Why communism failed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Nationalism Debate: Ya...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Noom: trynoom.com/lex
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.... and use code Lex25 to get 25% off
- SimpliSafe: simplisafe.com... and use code LEX to get a free security camera
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com... and use code LexPod to get 3 months free
- Blinkist: blinkist.com/lex and use code LEX to get 25% off premium
GUEST BIO:
Yaron Brook is an objectivist. Yoram Hazony is a national conservative. This is a conversation and debate about national conservatism vs individualism.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
Once you kill the oppressors, you become the oppressor. Power dynamics are intrinsic to human nature and a society will behave like a magnet, you can break it in smaller pieces but it will always polarize itself.
Yeah it's all the same at the end of the day...
Conservatives want the freedom to oppress you while liberals want to limit freedom to prevent you from being oppressed. Each ideology leads to the same result... silly silly humanity. LoL
There are certain civilizations that were modeled after strict power dynamics, but definitely not all. Hierarchies are inevitable, but they don't necessarily have to be power hierarchies. This idea that humans are inherently greedy and power-hungry is just a byproduct of environmental influence. We have just as much of an inkling for cooperation as we do competition. Here's an interesting video: ua-cam.com/video/A4UMyTnlaMY/v-deo.html
well, i disagree the fact that it often happens doesn't mean it always happens.
you need a strong education from God and guidance from him as well and you will by his permission do right.
i invite you to read the Quran to get more informations about what am talking.
this entire world is truly governed by God and it is He who allows things to occur.
for the next remonstrance and jumping conclusion about God and why he do that : i will leave the two following facts:
a) God created all the beauty, all the beautiful things of the world: kids, nature, the female.
b) He made the chain food as well where a creature needs to kill another and eat it to survive.
so judging by rush emotion rather than reason is not the right thing to do.
now is he good or bad? he gave you eyes, senses and what have you done to earn them? which is the right decision to take towards that ? gratefulness or ungratefulness ?
"Power dynamics are intrinsic" that's a complicated statement and isn't to say that power dynamics are good and shouldn't be minimised or controlled.
@@hydejekyll4099 The Quran is not a path to truth any more than the Bible, Das Kapital, A Brief History of Time, Robinson Crusoe, or Ramona Quimby, Age 8.
Confining yourself to one book is your first problem.
Because eventually people get tired of having their human rights violated in the name of some utopian society that will never exist
Tell that to kids in syria and iraq or sanctioned population of South America or low paid work force in poor countries that make your shoes or Tell that too those countries who will be devastated by climate caused by countries advocating for human rights.
That’s not how Communism works
@@solodolotrevino There is no way that communism works
@@duckspeaker2702 There is, but humans are not ready for it. Not for another couple thousand years in my estimation.
@@lonesomealeks4206 humans will never be ready for it. We are not a group think animal. Never were. We only work in group for survival and out of convenience. We are egocentric and always will be.
Marx’s view of history was backwards. He viewed medieval societies grew into capitalist societies and the most capitalist societies would transform to communism. Communism as a ideal future state grew out of the observations of Rousseau and others of the native Americans societies Europeans had run into. Communism was not a new idea, but the oldest way to organize society, dare I say the instinctive way to organize a human society. This explains why the youth embrace these ideas despite overwhelming evidence of failure. Communism does work in societies of less than 150 individuals. In groups under the size of the Dunbar number, every member of the group can know “the business “ of every other member of the group and coordinate the use of resources. To grow past 150 members hierarchy and units of exchange must be developed. Money and prices coordinate activities among people who never meet. Marx argued the most capitalist of societies would convert to communism first, in reality it takes place in locations like Russia, were serfdom was still in living memory.
Rousseau ideas that government should make people free, found fruit in both Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc
You were making sense until you started talking that 150 people bullshit
Communism doesn't "work" even under the Dunbar limit. Communism doesn't even work in a household, usually who brings home the bacon makes the rules.
@@hallucinatingsiren so you are a communist or admit that no number of people can communism succeed?
@@hallucinatingsiren so you are a communist or admit that no number of people can communism succeed?
There's one of 3 ways to make people do things:
1) Love
2) Trade
3) Force.
Marxism is force under the guise of love.
I disagree with Mr Brook somewhat: Communism has some major differences to Christianity, primarily its failure to recognise that the real problem with the world is "the heart of man" and not just the socio-economic arrangement of society. So Marx thought that merely by changing the system - by removing certain classes - one could usher in utopia, but that doesn't take into account the fact that whatever system you have will be plagued by the evil of people. This point was amply proved by the several experiments with Communism over the years.
I think he's confusing Christianity with the Church.
They are just using Christianity as a scarecrow to discredit Marx's ideology. Let's keep in mind that Marx was an atheist and he hated any form of religion.
"We are the origin of all coming evil" - Carl Jung
I think the comparison is really very apt; and the challenge is, in part, to see the distinction between the ability to effectively navigate the challenges of “the world” and the subtle truths of Spirit. Marxism is a shallow, dogmatic religious view which attempts to solve the socio economic challenges of the world. It has many, many similarities with Christianity.
@@Rsvohi Name some of these similarities.
Communism seems to work really well for the dictators. The ethical underpinning of all forms of collectivism (fascism, socialism, communism) is altruism, which doesn't just mean 'being nice to other people' but is actually an inversion of morality (reward failure, punish success). Capitalism 'works' because it's a consumer democracy, and people like Elon Musk win when they produce a better product that helps society. Communism 'doesn't work' because it's a government monopoly and people like Elizabeth Warren determine where the people's resources go, which should be self explanatory as to why that's a problem. Only give your wealth to those who are actually improving your life, and fight to limit the amount of wealth you have to give to failures.
"Reward success, punish failure" doesnt seem intrinsically particular moral to me. It's a bit of a Darwinist viewpoint. It's a good idea to encourage approaches that work.
Competition creates accountability. But capitalism taken to its natural extreme (corporations becoming big enough to remove their competitors) leads to the same result. Our mileage will vary on the degree to which we think the free market can correct itself--and if it can, the timetable for that correction.
@@SaddenedSoul Considering that Cuba and North Korea are still using 1950s tech and haven't had an election in over 50 years I'd say that even Capitalism operating at 25% is 'more corrective' than Communism.
@@mandywhorwal642 I think democratic representation has a lot to do with it. Capitalism is part of it, but the ability to turn over leadership and have a say, and course correct from the bottom up, that comes from democratic representation is really important to innovation, change and progress.
We should stop saying capitalism. We should say Free market economy.
Communism didn't fail, it did exactly what it was supposed to do. Problem is, most people won't undertand the second part of that sentence.
Unfortunately most Americans have been too mind fucked by Cold War propaganda to understand the distinction between communism and social democracy. Policies like free healthcare and eliminating student debt are investments in your society. Corporate feudalism is making a lot of people miserable and people who are questioning that system are accused of wanting communism by the puppets of the corporate donor class because it's an easy lazy way of dismissing dissent. Working at Amazon and working in a soviet or chinese factory don't seem to be that different as far as being treated as less than human and alienated from your labour.
