. Don't worry much about "not being good enough", a released video is *much better* than one that is never released. An imperfect video that teaches people stuff is much better than a perfect video that doesn't exist. Keep doing your stuff and in the future when you run out of topics consider remaking the most important videos, hopefully with some help from comrades that loved them. Best of luck!
And I agree with the other commenter here. Many other lefties that teach similar topics here become too alienating in one way or another (either because of their authoritarian tendencies, or because become too boring/long/difficult to understand) or too friendly to capitalism. You're on the sweet spot IMHO.
@@tenmanX Holy shit, this really helps me feel quite a lot better. Thank you for giving me a brighter view of things. And thank you for sharing this video so widely. We must reach outside the leftist bubble.
@@DiThi Thanks so much. And good suggestion about going back to old topics and improving in the future as I improve my insights and video making skills.
Btw, you say this video has some flaws and shortcomings, which I don't dispute, but did you already share your criticism? In the last week+ I've received enough critical comments on this and my other video that I can't remember who said what anymore. If you haven't shared your criticisms please do so I can consider them for future videos.
Though I do see there is this one:
""They lie, because all politicians lie"
"It's worse than that, they believed their own lies."
This is suuuuuper useful and I'll definitely be sharing this around. Thanks!
Awwww, thank you so much! 🥰
There's one disagreement over definitions that goes (sadly) unnoticed all the time on the left, and it causes a lot of problems. Namely, anarchism-aligned leftists and 'state socialism'-aligned leftists use the term 'the state' differently. When anarchists talk of the state, they are referring to the institution or complex of institutions that claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (monopoly on violence) in a society. On the other hand, state socialists (and most people) think of the state large as the institution or complex of institutions responsible for *governance and administration* in a society. These are not the same thing at all, it's entirely possible to have the latter without the former. As a result of this misalignment, arguments between anarchism-leaning leftists and state socialist-leaning leftists often arise where there is no fundamental disagreement at all, because to each of them it *sounds* like there's fundamental disagreement.
Thanks for your comment and you raise a good point. There is a lot of confusion on this term. However, state-socialists and mainstream academics also acknowledge the monopoly on violence feature of the state. The difference is that anarchists also point out the fact that the state is a dominance hierarchy. But you're right that people in general often speak of the state as a set of institutions involved in governance and administration.
In this video I perhaps should have taken the time to give a longer and somewhat more detailed definition of the state in this video, but I was trying to keep it short. I plan to do this in a video that will be coming out in mid-Feb.
Great vid, awesome explaining and good to see you back comrade :)
Thank you, comrade! It's good to be back.
Okay now you’re just spoiling us ...
Good shareable video. I think some of my friends will receive this when they ask what I mean with communism or socialism. Thanks!
Hey, that's great! Thanks so much. I always appreciate very much when anyone shares my videos, especially with those who aren't already within the leftist bubble.
You said I wouldn't have to wait as long for another video, you told the truth. You must be some kind of...truther...wait, no not that.
LuckyBlackCat a truther confirmed 😱
here from Innuendo studios! Great video!
Thanks! :)
I've actually been wondering this for a while tysm
Excellent! I'm so glad this video found you.
She's back
Yep! ☺
Thank you for your video. Informative and entertaining to the end. Although I did hit Like at Pickle Destroying.
And no, it's not corny to call us comrade, Comrade.
Haha! Very glad you liked it, comrade. :) And ah! I can tell from your comment you've supported me on patreon! That really means a lot to me. Thank you so much.
The heart is to celebrate appreciation for the word comrade
Wow!
Great yo have a new video from you!
Thank you!
Glad to see a new video from you
Thank you ☺
Nice that Innuendo Studios put this in the playlist.
Communism wasn't just some thing that popped up in the USSR one day it's been a very nuanced debate dating back to like the 1500s and then some French dudes . Communism has just as many different groups of philosophy as capitalism does.
Can you make a video critiquing communism/socialism (not past governments but the idea itself)? It would be interesting to hear about a communist's thoughts on the system's shortcomings.
BTW I'm still iffy that the communist idea of incentive would work. People are incentivized by numerous things, not just the betterment of their peers, and as such a common incentive (money) is needed to represent this IMO.
They could be interested in the betterment of their fellow human because that would maximize their own happiness as well as others.
@@IamBrixTM The only way that would yield more happiness is if everyone else bought into the system. The moment a person with even slightly selfish motives (like being lazy or just wanting to better their own life) comes into the picture everyone stands at a net loss.
Another excellent video!!
Thank you so much, comrade! ☺🌱
My only issue with communism is like… how do I buy drugs in a moneyless society??
They'd be available for free. This would have to be combined with efforts in harm reduction for drug users and rehabilitation for addicts. But by decreasing how alienating and detrimental to our psychological wellbeing our society is, this will be the most effective thing to decrease addiction.
a wild breath of fresh air reappears!
Aww shucks ☺
Great video, as always. I'd still like to add some thoughts, if that's okay. I apologise in advance, if you've already made the same point and I missed it.
I think it may be helpful to point out that communism is a form of socialism rather than something else entirely. A difference in degree, like saying all communists are socialist but not all socialists are communist. Another possible issue I see is with the presentation of communist leaders and the anarchist leaders. It should be clarified that not only do both sides have different ways of transitioning to communism, but they're even different from each other.
As far as Marx goes defining socialism and communism, I believe(from what I've read of his work) his position would be that the revolutionary phase would be a form of socialism as it should contain major socialist elements, but is not THE definition of socialism itself. In general, his emphasis is on what he called scientific socialism, as opposed to other socialisms. I mention this because you seemed(probably mistakenly by me) to present Marx as contradicting himself.
See you in the next video's comment section, Comrade.
Hello AOLA! Hope you don't mind the acronym. Yes, communism is a form of socialism. I don't think I made that point in this video, but I do in the video that will be coming out in mid-February.
Marx used the words socialism and communism interchangeably, but he did make a distinction between what he called the "higher phase of communist society" and "the first phase of communist society" (which many now call lower stage communism). This is in Critique of the Gotha Programme. That being said, many people who identify as Marxists will make a distinction between socialism and communism, saying that socialism is the transition between capitalism and communism.
@@LuckyBlackCat Hello again. Thanks for the reply.
I completely agree with you about his COTGP, but I was meaning to refer to his writings on that revolutionary phase of the class struggle. Specifically, his Communist League papers in 1850, which refer to an early stage of the struggle that may include socialist elements. Again, I only mention this because, from the video, it seemed like his definitions were in contradiction or that he didn't have an idea of what communist revolution might look like, which was mentioned immediately after.
Anyway, it's probably not important. Although, I would like to know where, and in what context, he mentioned socialism as to mean a stateless, moneyless, and classless society. I've heard a lot of people mention that exact phrase you used about the interchangeability. It's probably buried in the volumes of capital somewhere lol.
@@anopinionatedlaymanappears9052 Ah I see, you're talking about in the Communist Manifesto when he and Engels talk about "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and give a 10 point platform (I think it was 10) for proceeding with this? Ok yeah, the things listed on that platform overlap with what some people would today identify as socialist. So you're right about that. It's just that Marx never called this socialism, he called it the dictatorship of the proletariat, or as you put it the revolutionary phase.
As for finding the exact Marx quotes where he refers to a stateless, classless, moneyless society as socialism/socialist, I wish I knew. I've seen them over the years but never noted down the books it occurs in let alone the chapters or page numbers. I think the way to investigate would be to find free online PDFs or text of Marx's completed works, and do a ctrl+F search for "socialis" (so you can find both socialist and socialism in your search).
Dropping a like and comment now for the algorithm... Gonna have to watch when I'm done selling my time to my boss, unfortunately
Thanks for the algo juice! For some reason youtube recommends between 2pm and 4pm EST as a good time to release a video on Friday, even though most people in this timezone, and nearby timezones, are at work during these hours.
@@LuckyBlackCat Maybe because of those workers that can afford to pretend they're working (particularly on late Fridays when it's harder for such workers to do any productive job). Also because of Europeans like me winding down before going to sleep.