Utopia can never exist, it's impossible, perfections is not part of nature. We Humans are flawed animals, and as such, we can not create a Society that isn't flawed, that will just never happen. Capitalism has its flaws, but it is way better than any other form of Society that has existed throughout Human History.
marxists dont believe in utopias.
@@chiefkeefofficalreal Ok, whatever they believe in can not exist.
@@chiefkeefofficalreal but they believe in a eutopian ideology. Marx envisioned a society in the future where very few people will have to do a miniscule amount of work, because machines will do most of it. Marx argued that leisure was a virtue, and that in a communist society people can devote most of their time to it.
His idea of true freedom, which he argued could be achieved in an industrialised socirty, is one in which people would not have to work for a living, and could do what they wanted all day instead.
That's a eutopian ideology.
@@mortyjames5897 I encourage you to brush up on your marx if you want to talk about marxism because marx did not try to envision societies and call them communist, that is idealist thinking and marx was against that. The closest thing he got to that was him saying that a man could work, fish, and hang out with his family in one day, which is barely that. Also saying that marx just thought in a communist society "people could do what they wanted all day" proves that you have not read a word of marx, he realized that there were necessities of production. He wasn't stupid.
@@chiefkeefofficalreal
As you've reiterated, Marx viewed leisure as a virtue. He envisioned a socialist society as one in which people could do whatever they wanted, without the necessity for work, or labour. Fundamentally, Marx was interested in freedom, and in his view the structures of capitalism prevent the proletariat reaching this state of leisure, wherein they have to do little to no work, and do what they want in the remaining time. Marx believed capitalism would fail in the future because machines would render human labour obsolete. By that point production is so efficient that an extremely limited number of people will have to work.
I know that Marx and Engles didn't consider themselves believers in a utopian society, but I think they imagined one nonetheless. Marx's writing in some ways inspired the world in which star trek takes place, where there's a paradise on earth because of an apparently limitless supply of power, and the invention of replimats.
When you take away an individual's freedom to bring into the world new ideas, new inventions, or anything that the individual's mind and body is experiencing, then a group of people will not get to experience it either. Communism stifled new ideas, new inventions, etc. and the people under communism become very bored, knowing they cannot contribute.
I think you Never worked at fast food because you thought it’s the job for the uneducated and were too afraid to challenge yourself.
@@Pyasa.shaitan I think you better not judge an old farm boy who has worked harder than most people during their short life on this planet.
@@BradHolkesvig
How do you judge the hardwork?
I mean someone like Stephen hawkings might have worked harder but you know what I mean. Stop killing individuality.
Soviet Union put the first man in space
@@solodolotrevino Yes they did while most of their slaves in the country were starving.
"It failed because we weren't in charge, duhhh" - American lefties
Look up Mao as well. Real upstanding guy.
Ok. I'm aware of the results. Personally knew a family who fled that horror.
Classic reaction to the word communism
You must be a deep reader. Your grasp of communism is riveting.
KEKW
He's an absolute champ in the allocation of human and agriculture resources
@@haroldt.5175 ok we can name others. Communism is resp9nsible for over 100 million people.
For example, the American Revolution was not a clean-slate revolution at all, but attempted to conserve traditional English popular rights, colonial government, and common law.
Regarding so-called conservative Germans et al who responded to global industrialism with the counterbalance of hypernationalism, were there the co-founders of authoritarian national socialism in general. Both communism and fascism are formalized neo-feudal rejections of a global market and cosmopolitan life -- i.e. fascism wants 'the national'; communism, 'the international' (nations are still fixed linguistic-territorial arbitrary and inviolable entities); capitalism generates 'the anti-national'. And it's the hostile response to the latter that characterizes all political movements since the first industrial revolution obliterated feudalism. The American commercial state was the attempt to formalize the anti-national, with major opposition domestically from the feudal south from 1789 to this day.
What's more fundamental to the failure of Marxism is that it's anti-empirical foundation rejects and ignores man's self-evident struggle against nature (sickness, unequal physical potential, age, brain power, etc) as the actual primary factors actualizing suffering and change in the real material world. As such, Marxist mysticism tends to turn all bad luck into curses that require class-enemy sacrifice in order to dispel. It lacks the kind of Platonic-Epicurean vision embedded at the rock botton of Roman thinking that inspired the Renaissance and scientific revolution, that looks at all obstacles as neutral problems that can be solved by means of the patient application of logical empirical methods. This is as opposed to conservative thinking too, which tends to be skeptical that any solutions exist!
Now, I don't conclude Marx wanted a mystical form of socialism. I think he just inherited an anti-rational Cartesian tradition in mid-19th century Germany, he was a lousy philosopher, and he was mired in anti-globalist, pre-scientific superstitions all his life, like most people. Really what most people mean by 'Marxism' is the peculiar Leninist formalizatiom we're all used to, that ramped up the localist, mystical dimensions to the max degree in a largely Russian feudal context. Hence, the contemporary left (and its contemporary right wing reactions!) are much concerned with the so-called indigenous rights of our migratory species, speech censorship to avoid offending the spirits, folk medicine to tackle disease, and the moral imperative to deindustrialize because technology is unclean (as well as Jews because they are cosmopolitan; they migrate!), but you'll hear next to no discussion about unions and factories, which were Marx's lifeblood.
In short, we're fucked in half. Social media has generated a massive neo-feudal movement growing in from every angle, by providing a platform for mass uneducated consensus to replace meritocratic scientific expertise in our representative democracy. And there has been a pathetically small defense of scientific modernity shrinking in the middle of all that upheaval. So, predictably, our immediate future will be characterized by a deluge of superstitious legislation, superstitious wars, superstitious discourse.
I don't know why you pin the national socialist movement on the conservatives when the voting data of the time demonstrated a change of mind from hard leftists who previously voted for the communist party to the national socialist party.
@@scottydog9997 Very good question. The answer is that both the European left and right were and are conservative (that is, to conserve the feudal way of life in some capacity) reactions against the anti-feudal principles introduced in practice by the American constitution of 1789. For example, both communism and fascism believe strongly in the concept of ethno-legitimacy as the bedrock of territorial government. The communist International was not the Transnational or Antinational. It was an organization predicated on the preservation of fixed nation states organized primarily to be of, by, and for, what they Romantically considered to be the indigenous race of the region, no borderless global commerce, no melting pot cosmopolitanism. For the communists, the "true ethnic expression" was also the proletarian industrial (or under the even more conservative Asian model, agricultural) worker. For the fascists, the emphasis was on race alone, since Hitler et al shrmised that the only reason America primarily had unleashed a so-called "crisis of capitalism" upon the world was because it was driven by borderless cosmopolitan Jews! Both were largely in agreement on every other point. Stalin similarly purged Jews from the Soviet Union citing the exact same reason, but without the explicit exaggerative reactionary emphasis on the racial superiority of Slavs compared to Jews, even though the conclusion is implicit. Both communism and fascism sought to replace the ruling class of old feudalism, yet radically retain its structure and highly localist character as well as a protected command economy (e.g. many socialists before the anarcho-communist-fascist splits use to carry banners reading, "Abolish Money!, which, of course, means the end of class mobility, and the enforcement of stagnancy, such as under the feudal system. Russia had a long history of extremely conservative peasant ethnosocialism centered on the narod, or village. The single largest socialist movement in Russia prior to the Bolshevik era was Narodism. It far outnumbered the more urban industrial anarchists. It was almost a cult centered on the primacy of the Rusdian "folk" tied to Russian land, radically excluding the influence of nefarious Jewish globalists from Wallstreet!! They demanded the preservation of the agricultural motherland and their race! Sound familiar? It should. It predates Naziism by 60-80 years. All of the Old World was in a perpetual reactionary upheaval in EVERY class to conserve some major aspects of the feudal way of life after the American revolution, from the French revolution through the Napoleons, to the insular Chinese and Japanese reactions, you name it. And, of course, the U.S. southern states in their violent preservation of ethnolegitimacy and slavery, represented the American wing of the planetary neo-feudal reaction taking place everywhere else. In fact, the southern rebellion was a conspiracy who American aristocrat members were in active collusion with the British House of Lords. I should note, however, the Karl Marx was not a believer in any if these forms of socialism, and he and Engels consistently wrote against the backwardness of European fake socialist movements, while praising the U.S. constitution and the efforts of the Union to unite the world commercially. It is a remarkable historical irony that modern indigenophile conservative leftist have claimed Marxism as their ideology. It proves they haven't actually read much Marx. Rather, they are really Leninists or Stalinist or Maoists who aim to destroy capitalism in favor of a new feudalism, whereas Marx, wrongky or righly, believed that an automated and distributive technocratic economy would transcend the need for class as we know it. It's a bit science fictiin, but it certainly had nothing to do with modern forms of leftism that revere ethnolegitimacy and a kind of Luddite 'green", or agricultural attitude. These values I correctly label as conssrvative, economically. To be frank, the only uses the modern left has for global industry are contraceptives, abortion services, and phones. Beyond that, thete is no left wing today; certainly n sympathy whatsoever remains for the unionized or cooperative industrial worker, no intellectual plan for technological solutions to material problems. These have each become liberal capitalist concerns.
@@johannpopper1493 Yet the communist party was directly involved with revolting against the monarchy, which lead to the end of world war
1. How is that in any sense "nationalistic"? It was clear "russian" influence at the time.
@@scottydog9997 Another excellent question. I would say first there are two types of nationalism: isolationist and expansionist. The isolationist mood prevailed against the Czar's expansionist goals as a temporary means of overthrowing the Czarist system, but to strengthen 'Russian-ness' as upheld by the isolationist faction. No factions in Russia then supported Americanization. The Russian civil war was won by the Bolshevik synthesis of the two types of nationalism -- accepting isolationism as part of an expansionist alliance of isolationist nationalist states. Lenin authored that synthesis. There is also a distinction to be drawn between monarchy and feudalism. Monarchy is simply one type of administration that can enforce a feudal economy and ethnocentric legal system. The Narodist lineage and similar socialists who took part in the February and October revolutions and civil war from 1917+, had lost faith that the czar could enforce a collective agricultural and ethno-isolationist system in traditional culturally Russian territories, so they aimed to replace that administration with a new elected body or party, and it just so happened that the Bolsheviks caught the rebound when Kerensky's government collapsed via the Sailors and other nationalists became dissatisfied. All of the factions that revolted during the First World War were animated by a desire to re-legitimize the Russian system upon a solid ethnocentric economically protective footing. Typically, these elements in particular are considered the main characteristics of 'nationalism'. The Bolsheviks promised to not only shore up Russian nationalism, but also shore up the "true" national identity of every territory on Earth, and furthermore organize an alliance thereof that would preserve these national identities permanently, stabilizing the feudal ideal by ending the global "melting pot" cosmopolitan capitalism being exported primary by the United States. Thus, class and race became tangled up in these reactionary anti-capitalist movements. All of this is bound up with an aversion to mixed race populations and a kind of romantic attachment to the concept of indigenousness. Same is true of the Indian revolution, Chinese, the Japanese military coup of the Meji Era, Jim Crow in the American south, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. All these things were happening everywhere nearly simultaneously, and continue through today in most places.
Good point about the Am Rev. We didn't throw away all English law. We reformed it. We felt we were not being represented fairly in England, which is a key reason we are a republic.
This was superb - excellent guests and questions today Lex!!
if Capitalism is all that great, why is there a minimum wage, why are there rent controls, why are there Anti monopoly laws, why is there favoritism, why is there inequality, why is there discrimination? why are there government subsidies? why are there government bailouts? government bailout of banks is the most Anti capitalist thing a country can do, why are there stimulus checks why are there government programs like social security, why is there the concept of FDIC? Why is there overtime pay law why is there government housing and schooling and policing why are there public roads and transportation why are there interest rate controls why is the amount of money printed regulated controlling the amount of money a govt prints is the most xommunist thing a country can do
when a goverment goes out of their way to help you solve your problems you better ran fast
I thought communism failed for purely economical reasons, prices and markets are indispensable for an economy to work.
I'd scratch a level deeper. It fails because it leaves behind uncountable piles of bodies.
@@2010djbrooklyn I'm not sure it's because of that either, there are a lot of countries that did some unthinkable disastrous things but they still exist.
It fails because most humans want to take out more than they put into a system. That's why capitalism is so successful.
@@Ryan-ce1oc greed.
I also believe it failed mainly due to economic reasons. In my view, capitalism offers exponential economic growth, while a command economy can only do so linearly. At the same time, people's needs grow exponentially
3:05 "Nation"? Wtf Lex!!? You're supposed to be educated about all things Russia? There was no nationalism in the Bolshevik Revolution. It was the direct opposite, fierce opposition against anything having to do with a nation state. It was strictly internationalist movement, right from the very beginning.
If you add together "Socialism" + "Nation" you'll get = _National Socialism,_ not _Communism_ (of the Soviet Union).
Also...
Soviet Union was technically not Communism at all. SU itself stated it clearly in their state propaganda. It was Socialism, that was supposedly only there "to lay down the groundwork for the real Communism". (While in reality, it's the only social order in the modern world that most definitely would NOT lead to Communism. Due to being too centralized and therefore, extremely ineffective. While Capitalism, due to rapid technological innovation, would inevitably lead to something very similar to Karl Marx's vision of the Communist society. All due to process of completely natural evolution, and without any revolution at that. Which is a complete heresy for both left and the right in 2022 I suppose... but wait half a century, and you'll see what I mean.)
Edit: Which is the direct opposite to the ideas of people like Yoram Hazony. Whenever you try to start the social change from top down (either through legislation, or completely taking over the Government structures and forcing the changes), you're putting the cart before horse, and _therefore_ you inevitably fail. Communism is only possible in a society of Abundance. You have to reach the technological level of Abundancy first -- then Communism is actually inevitable.