True, it's important to remember there's a whole other hemisphere for who it is several hours later than it is over here. Forgetting this must mean I'm a bad internationalist 😖
Update: the video deserves many likes!
@@zozzy4630 I'm glad you think so. Thank you!
Easy. Communism is when no money, when kalashnikovs, and when color red. Socialism is same.
Great vid!
"You'll have to join me on my next video" Same Cat time, Same Cat channel. (This meme brought to youto you from the year 1966...I like to keep things relevant)
Well, now I feel better about making the chia pet reference in my previous video. That joke brought to you by 1989.
I like your explanations, good videos.
So how many pickles lost their lives in the filming of this video?
Only the one. RIP.
Thanks
You're very welcome :)
_Spread the bread, comrade!_
I: Time to catch up on your videos at last! Looking forward to it ^^
Awesome a new video!
Thank you! ☺
Proudhon is hard to read, but from what I get from him, he would perhaps not be socialist by your definition? I am not sure Proudhon would define the means of production as being owned by all of society (he did have his own way of defining private property after all), but he did mean the means of production, in lets say in the form of a factory or farm, to be owned by the particular workers that worked there; I would also add that he would believe in work for the common good, but there is still a profit motive when an enterprise is privately owned by a group of group of workers, even if Proudhon seems to have believed that prices would fall to around the cost of production of an item, when market competition took place. Sorry if this comment is a bit technical for this video defining socialism and communism, an-caps try to win mutualists of Proudhon's type, over to their side, but we always say we are of the left and are socialist. P..S. I do see the "Libertarian Market Socialists" mentioned, so I guess I can continue calling myself a socialist 😉
Hi! I think it's fair to call Proudhon a socialist. However, mutualism or any sort of market socialism is, in my opinion, the wrong approach to socialism, because markets maintain too many of the problems of capitalism: the profit motive, economic competition, inequality, unemployment, inflation or price instability, the risk of recessions, etc.
That being said, I think some sort of mutualist or market socialist system will likely be part of a transition between capitalism and a marketless socialism (or actual communism). And I consider libertarian market socialists to be comrades, despite our differences.
The different types of "socialism", or different ideas of what a socialist economic system should be like, will be the topic of next week's video.
So that makes me a Confused Communist, and a Surprise-me Socialist.
Lol... sounds fun
Hello there, new subscriber, thanks for all your time and effort, yeah KM gets in my nerves of course, been pondering for yrs over whether the use of tainted misinterpreted, or open for interpretation terms is practical or fruitful, i consider it better not to use them at all, and find new terminologies that have a better chance of unifying people rather than dividing them!!
Hello there! ☺ I've gone back and forth on whether to use these terms or not. I think an argument can be made on either side of it. Personally I decided not to completely abandon these terms because, despite all the many perils of using them, and all the potential for misunderstanding, there is a rich history of theory and social struggle/movements that these words are connected to, some which is very useful, and I won't want to lose that. But that being said, when talking to people it's probably best to leave these words out of the conversation until a time when you think you can use them without the other person suddenly closing their mind.
Btw, what is KM?
@@LuckyBlackCat Hey, thanks so much for the reply!! No mean feet trying to change society for the better, most people are shackled to ingrained thought patterns, triggered so easily, including myself many times...!! Ive no doubt youve gone through the thought processes multiple times, and whats certain,is it ain't easy finding solutions that suit everyone, not easy at all!!
100% agree on carefully choosing ones wording when trying to have a positive effect on people, i try to do so as much as i can, depends mostly on how much I'm inspired by who im addressing...
'KM', Karl Marx, not a big fan, couldn't help notice you refer to him quite a bit..!! 🙄😁😋
@@michaelkyriacou7026 It's great to you try to approach these conversations thoughtfully and strategically.
KM=Karl Marx... oh right! I'm a libertarian-socialist so I have significant political differences with him, but despite my disagreements there's a lot of common ground. And he's certainly much less authoritarian than most of the people who call themselves Marxists today.