Why?
At this point it doesn't matter if there's millionaires who own everything or not, it's simply useful to share some of your resources with the masses. It's simply the cheapest way to pacify them and avoid problems. And have a clear conscience too, that's definitely a bonus. If you have practically infinite resources you can share quite a lot and not even notice any difference anyway...
That's what I call bottom up approach, have to push through the hard times and reach abundance stage, then the rest will follow all by itself. Just like any attempt before that stage will inevitably fail, no matter what you do. Or at least slow down the progress. In the worst case, if you manage to approach the Socialism-level of equality, it may stop the progress completely and erase any hope for a better more equal society in the future. Sucks for the generations that were born at the wrong time, but it is what it is, regardless.
You should get Jordan Peterson on to talk about this psychosis.
Lex, your journey through Russia will change you so much
Communism is thriving is multiple parts of the world. You ask these goofy questions that don't even make sense
You should immediately lose credibility as soon as you quote The Black Book of Communism without caveat.
lol 100% this. These guests aren't going to be talking about soviet socialism in good faith.
Communism was never about dictatorship, and if it functions properly it would be the most democratic government ever. However, those who can become leaders usually will fall into the thirst of power and wealth. It also doesn’t fit the 20% for 80% and 80% for 20% wealth distribution mechanism. It was a good idea but doesn’t fit the natural human behavior. There are circumstances where communist leaders was actually good like Jozip Broz Tito. But when there was a good leader, people cannot accept the new leader to be even slightly worse than him. Which is why it will fall. Capitalism is inevitable unless the world population becomes like 1 or 2.
The idea that competition intrinsically rewards success in a moral way is Protestantism ideologically speaking and has no basis in reality. Competition is intrinsically amoral. Look at animals in the jungle...they will kill a newborn baby as soon as it leaves its mothers womb without hesitantation if it means they get to survive. In competitive markets only the most amoral succeed and win. You have to be ruthless and willing to step on people to get to the top. There is no such thing as a fair market because people born into a higher social class or a successful family or who have superior genetics will always win generally speaking. The more intelligent and more talented people will figure out how to limit the success of others who are direct competitors or figure put how to outcompete them. Competition is intrinsically unfair. That doesn't make it good or bad. But because of that it doesn't make it more the more moral option. It is amoral. The better product wins but when there are winners there are loosers. We can create a society where you don't need winners or lovers because it utilizes everyone's abilities for the greater good without the need for competition. People should be able to choose to what extent they live a communist lifestyle versus a capitalist lifestyle. A community of individuals should be able to come together and be communist. That is essentially what families do and businesses do internally. The main thing is preserving free-will and choice.
Thumbing this up
Correct me if im wrong but Karl Marx was a mooch was he not? Did he not live off the backs of others?
Yup he is trash, total hypocrite.
None of these socialist leaders and thinkers were workers. They were just disaffected bourgeoisie with savior complexes.
Like the majority of american young right wingers.
This is an excellent example of how terms have different meanings in different places. Classical conservatives like Bismarck are distinct from the Conservatives of the States (who are the direct ideological descendants of classical liberals). They are not related despite both being called conservative.
An American Conservative is anti-socialism because they are for classical liberalism which is the antithesis of such an ideology. Classical conservatives are in fact quite socialist in their economic Outlook.
The wiping out of culture in these revolutions can only cause harm ( China, Cambodia.) Look at the cultural revolution in China. Taiwan now has a more traditional form of Chinese culture than the mainland. Also the Chinese were the first to invent so many things,( i think gunpowder and the printing press to name 2). Think of the knowledge lost in the millions of scrolls that were burnt by the great Mao. Who took his people on the long march TO FLEE THE JAPANESE slaughtering his own people. He then let the Imperial army bleed fighting them while he waiting in his mountains to Rescue the people. That's real history for you. And China has survived because its NOT communist anymore. It has a ruling elite who's power is inherited. It even has CCP princelings studying in Europe and Billionaire, Not communism anymore.
The Frankfurt School (1918-1939) was immensely more nuanced than Soviet theorists, the latter persisting in black and white dogmatism.
Communism, as well as socialism, is a term so laden with negativity that there's a need to clarify each time was their purely theoretical meaning is, if conversation is to be coherent. As stated in the conversation, there is an age-old tendency of society structuring into top and bottom classes, the top maintaining itself at the top through a combination of ideology and brutal power.
How do you resolve the top-bottom divide? thinkers that concern themselves with the emancipation of the bottom need to understand that:
1. happiness is now or never
2. forming worker and housing coops is a fast lane to creating a hugely more pleasant life for bottom people than struggling for rights in the top's workplace
3. by systematically draining the stock of the labour factor of capital, the bottom makes labour a more and more scarce commodity, forcing the top to pay decent wages
4. it's a win-win situation: you have achieved much greater freedom and happiness for the many AND forced the top to pay fair wages
Freedom from ideology, with a focus on real, everyday life, is the beginning and the end of any emancipatory project .
You are not Cyrus Cruls....
Excellent ideas and I concur. We have two options as I see it, we commit to participate in the rat race scrambling to stay afloat in system that constantly takes from your human time/energy capital or we decide fukc that shit find like minded people and start living outwith their bullshlt as much as we can, I'm currently in the process individually of extracting myself from as much of the bullshlt as I can.
Peace, power and freedom to all.
Firstly, a mistake I think a lot of people make even you a little bit. Is labeling socialism as this nearly arbitrary word that needs to be define, it is a phenomena. The whole point of Marx’s dialectical materialism, is to view the world in a way where you try to make sense of the history/realities of what’s going on in society right now, this also how I believe he comes up with relating class material conditions in general, but that is different from understanding socialism yes is an ideology that you can define empirically with language sure, but it also focuses on broader phenomena and noumena we can and can’t observe.
This is also what the critical school believes to some extent, because a lot of their thought is on the very foundations of dialectical thinking, taken from either Kant or Hegel. Another thing I appreciate about the critical school, is they also start to synthesize Freud with some Marxism, which is a solid way to systematize noumena, there is obviously much more compelling ways to do it, that are likely more complicated which I don’t even understand, but they have the potential to exist thru computational biology, but I think this is not likely. Zizek coffee without cream analogy is what I think counters this, but I’m sure there is other logical ways to use computational biology to perceive noumena.