@@LuckyBlackCat Why thank you, i guess you can call me a dreamer.. !!! 😊 My "label" would be "Anarcho-communist", so yeah...
saying that, you have managed to at least install in me the potential, of me maybe taking another look into his work, perhaps even try to be less prejudiced this time, i dunno ... 🙄🤔😺
@@michaelkyriacou7026 In that case you may be interested in the video I just released less than half an hour ago: "The *Socialist* Political Compass: Methods to create socialism". In particular the chapter that starts at 17:50 discusses Karl Marx's ideas.
do love a yo moma joke
So does yo mama; she told me last night.
Comment for engagement 😃
Engagement accepted. So when's the wedding?
I'm going witth Anarcho- socialism, for several reaons:
1/ Robert Evans identifies as one.
2/ Anarchy and socialism...? What could possibly go wrong...?
3/ Why would anyone NOT want to be?
Beard point is spot on
I do get what you're going for here, though I think it is important to emphasize that the split really starts with Lenin, whose actually practiced philosophy (and its continuation, and others largely based on it) as pointed out was not communist at all, or socialist by definitions other than his own, and the states create were/are observably only moving away from that communism goal. Before the Bolshevik uprising and coup, it seems it was quite the common practice to use both terms indistinguishably or at least functionally indistinguishably. While for educational purposes we can't just ignore their existence, of course, I do feel that we shouldn't present the Leninist and heavily Leninism influenced definitions in a way that can be easily read as equally valid and equally communist/socilaistic points of view, when the bulk of the ideologies they come from are only "communist" in name only, if even.
Hey there! You're right that Lenin putting his own spin on the definition of socialism was a big turning point in how this term has been interpreted ever since. I very strongly believe that the system his Party created does not deserve to be called socialism. But since so many people use the word in that way, it's something that needs to be contended with.
My next video is going to look at different ways that socialism is defined and interpreted, including how it's defined and interpreted by adherents of Lenin. I look at the arguments for and against the legitimacy of the "socialist" label for each interpretation, and I don't hit the audience over the head with my own opinions, but I think that an objective look at both sides of the debate will in most cases make one conclusion more obviously right than the other. However I leave it for viewers to make their own mind up (which they would do anyways regardless of what I say).
@@LuckyBlackCat I get what you mean and I see where you coming from here. And, just in cae my current interpersonal malfunctioning got the best of me, by no means I was trying to say your presentation was bad, and apologies if I sound rude (not intended, just unable to judge how my own tone atm). Heck, I wouldn't remove any from it, thenonly alteration I had in mind is small addition, more of a caveat.
In this case, I don't think it would be bashing people in the head with you own view though, while I do admit to be have some bias there (basically "Lenists, derivatives and capitalist propagandists don't get to define our words"), so they might color my words. The thing here is that it is observable that there was a shift in usage of these terms at that point. It is also easily observable, if not technically objectively so, that nearly all other people who identify with a socialistic/leftist ideology reject Leninism's derivatives. So this is mostly just pointing this info out, and any extra emphasis is primarily to reinforce the importance of these observation.
Anyway, it was a good vid either way, keep up the good work, and have a lovely week.
No worries at all! I didn't think you were rude or anything like that. And I agree with what you say about stating my own views on this topic in my videos, and I plan to do exactly that in future videos. However I wanted to make a few videos (this one and a few more that will be coming out over the next few weeks) that are more neutral in tone, and present a relatively objective overview of various perspectives on socialism. This is intended to be an educational foundation that I can build on in future videos as I bring in my own perspective.
Lenin was a communist and the Soviet Union was socialist. You have to embrace that comrade. Lenin is one of the most influential political figures in history and his ideas were/are the pinnacle ideas for any actual attempts at socialist transition on a large scale.
@@trevorp6552 I am not comrade with the voluntarily delusional. You can take your historical revision and fantasy, and shove it up back inside your ass.
Algorithm points xxxx
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro were all following the Marxist methodology of "scientific socialism" in which was need a priestly class to study and interpret Marx's works and to "discover" the natural evolutionary laws of economics and history. Once these laws were laid bare, then leaders can work with those laws to accelerate the development of the productive forces and technology which are needed to transition to a fully automated luxury communism. The idea that you can have a blueprint and just create communism was silly to Marxists. But just like FDR said "the only laws in economics are man made laws." Meaning the organization of the economy is entirely socially constructed and you can build an economy from a blueprint.
I think we need balance between "we'll figure it out spontaneously after the revolution" vs. "let's figure out everything now (i.e. make a blueprint and implement that)." No plan survives contact with reality. I think it's important to have specific criteria in mind when creating socialism or communism, but I don't think this should be a detailed blueprint which is imposed on society. Instead I think that the people who are alive during and after a revolution should collaborate to create something together, and experiment with various ideas, with different regions and communities having somewhat different ways of doing things. We can't determine in advance what the best way of organizing society will be, only by trial and error can we gather the empirical evidence to find out what works and what doesn't (also keeping in mind that the same thing might work well under some conditions but fail under others).
That being said, we can already gather empirical evidence from history, anthropology, and an analysis of present conditions in order to better understand what basic criteria are important and should be universally adopted (such as the importance of abolishing private ownership of the means of production).
@@LuckyBlackCat One term comes to mind for that very brilliant reply... dialectical materialism.
Me (in an idealist funk): Why can't we all think like this?
"We can't determine in advance what the best way of organizing society will be" I argue thats completely false and economically illiterate. Sounds like the parroting of an anarchist cult follower.
@@PoliticalEconomy101If you were economically literate or knowledgeable about any kind of social science (or not arguing in bad faith), you'd realise the silliness of your position. In any case, the fact that you run a political economy education channel while unironically ascribing such nonsense as "priest class" and "natural evolutionary laws of economics and history" to Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro lay bare the bizarreness of your mis-education.
One would expect some circumspection when faced with "No plan survives contact with reality", but that would require not being blindly indoctrinated with capitalist ideologies.
Wow you are the top ML troll. Kudos.
Very cool, not even an inconvenience
Tight! Someone has seen my pitch meeting video. 😃
👍✊
😎
Please consider making your videos without background music. Background music is difficult for people on the spectrum, attention deficit, and other disabilities. Most of the best channels on UA-cam don't use it (e.g Shaun). A little bit of music goes a long way. Use it when you're not talking. Or singing. Thank you for your video.
Thanks for the advice! Does background music also have a distracting effect if it's very, very quiet and can barely be heard? I read someone say that using music at this volume can create a sweet-spot where it's not loud enough to be distracting but is still just at the threshold where it's able to perceived and is thus able to trigger dopamine and boost interest in the video.
I pers'nally define communism as 'A lovely idea, if it wasn't for the humans.'
I first watched your Black Mirror and the Causes of Our Real Dystopia web cast thereafter the POST-CAPITALISM: A Detailed Look at How It Could Work finally this Communism & Socialism: What Do They REALLY Mean? which I watched from the start to end, all in one day.
I was a Marxist in my early adulthood, at the time I was a industrial worker, union activist and leading my small working class group and a workers bulletin. As I studied more I had some fundamental disagreement with the Marxian labour theory specially its lack of clarity on the subject of labour exploitation on the workers thereby departure from its socialism ideology. In the year 1980 I published "An Alternative To Marxian Scientific Socialism; Reduction of Working Hours Theory.
I am willing to have more detailed discussion on this "changing of society" topic if you like.
By the way; I am still a great admirer of Karl Marx. I understand that he is a genius social scientist in human history thus far.
11:36 - I think Stalin argumented the USSR become socialist. In "Constitution (Fundamental law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" that anyone can found in the Marxist Internet Archive he wrote "ARTICLE 1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a *socialist state* of workers and peasants."
Sorry, I remembered you're differentiating Communism from Socialism. My bad. Yeah, Stalin never considered the USSR communist.
Hey LBC: Did you know that this is now the last video in Innuendo Studios' "The Alt-Right Playbook" playlist?
No, I had no idea! I just had a look and... WOW! I'm blown away. Innuendo Studios is so talented and such a big channel, I had no idea they even knew I exist let alone would want to put one of my videos on their playlist. Thanks for telling me.