Lastly, I think you should focus a bit on land reform. All great socialist phenomena, tend to start with that, and it is the most fundamental mode of production. It’s literally space to just be in to put it simply, a simple thought experiment, in an authoritative sense (but, this can easily manifest in a democratic way is), let’s say the state forced everyone in I don’t know a college dorm, or any sort of apartment/town home/living condominium, to own a garden of some sorts, if we all just sit in our apartment and grow one thing only for our own use, that is what capitalism/‘rational selfishness’ (YB ideology) will lead to and this can be expressed in the atomization/alienation of the worker which is from a more orthodoxist Marxist era and this is a huge factor/way of thinking which leads to these kind of divides/philosophical/cultural antagonism and misunderstanding that we feel, in a socialist society how this garden would manifest would exhibit the disconnect and power dynamics that creates this cultural organism of what I attempt to poorly ‘define’ as socialism. The social tensions and alienation between the top and bottom classes would be eased, and people would have some actual dignity and pride to work together on their garden, in addition to shorter work weeks and such, people would have the time to work on this stuff, and bam, there is a mode of production ecologically sustainable using LABOR!! And or automation where the benefits get equally distributed, in my ideal society I’d try to not abuse automation and the logarithmic nature of technology, for more ecologically sustainable methods of production, BUT, I see automation as necessary and capitalism (which socialism would emerge from), makes this a consequence. Also there is a nationalistic appeal to this, for their garden since it is on their land, and they want to make their land the best and most beautiful/productive land, because that’s how America should approach socialism, communal land reform, this is just the example of a garden in an apartment. I think this example best expresses the fundamental difference of how people view society/capitalism from an objectivist sense, which heavily relies on shitty consequentialist thought systems, and creating shitty definitions to define complicated issues, that different societies feel, and does not also come anywhere close to the true human struggle especially in the existential sense, which is lastly another synthesis the critical school makes which also is VERY integrated with Marxism. It’s all universal!!
@@pablobear4241 I have not studied Marx's work itself but am familiar with his ideas. I think I follow your example but also your point in that anytime someone discusses communism/socialism they try to cast the definitions of them as being the result of their own shoddy implementation, rather than recognize the idea and motivations behind it. It's sad to see when just as Marx's predictions and observations are becoming more and more prevalent (most notably I think, the separation from man and his work, if I'm not misinterpreting Marx) people act like capitalism is the end all, be all, and criticising some of "communism's" issues when they are currently steeped within the very same environment. I would say that's a result of privilege, but that can only account for a portion of the people.
If i'm not mistaken, communism/socialism are the answer to that problem.... but it would require a much more cautious and deliberate approach, rather than what we see in history and modernity. I feel like the example you provide is certainly a nice way to conceptualize it, and I suppose it probably ties into the video that I have yet to actually watch... i guess I'll go do that.
You´re funny thinkink that the fools here care about nuance or anything else.
Agree to what was discussed. My thoughts on communism is we placed it wrong on our development evolutional scale as humans. Communism is a basic form of development that we as human passed in the early period of development maybe 10.000 years ago in the early Neolithic. It's gone and unless we want to return to stone age arrangements it's not going to be back ever.
Agreed. Although idealized and romanticized in books, movies and tourism, running down a springbok for hours, baked by the scorching African sun to ceremoniously slather its blood all over me in a manner of obeisance and reverence then surreptitiously disassemble the beast and cart it back to the tribe with the invaginated hide is not my idea of a good day at the office... I'll order the Scotch fillet with plenty of marbling from highly skilled cooks at B&B Butchers and Restaurant, Houston thank you very much. None of this stringent egalitarianism based on fluctuating food availability, variability and buffering schemes. Phuk that.
That's a big lie that human were a homogenous go of egalitarianism. Such a bullshit to justify the inequality that we experience today.
And not talking about 10000 ago, way longer than that. Evidence can suggest a lots of diverse societies. Some egalitarian, some hierarchical and some in between. We are complex beings and is laughable to believe that for almost a hundred thousand years fellow humans did the same thing all over the world just because they were largely hunter gatherers. With the same brain as ours. It's a premise that doesn't hold up against a bit of scrutiny and reading actual anthorpologists and paleontologists that focus their career on studying the Pleistocene.
That flat and limited way of looking at humanity, that the only way to live is by being shitty human beings, oppressors and oppressed, selfish is getting really old and lacks actual evidence. it's inception and effort to maintain is predicated on prejudices, a sense of superiority, lack of imagination, not reading actual scientists... Just a pat on their backs to keep believing this is it.
How have I found the only rational human beings on a UA-cam thread? 90% of the planet fails to grasp what you just typed and never connects the dots between forced communalism, aka Communism and the hunter gatherer societies which operated similarly. Trying to explain to people that ancient Rome was another proto-socialist state is similarly difficult.
My econ professors said it best: there are two periods of history - before capitalism and after. Before an understanding of property rights, contracts, and good institutions developed, everyone lived in a hut and died of dysentery. And afterwards - he then showed a graph of population growth. The point being that all wealth is the product of the capitalist system.
@@Afreshio If you want evidence, look at uncontacted tribes. They all have roughly the same culture, independent from location. They share resources in times of famine and plenty to benefit the growth of the group. They punish members who deviate (those who act "unfairly").
"Fairness" is itself primitive concept as it is often recorded in lesser animals from dogs to lemurs to monkeys, etc. "Fairness" is no more a goal to aspire to than would any other animal instinct. That all of your words have to appeal to it suggests you do not have an argument at all - you have an emotional screed.
@@jonjo2598 The thing is as every USSR child we had to learn works of Marks, Engels, Lenin luckily not Stalin as the guy was very busy killing people so didn't write much. We had to learn their works, Capital, Second International, theory of Proletariat Revolution, Proletariat dictatorship, you name it. So my strong believe from my childhood that came as result of learning those works, is that Communism really is a regress and not progress or evolution. Leaders who initiated socialist-communist revolution didn't know how to run business and generate wealth. So each such revolution we know so far had to go through genocide to obtain production tools first, then they had to go through famine as leaders didn't know how to make wealth, then they had to go in regression to allow people some independence to survive extreme poverty and allow some elements of capitalism back, then after that they would find some reasonable balance between capitalism and socialism to leave just above poverty line but inside of the ideological dogma until that will eventually collapse back to normality. Just an observation.
but the communist overlords lived a super rich life so they they made things worst
"dictatorship of the proletariat" = working-class democracy. These dudes are actual ghouls
Yes lol.
yes
Great. Just great.
The reason why Capitalism works is because to buys into greed and acquisitiveness. When it comes down to it most people are driven by self interest. It is successful because it appeals to some of worst aspects of human nature. Unfortunately, Communism is worse than the disease it is designed to cure because its success is predicated on its willingness to commit mass murder in order to achieve its ultimate goals. For a committed Communist the ends will always justify the means. Both systems are truly horrible. But if it comes down to it, I would rather live in a society ruled by the likes of J.P Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, rather than Lenin, Stalin, or Mao. Although Morgan and his ilk were insatiably greedy, at least they were not mass murderers like Lenin and Stalin.
Click bait title
This have nothing with Marxism, wich means "democracy at working place". Totalitarism(that was russian way of law and order with power in society, like today in their capitalism!) was not marxism, but this is a way to distance people from economic truths, becouse you work for bosses and for their profit! And is called freedom!No you are not free from the economical sistem!
Why did communism fail?..... How does a One party State evolve? How does a One party State allow for and accomadate Humanities outliers and what they can contribute to that evolution?.... There's a few more 'How Does's' and so to....
That would be some Constitution. Write one.... Someone
The problem fir these gentlemen is Leon Trotsky and Fidel Castro. Why does a small nation refuse to go back to capitalism and its leaders fail to abandon the revolution. The question is not if Socialism is possible and a society without a capitalist ruling class but why hasn't the revolution succeeded more broadly? You see capitalism in a state of world crisis not seen since the 1930's.
Great open discussion again Lex .
We’re in the world evil darkness greedy plot exists in any time.history. nation. culture .religion.political perspectives…..
It’s doesn’t matter plots any Title political rules play the self interest gain.
Time to realize we’re still on the development pathway imperfect political rules need to be upgrade !
We must have the eye 👁 see thing as it is.good /bad outcome, keep move forward.
Please interview Slavoj Žižek
Man the Rabbi takes forever to say something already
So why did/does it fail?
My 2 cents........
Human nature.
We've never really had it, so its an unanswerable question. Communism requires worker control over production, which has never happened.
@@FreddieFoxxx100 Minor inconvenient detail - the path to communism is paved with 100+ million dead. In that regard, it has been tried and hopefully won't ever be tried again. Having witnessed the horrors of communist regime myself (growing up in Soviet Union), I can only hope no one is stupid enough to try this insane experiment again.
@@CostaKazistov You're confusing communism (economics) for authoritarianism (politics). Also, are we really pretending that capitalism isn't the heavyweight champ of casualties?
@@FreddieFoxxx100 workers control over production? means to say instead of 5 pax controlling and deciding on the distribution of production , 200 pax ( workers) decide on that ? recipe of mass confusion and mayhem and that is what happened in reality as well. That does not mean capitalism is perfect either.
It was designed to fail
What was designed to fail?
@Hutch Hutch
What do you mean hate everyone?
that religious thinking. We are against corporate greed, because of that majority around US are suffering.
you support someone accumulating billions of dollars sitting on a chair, when you do all the work?
Who was statistically speaking born into wealth?
You think employees are not smart enough to organize there work place better?
You literally don’t support upward mobility?
Do you think by hardwork you too can become a billionaire and keep this system of killing people in poor countries?
@Hutch Hutch
What the f*** are you even talking about?
Government has nothing to do with your day to day life.
You go to work 8 hr, live under state law and then go back home.
The prices of the food, shelter, clothing, prices of every other commodities around you are immensely influenced by the shareholders urge to make more PROFITS.
People who are narcissistic don’t think about other beside there own selfish interests that’s more the trait of profit seeking capitalist.
Read and understand marxism, experience poverty before commenting on stuff you don’t understand.
Clickbait bullshit, also a bunch of chosenites aren't going to be objective on this subject
FYI: While America was lynching African-Americans the Soviet Union was first to reach out to us with compassion and love.
Objectivists still, like, exist? Wow. How embarassing.
This is a problem with a critique of communism. They all critique SSSR and let's say all countries after the WW2 which was the certain point, let's say very painful point in time, for all of the countries, and on the other hand we will not be here if this communistic beast didn't exist. And SSSR had very small practice of communism and Marxism in reality , more of Leninism and socialism which is not the same thing. Also they have the problem with the revolution, for them the rational thing is to exploit the poor workers and not give them the power against the oppressors. This is the classical bullshit, no one will say that Stalin was the angel, but this sort of critique of Marx is bullshit without understanding Marx ideology and point in History where all of this occurs.
You can’t be a conservative and be against private property rights.
Because there is a little thing called HUMAN NATURE.
Lets ignore the fact that Bismarck introduced social programs out of fear of a rising socialism, why valorise reactionary politics and dismiss what they were reacting against 😴
Because it is Christianity with all the violence of a collectivistic thought process, but without any values.
“Why Communism Fails”
Because currency exists.
The End
Yes. But why does currency exist?
@@lonesomealeks4206 Because it's easier to survive with currency than barter. With barter, if nobody wants what you have in exchange for food, you starve. If you have a ton of food but no demand, then you lose your wealth to expiration and could starve. There is no permanence or market stability with barter. You can't build nations with a barter economy.
With currency, the value is universal, not quid pro quo. If you have 5 bucks, you get whatever amount of food the market has determined is worth 5 bucks, or a tool, or whatever you want that has been determined to be worth 5 bucks. Your employer doesn't have to pay you with foodstuffs or tools he might not have or that he has and you might not want. You can save your money and move somewhere better if you prefer. It's hard to do that with a farm's worth of cattle and grain in tow, which you couldn't save anyways because most of it would expire or be stolen before you could save up enough for a move or given to people you hire to move it. At some point, barter becomes a zero sum game.
Imagine what it would be like if you had to trade a goat or cow or a bushel of grain or whatever every time you required a product or service. Could you imagine what a hospital would be like if people were showing up in the emergency room with foodstuffs and livestock? Or what sort of exchange would be necessary to even build the hospital? What if you couldn't grow food or do labor in exchange for food, or couldn't get enough in exchange for labor to pay a doctor for their services? You couldn't save it; you'd be living hand to mouth because food spoils and large supplies attract thieves. You'd be fucked. In agrarianism, the same problems exist with barter as in a hunter-gatherer culture, but worse, because you're not as independent and self-reliant as a hunter-gatherer. You can't even get to industrialism with a barter culture, which depends on a huge dependency infrastructure only achievable with capitalism.
Not even communism in its purest form can exist beyond the level of a commune without capitalism; it can never evolve past the stage of communalism without currency. Communism is an industrial paradigm; you don't get to industrialism without capital. How are you going to amass livestock and crops and other items of barter necessary to pay workers and suppliers without incurring the expense of storage, or balance the acquisition and expenditure of such large supplies without losing it all to expiration or sunk costs of maintenance? How are you going to maintain it so that it will last long enough to actually expend it? How are you going to accept foodstuffs as payment for whatever non-food items you manufacture, or anything else, for that matter? Where will you store it all? Preserve it? Guard it?
Do you see the problems that currency solves? You can store a million dollars indefinitely in a bank; it's just a symbol of universal exchange value. There are numerous ways to grow your currency without labor. Try storing a million head of cattle or bushels of wheat indefinitely, let alone acquiring them at a rate faster than they expire. Or a million shovels or axes or whatever could easily be stolen, assuming you even possess enough land to store all of them or could grow enough foodstuffs to barter for them. Monetary surplus is capital, and capital is king. It's easier to acquire, store, preserve, grow and guard than any tangible item of exchange.
Even if you try to revert to a barter economy from a capital economy on a national level with government planning and regulation (as some communists idealize), it would ultimately fail and capitalism would be restored. Too many problems with a barter economy that would ultimately cause civilization on such a large scale to collapse. You would still require currency to make a truly communist economy work, even if capital was the exclusive domain of government.
Survival is optimized when you can acquire and hold a surplus. Not just for you, but for everyone else who benefits from it if you're using it to employ people. It's impossible to do that in meaningful ways with foodstuffs or tools as items of trade because of the additional costs and limitations of barter. You end up with so many sunk costs in a barter economy that you could never actually build wealth as an individual.
Currency exists because of survival necessity. None of what we have at our disposal today would exist, could exist, in a barter economy.