@@LuckyBlackCat Does this make you officially a member of BreadTube now? Is Philosophytube actually as cool in person as she seems? Does HBomberGuy actually live in his mom's garage? Inquiring minds want to know! 😆
@@LuckyBlackCat oh that's so cool! really glad I told you. almost didn't coz I was like "of course she knows" :D
@@orestes0883Hmmm, I’d say Philosophy Tube and Hbomb are part of the category I call Libtube. LBC’s political position is entirely separate to these guys and many others that get labelled as socialist or leftist or breadtubers or whatever.
Not that I think they don’t make great content or that I don’t agree with their views on social issues, but putting LBC or Zoe Baker or whoever in the same category as these essentially pro state reformists makes no sense to me.
@Paul Webb The joke was that Innuendo Studios was part of "BreadTube", a totally fan created grouping of left of center creators. It's not a real thing, but several years ago, some fans thought, or at least acted as though, it was some kind of actual club. I was not saying that any of them have the exact same politics, or that LBC shares their politics.
I really wanna know the story behind that picture of carrots
This was in the alt right playbook for some reason
Came here from it too lol!
Yeah that's how I got here
I assume because Ian is anti-capitalist and thought this would make a good primer on alternatives for people who weren't yet. It's also how I found it, and I can only hope it will help more people who come here from there join the anti-capitalist movement.
How long do we have to fight ??😢
Until we win, and not a second longer.
:(
17:12 vwah-jee-mee-eh(r)zh!
Ow my pickle
PICKLE DESTROYED
@@LuckyBlackCat what's it called when I'm the godkingemperordude? The Troyarchy. Once I get my superpowers I'll fix humanity. 😁👍
😶🤪
@@LuckyBlackCat I'm pretty sure the evil Prager twin killed the good Prager twin in the womb
@@LuckyBlackCat that was quite a pile of bent carrots. 😏
@@troywalkertheprogressivean8433 Lol. Well as someone who prefers a libertarian approach to socialism/communism, I can't endorse you being godkingemporerdude. But yes, quite a pile of carrots indeed!
23:57 - What I thought you would say.
Speaking as a self-identified progressive who is only recently coming into contact with discussion about socialism and communism, I find this video insanely frustrating. It boils down to "there is no actual definition of socialism / communism and if you want to talk about it then you need to ask every single person in the conversation what their definition is, so it's essentially pointless to talk about it."
Then there's the problem of "how in the hell can this possibly work? Money exists for a reason: as a way of allocating scarce goods and easing the process of exchange." Until we have a post-scarcity society it seems utterly impossible for this whole "no money" thing to exist and thus every socialist and communist seems to be yammering on about a pointless pipe dream. Still, there are a lot of people who believe in this stuff and I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm smarter than all of them, so I'll keep looking. The fact that LBC has a "how could this work" video is reassuring, and I'll go watch that next. Still, it's infuriating and I wouldn't be putting in the effort if I didn't have acquaintances that I respect who believe in it.
I admire that you remain open minded despite your misgivings. And btw, I feel your pain! The reason I made the "how could this work" video is because of my own frustrations with the scarcity of "how could this work" content out there.
Regarding this video, there is a consistent definition of communism (among people who have informed themselves); it's socialism that has the myriad of definitions.
@@LuckyBlackCat Thanks for the response. Yes, you're right, I spoke too broadly about the lack of definition. Sorry for that.
Not relevant to your video, but it made me think of this: I've seen one other "how could it work" video in the past, and I'm now blanking on whether it was a socialist or libertarian society, which is a major fail on my part! The speculation was that everyone could live in communities of about 150 people (Dunbar's number for humans) and all services and policing could be done in the local community...which is obvious bunk, since you're not going to get communities of 150-ish people if everyone is allowed to live wherever they like, among other problems.
Anyway, I'll go watch your thing. Thanks again for the response.
"Until we have a post-scarcity society it seems utterly impossible for this whole "no money" thing to exist..." You, my friend, just found out why communism was thought up after the industrial revolution - the first ever time in history where such overproduction existed to allow for a post-scarcity society. We can produce enough food for 10 billion people as of right now as a matter of fact. We live in that post-scarcity society, the issue is that capitalism cant tolerate this. The spark of the communist idea was seeing how capitalism resorts to crisis when oversupply, lack of demand and thus lack of growth, stops its endless expansion. Its the only system where too much stuff has been a bad thing. Where businesses throw away perfectly good food on one side of the globe while another suffers from famine. Where theres vacant homes and homeless people mere meters away from each other.
I love how people always manage to re-discover communist ideas trough their own false perception of communist ideas, i am guilty of that myself.
Anyway, if we can agree that socialism is "the stage of society before communism", then there is simply the question of what that looks like. Its not a disagreement on what it is in its function, but in its implementation.
I suggest Marxism Daily and Second Thought, great 101 channels. Also, bread-tube is a bad place for understanding leftist economic ideas on a deep level, good edutainment and understanding social problems, but you reach a plateau of knowledge relatively fast, especially if you are already a "progressive".
@@sasho_b. 100% agree that we massively overproduce food and that the issue is distribution, not production. On the other hand, we are not completely post-scarcity. There are only a small number of Teslas, oil paintings, beachfront properties in San Bernadino, etc, and we need some way to allocate them. Money is the current default option.
Thanks for the recommendations to other channels. What exactly is "BreadTube"? I've seen it referenced but never found a clear definition beyond "some UA-cam channels that talk about lefty stuff". Is it all left-wing YT channels? A specific set of channels? Anything on socialism? ???
@@davidstorrs For post-scarcity, post-scarcity is that of the basic human needs. Just because not everyone can get a tesla doesnt mean we should hold up a system that leaves millions without a job, a house, food or education, and millions more working 2x in their place with nearly the same conditions, one rent payment away from the street. Food, water, housing, education, clothing, cultural and state media (news and stuff) are the baseline and we can provide those. Marxism is a pain in that its interdependency makes it hard to explain any part without all the others but thats the jist here.
BreadTube, In my definition its milktoast progresivism content. You see it used mostly about creators that focus on relevant socio-political issues without a clear leftist agenda, more specifically they often lack class analysis aside form "billionaire bad". They attract social liberals and rarely use scary words like "communism". For me its a derogatory as they, willfully or not, sacrifice radicalism in exchange for a broader but less agitated audience. You can only say "police bad, homophobia bad" so many times before the question "but why does it exist?" replaces it. Again, great content, not great theory.
why quote a polish guy with russian accent
She verbally slapped my mama twice :0
🍀🐈
Oh no we have to watch ANOTHER new vid from you NEXT week?? What a burden of unspeakable proportion...you better not have ANOTHER new vid coming down the pipeline after that, then another, & another or I'll.. .I'll be forced to watch them all, & you can take that to the bank, missy. 😡
I'm so sorry to have inflicted this immense burden on you. I really am very selfish! Please forgive me. 😭
@@LuckyBlackCat ...I'll THINK abt it.
Now go to your room!!
I will go to my room and clean it, Professor Peterson.
@@LuckyBlackCat 😂👍🏼
Let’s make things even more complicated.
Lenin called the Marxist totalitarian phase “socialism” while maintaining the final goal of a classless/stateless society called communism. But in practice, Lenin even called his initial phase “war communism” before transitioning to the New Economic Policy, which he called “state capitalism”, which is what inspired Italian Fascism, which was a form of socialism, more specifically national syndicalism.
Marx summed up communism in the Manifesto as, “abolition of private property.” He later emphasized he meant bourgeois private property aka the means of production. That’s the simplest way to define most forms of socialism and communism but there are of course exceptions.
*Lenin called the Marxist totalitarian phase “socialism” while maintaining the final goal of a classless/stateless society called communism.*
(1) That phase wasn't supposed to be totalitarian, but "the most complete democracy" as Lenin would put it in _The State and Revolution_ (it's not a joke, what he did shortly after it's against with his book in every aspect he mentions). And that's the low phase of Socialism/Communism after Revolution when proletarian rule is starting to unleash the capabilities of human labor without Capitalism restraints but all of its technological advance.
*But in practice, Lenin even called his initial phase “war communism” before transitioning to the New Economic Policy, which he called “state capitalism”, which is what inspired Italian Fascism, which was a form of socialism, more specifically national syndicalism.*
(2) War Communism was a manipulative wording to justify a "kind of Communism" where totalitarian measure during wartime could be implemented (barracks-communism is a previous term that describes a similar thing proposed by an "anarchist" named Nechayev that, it seems, greatly influenced Lenin, wtf?).