🤡🤡🤡🤡
Conservatives are opposed to bureaucracy and that is because intellectual conservatives usually believe that large bureaucracy limits freedom of ideas and choice by nature. I federal body cannot legislate actually freedom of ideas only the lack of intervention cultivates alternate views and freedom of choice.
just trading one autocracy for another. governments need consent of the governed to be successful
Really unpleasant guests to be fair
Evolution of modern societ would of been much worst as capitalism illustrates the extents. Imagine with tech much faster. The 2nd ww was similar question about implications of societies new elevations
It should go without saying that communism was unequivocally a disaster. However, Yaron Brook frustrates the hell out of me with how badly he caricatures anyone that isn't Ayn Rand.
Communism's never really been tried, though. It's just been a parade of authoritarian fascists who used it as a buzzword.
And the answer ...sounded like a bunch of gobbledygook to me.
Please tell me Lex is not advocating for communism?.? I really hope he isn't
You sure talk a lot about Communism, for someone that never has Communists on your show.
It didn't fail, dunce. Your barber did.
ua-cam.com/video/t8LtQhIQ2AE/v-deo.html
Kindergärten roasts from a person with the mental fortitude of a kindergartener.
@@roofkorean2067 Oh, is that like someone who pretends German and English are the same language? 😂😂😂
@@fun_ghoul Dude it's autocorrect
@@roofkorean2067 Ah, so you don't know how to manually correct autocorrect. OK.
So now, what was that about my "mental fortitude", goof?
Horrible interview
Why does he never invites professor Wolff?
It’s easy listening to something you will keep on agreeing upon over and over again.
Anybody that defends communism as an effective system is just dense beyond belief especially the highly intelligent ones. We tried it for a hundred years and it has failed in every conceivable aspect time and time again no matter who was in charge. The reason it will never work is population size. In a village of ~1000 people then yeah communism works pretty great, but in the modern world it results in unimaginable suffering and evil every time.
Richard Wolf is batshit crazy.
@@thinkinyblinko6666
You should listen to all ideas, is the first rule of academia. Why are you so scared of that?
@@IIIMajesty
When we don’t understand something; we tend to talk bullsh€t about it.
@@treali
Yah capitalist countries like US can’t pay there labor the high cost there productive value required but can go and hire kids for $3 an hour to work on your clothes, what a boot licking c^*K piece of sh€t. What do you think US went to china out of generosity 😂
yes but it started developing after 1920 surrounded by the most powerful militaries the world, meanwhile US started in 1776 surrounded by weak neighbors. USSR gave women the right to vote, Gays freedom, most literate society around and in 30 years launched the first man in space, ahead of the most developed nation in the world.
Lastly the guy namely Einstein; who wrote that quote was huge advocate for Socialism and Communism.
Arggh three Jews discussing Communism 😂😂
Plot twist: Communism never failed; it did exactly what it was designed to do.
I will give credit where credit is due, communism was by far the most effective system ever designed for killing communists.
Fun fact communism never existed. So me a moneyless class, stateless society that existed aside from the primitive communism that existed for some 100,000 years of prehistory and then we can start to have a discussion.
The word ALWAYS is missing from the title of this vlog.
The CIA
This was one of the crappiest responses to communism. For or against. Yes it is supposed to glue the people together with a common goal and a common patriotism. People are different though, yes we adhere mostly to the same ideals but also have our "free minds". We are always looking to improve ourselves before improving the masses. Some folks are happy with the minimun but it seems most are not willing to toil in a mine for free healthcare or the same money as the person driving a cab about town. The "ruler class", because everything is seperated by class, I think this is where everything goes awry. They get all the money and perks while the common man gets the crumbs of equality. It just connot be that everyone is equal. If the "ruling class" were to accept the crumbs of equality without cheating, communism would have a better chance.
It fails because most humans want to take out more than they put into a system. That's why capitalism is so successful.
@@Ryan-ce1oc capitalism is successful because the rich convince their slaves that they’re poor because they’re lazy, and it’s cheaper than actual slavery
@@gcod3d161 Not true. Wages are low because of high competition for jobs. People are not going to get high wages for doing jobs that require no skills to do.
It is lazy to not develop any skills and just go to work for 8 hours. I have a good job and I have to invest a huge amount of money and years of my life to develop the skills for it. I put the effort in.
Unskilled work might be physically tiring, but they are very easy jobs in comparison to highly skilled professional jobs. I should know, I've done both.
@@gcod3d161 So you think if the "slaves" owned the company collectively they would not be lazy? Hahaha! People have choices, to be or not to be lazy and useless or productive and successful. It is a mindset which makes you work for a better life.
@@gcod3d161 The "slaves" still have a better lifestyle than the slaves in a communist system.
People that kill people like to kill people. There's no cause that turns sadism off and once scratched an itch can't be ignored.
Communism can be viewed as an extension of Cain and Able.
one of the dumbest conversations you'll hear on communism
Socialism didnt fail and capitalismo doesnt succeed.
👃🤥
Why have a picture of Carl Marx the socialist? Socialism is not Communism. I thought you were smarter than this Lex, or was it intentional? If so, shame on you.
“I view Marx as rather Rational and Christian.” Since when are Christian’s rational?
@Hutch Hutch “That’s a bit discriminatory.”
“Are you one of these anti religion WHITE teenage COMMUNISTS?” The irony in your statement is hilarious.
@Hutch Hutch stop with the irony. You accuse me of discrimination, then you go on to discriminate and you think that because you say , “I’m not being discriminatory.” That it somehow absolves you. You must be one of those RATIONAL Christians. Thank you for proving my point.
@Hutch Hutch ad hominem attacks. You make this way too easy
@Hutch Hutch you are highly delusional, highly
Yaron aka #TheReachGod
Look up Bakunin vs Marx
Why did or why does?
ECP?
If the workers are being disrespected, then it’s not communism QED. The reason it’s popular to think that communism failed is because people have been convinced communism means something that it does not. The “failed” communist countries we talk about were actually fascist countries
Exactly, remember these countries were also sanctioned and hindered from trading with the wider world. People really don't think about the picture as a whole they just like to demonise their boggy men and praise their false ideals.
"Akchutally it wasn't real communism!"
@@WSmith_1984 If a socialist country has the communist party in charge, how can being hindered from trade affect them? Communists have all the theories, they can figure it out. They know how to survive without capitalism, why would they want to have access to it?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD you're being disingenuous. It's not that everything is figured out it's the system is set up in such a way that if you find yourself homeless for whatever reason, you won't be on the streets compounding your problems. It's about ensuring that people have a fair crack at the whip. You think money is what's valuable because you live in a system that glorifies and worships it, those who control the supply of it know you will do anything for it, even when it means working yourself to the bone for minimum wages or shlte working conditions. The only thing that has any true value in this universe is human time/energy capital, not dollars, not yen, not the pound, not gold, just our natural given human time/energy capital. The rest is all bullshlt.