The NEP was supposed to develop productive forces to proletariaze Russia without the capitalist class in power. On the other hand, I am curious about the claim the NEP influenced Mussolini. I know he was influenced by Corporatism and National Syndicalism, but maybe you're saying that because they both could be called "State Capitalism"?
And no, Fascism is not a form of Socialism. Remember the latter is supposed to mean "worker's control of the means of production". Fascism is a top down form of Corporatism, and National Syndicalism (as you mention). These are right wing answers to Socialism and Syndicalism.
*Marx summed up communism in the Manifesto as, “abolition of private property.” He later emphasized he meant bourgeois private property aka the means of production. That’s the simplest way to define most forms of socialism and communism but there are of course exceptions.*
(3) Yeah, Marx wrote that, you're right (or left? 😆).
To be clearer, though, I would point out that Marx identified "bourgeois property" as the same thing as "private property" and the summary was after he explained that. Before he was talking about "the abolition of *existing property relations* is not at all a distinctive feature of communism" and then "the distinguishing feature of Communism *is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property."*
Some criticism: I think you are being too charitable to the dictators of authoritarian "communist states". You evoke the image that these figures' political position can be taken at face value. From an antifascist perspective, these people and parties coopted communism, possibly because it was popular, to create an authoritarian state that they *never* meant to transform into a communist society (using the word according to your definition). Look, you don't have to investigate too much to figure out what political persuasion I come from. Red "communists" cannot be trusted. They cannot be allies, because they *will* betray you. And I'm not even talking about the dispute surrounding the Internationale; They outright murdered the Machnovtshina and attempted to murder Machno, they had a not insignificant role in killing the Spanish revolution, and to this day, whenever you give them the benefit of a doubt, they prove the depths of their ideological abyss; I've yet to meet some MLs that are not antisemitic, sexist, racist or plain redbrowns.
No communism without anarchy.
Although I think that there are authoritarian-socialists /authoritarian-communists who genuinely have their heart in the right place but are misguided, I agree that authoritarian-leftist parties and leaders can't be trusted. They have a history of being downright counterrevolutionary, which is one of the worst and most abhorrent things that anyone can do.
@@LuckyBlackCat I: Are you planning to make a video detailing and warning on how dangerous they are to leftist goals? Something that could make the misguided, heart-in-the-right-place MLs seriously rethink their positions before they entrench themselves too deep in them. A video like that could be very significant
@@iamnohere Yes! But before doing that I want to make a long video series about capitalism, a long video series about alternatives to capitalism, and a long video series about alternatives to the state. Then comes a long video series about revolution and part of that series will be criticism of authoritarian strategies for socialist revolution. And before any of these series I have several videos I'm planning. So it's a long way off.
@@LuckyBlackCat I: That sounds like a lot of plans! Good luck with all of it, looking forward to each and every vid ^^
I have serious reservations about anarchy that I cannot find good answers too (although I am open to the idea that I just don't know where to look for them), but I am with you 100% on MLs (also Maoists, although I see a lot less of them). I am not seizing the means of production for *you* my guy. They're for all of us and, if you don't agree I'll find better allies and we'll do this without you. Revolution yay, red-browns nay.
17:03 It's really not that hard: Flod-zeh-meer-s Bruce
There are 40 definitions of socialism, and there are 100 shapes of a wheel, but only round wheel work. If you get what I mean.
Not the worst mistake of my life, definately. Still a mistake.
Tell me your criticism
The fact that socialism is controversial topic is baffling to me. As if hundreds of thousands starved to death wasn't enough evidence.
Was this funded by the congress for cultural freedom?
Co-funded. Also got large $$$ from George Soros.
But in all seriousness, I welcome comments from those who have a different perspective (I don't want this channel to be an echo chamber) so if you have disagreements, feel free to let me know. Have a great day!
Dude, you're thinking too small. It was *obviously* funded by the Hollywood elite satanist cabal. Couldn't you tell from all the blockbuster special effects?