@@WSmith_1984 How am I being disingenuous? If you have a system that's inherently revolutionary, and calls for the abolishment of capitalism, at least have a plan to exist without capitalism. If you claim you want to abolish capitalism and you violently repress people from the former economy, how can you expect to come with your hands out and beg for support? If your plan needs the help of capitalists, you have failed before you started. You created your own economic system. Use it. Don't beg for help from the people you demonized.
What fair crack at the whip? What socialist nations gave people a fair crack at the whip?
Money is simply a token of exchange. Oh, and socialist nation leaders didn't glorify and worship their own wealth? Did they not control supply? Did they not force people to work to the bone for little pay?
Human time has value, and socialism is the most efficient way to waste it.
🌈🌈🦄🦄
china has entered the chat
Came to post this. So many malding edge lords and boomers in comments with no idea about communism . Westerners are brainwashed at their peril
What is communism
It depends on country to country, politicians, etc etc
@@roofkorean2067 that's a better answer than some people give
A guide on how to destroy society disguised as a political ideology
@@SithStudy source? What books can i read to know how they intend to do this?
@@seth7407 look up the Frankfurt school and read quotes from men like Max Horkheimer. They’re the ones who introduced America to wokeism.
Or you can just read the original communist manifesto, Marx is pretty upfront about his yearning to destroy the western world
Because it was coopted by oligarchy and tyranny. Every society falls to oligarchy without viable majority consensus vote driven democratic republic. And communism has never existed. Neither has democracy really.
💜🙏🏽🇺🇸
Can’t forget devastating economic warfare from the west who were terrified of losing their oligarchies
To be socialized to the state.. aka slave to a monopoly that does whatever it wants to you on a whim...
Communism failed because the idea of sharing resources fundamentally doesn't fit an obect worshipping axiology which breeds a individualistic and hyper competitive worldview adapted to the essential selfishness of Survival. Europeans came to civilization like an hour ago and had no history of reknown until 600 B.C.(The Greeks aren't European because those classifications didn't exist at that time.) No one called it democracy when natives were doing it, it was deeply innate to the people, culture and temperament of the governing and not recently learned and piled on top of scarcity adapted ice aged darwinistic values in the hopes of never having to do question one's assumptions. Personally its frustrating watching mother nature's neglected children's arrested development play out.The value system that is intrinsic to both capitalism and anti capitalist Marxist ideologies cannot escape the reach of a scarcity adapted ice age cognitive map(eurocentric might makes right overly atomistic binary primitive thinking), making the oppressed the new oppressors because who is tailored or groomed to handle power that takes power? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Men are weak. Also life isn't a binary only cavmen and computers think this way. Or maybe computers are binary because of those who invented them. Does life only exist in extremes? Or is folks and/both thinking harder to imagine to some than others. Disgust sensitivity is also negatively correlated with intelligence as well as genetic variation.
LOL what a load of crap.
Great series of videos with these thinkers, thank you!
It's weired that he only invites those rightwing people. Really weired. The dude on the left was once in a debate and made an upsy and suggested that he is for slavery.
I mean, all academics, scientists, researchers and philosophers are mostly right wing people
@@goochipoochie you fucking what m8?!
@@goochipoochie the data said quite the contrary my friend. There's an exclusion to right wing people, that is obvious.
Most countries are "mixed-market economies". None are purely communist or capitalist, they are a mix. I was taught this in the public school system in Australia.
Everyone is taught this but, historically that was not always the case and there are many people who still argue naively that a purely communist system should be the striving ideal.
@@eudoroolivares8114 People still argue that a purely capitalist system is ideal.
I keep hearing that but it doesn't ring true to me. Social programs are not the same as 'communism' Capitalism at it's core allows for the private ownership of capital and land. In contrast to collective ownership or ownership by royal families which were the other alternatives. But things like social programs, public lands, housing, goods and health care predate both capitalism and communism by millenia and were implemented in different ways by different civilizations with the Church being the usual provider for many of these things in Europe for hundreds of years.
Why do we say communism failed when china is still around embracing it? And a bunch of other countries. If it failed, it wouldn’t be around in modern day?
Murder and theft are still around in the modern world. Being 'still around' doesn't make a thing positive.
Also, China is capitalist as well from a business perspective. The saying goes “Communist with Chinese characteristics” essentially they are an authoritarian Capitalist State
China is state capitalist. In China, means of production is still controlled by share holders like capitalism. But govt has total control over country.
China adapted to legalism, thats how they're so ahead. This episode was really biased and just theoretical
@@ronwilliams4184 the title says why did it fail...so your point means nothing
Strange title. How something that never existed - failed?
Communism did not fail. Every political structure IS communism, including democracy, btw. It is always painful to those who study Law to listen to those that have not.
oh my gawd bro you’re so smart
Communism is an economic system more than political, primarily about who owns the means of production etc
Tis always quite painful to listen to the squabbling of those who haven’t studied law muwhahahahaha. You are high on your own farts.
"Stupid uneducated, didn't you know communism is this random other thing that makes it not look bad?"
This is the famous and often heard sound made when a communist lifts the goal post and moves it somewhere else.
@@LB-py9ig Troll much, buttercup? Logical fallacies falling from the sky ...
Why are you talking about politics on a show about science? Nothing about this discussion has anything to do with your podcast. All you do is have on people of politics on the right. You've never had anyone of any opposite voice of someone on the right on your podcast. If he has and he's talked about politics with them in an honest way I'd love someone to name them
people on the left are too stupid to have on shows lmfao. if you want to hear their opinions you can go to another source i personally dont value their perspective at all
there definitely are guests that from all over the political spectrum on lex's show though
Honestly, most true leftists are either too stupid to engage with or if they are smart enough they have to be intellectually disingenuous to not examine the blatant fissures in their arguments and ideas.
Who is saying that Lex's podcast is about science? Lex has made it very clear that he's doing this to interview people and gather their insights. If you're so butt-hurt about him bringing on guests who represent views other than your own, then exit the video and stop your meaningless cries. The whole point is that these videos are intended to expand the audience's perspectives on numerous subjects, and if you have any sense of decency or maturity then you'll stop being a bitch and take your leave.
@@itsv1p3r You mean like the ideological left right? Not like a US democrat or a Swedish social democrat etc? If so I totally agree, leftists/marxists/tankies are frankly the least intelligent human beings I've ever met which is amazing considering how much they read.
Like as if capitalism succeeded. Wow, the title is a joke.
Well it's more successful compared to the other systems.
It has literally lifted millions from poverty and is the reason the West is the best so yes
@@dewaldt8104 But capitalism doesn’t consider the amount of resources in hand. It assumes resource is unlimited.
@@TNTsundar actually it does. When resources are low and the demand for that resource is high the price will increase.
@@dewaldt8104 That’s supply and demand. I’m talking about the endless aspirations of corporates to make more money. To make this happen humanity is working long and hard and in doing so we consume more resources. Now population growth is a direct result thinking that having more money means prosperity. Sum of materialistic wealth is not the same as sum of food to feed the people. So in order to feed the grown population, food quality is reduced in the name of genetically modified ones. And the list goes on and on. That’s the issue.