libertarian socialists are arguably on the forefront of modern revolutionary socialist movements. the rojava revolution and zapatista uprising are ongoing yknow...
@@Columner Naxalites and NPA. They're are way more active Marxist insurgencies than "libertarians socialist" whatever that means. Like Rojava and Zapatistas are even comparable. Ask Rojava how aligning with the amerikkkans worked out for them.
social democracy has its origins in Marxism. Before the 20th century, "Social Democracy" was just another name for socialism. With time, it became more reformist, abandoned the idea of the revolution and, eventually, became what we know today.
@@Pufferfish2586 the workers councils (soviet democracy) implemented in the soviet union was distinct from any form of council communism because it fundamentally was not a democracy and the councils themselves held no power. the bolsheviks held a monopoly on all political power under a totalitarian, centralised single-party dictatorship. it had been a vanguardist, authoritarian state since the kronstadt rebellion
From what I understand, council democracy ("soviets"), can still have parties in the council (and usually send delegates to a higher legislature or "Congress"). Council communism on the other hand is more "anarchistic" (in that it argues for communism rather than socialism - the difference being that communism is a _"classless, moneyless and a _*_stateless_*_ society"_ - therefore, it is inherently anarchist), decentralised (so there is no higher Congress), and has no parties but rather people participate in direct democratic/consensus-based organisation of the local community of the council (hence, no parties = no parties).
@@foreverdirt1615 Proclaiming that something is evil is very different from taking it on. This is very much assuming that "Evil" is something that can be clearly codified. Slavery never would have ended in the United States if people refused to vote for the best abolitionist and/or emancipationists they could get **despite** bitter antebellum supporters often violently retaliating because they saw it as actively being evil. It's not called "Progressivism" because it's inevitable that history will proceed in that way, but because people are actively trying to push the cart. What lessons are there to be learned from refusing to learn **how** evil corrupts such movements by sitting it all out? It really sounds like the easiest group of political dissidents to deal with ever. They put THEMSELVES in the corner!
Sounds good, but just like anarchism doesn't have anything to show for itself, unlike ML countries, when it does, maybe it can be viewed seriously, untill then, it will continue to be an infantile disorder ig.
Libertarian socialist absolutely has stuff to show for itself, unless you believe Makhnovia, CNT-FAI Catalonia, Allende's Chile, the Zapatistas and Rojava aren't worth anything.
@Dinofaustivoro Well, if you refuse to form a political party, refuse to align with trade unions and refuse to take a significant action, your revolution will never succeed (-;
All of these ideas come from Carl Marx. He was a bum,who never worked,lived off first his father's money. Then he married money,and when that stopped,he swindled some guy named Engles,who supported him until he died. Then when he ran out of benefactor,he died in poverty. I wouldn't follow his ideas to far, myself. It all looks good on paper,but I don't think it works. Even if it does,I'll take what we have any day
@@davewagner5408 I mean you didn’t even take the time to learn his name, why should we listen to what you have to say about him or his ideas? Also, I kinda mean to call you dumb, because it’s the internet, and the algorithm overlords compel me to react to an outrageous statement with another outrageous statement.
I saw a biography about him on the biographical channel on UA-cam. That man presents facts,and gives no opinion on the people he covers. He said that Marx was sent to college,by his wealthy father,and all he did was party,until Daddy threatened to take the money away. Then he finally studied and graduated. He married a woman, whose family had money,and basically lived off her family,until he convinced Engles,to give him money. I'm not saying he never had a single job,but I don't consider writing the Communist Manifesto,to be a way to support and feed your family. He certainly never worked any more than he absolutely had to. His dream was to be a philosopher. How do they earn a living? I know I won't pay them for their thoughts. After Engles died,his wife's family had also cut his money off,so he died poor. The biographical channel didn't call him a bum,I did. If he wanted to live his life that way,it was his business,but I'm certainly not interested in any political theories from a man who used others wealth to live,and then says I shouldn't own private property. Just rely on the government. No thanks. There's no way his theory can work, because there will always be lazy people,who do less,but want just as much as everyone else. And governments can't be trusted.
When I’m in a doing nothing contest and my opponent is a Trotskyist/Libertarian socialist/Left communist:
libertarian socialists are arguably on the forefront of modern revolutionary socialist movements. the rojava revolution and zapatista uprising are ongoing yknow...
How's the Soviet Union doing right now?
@ China exists btw, what Trotskyist/Libertarian socialist/Left-communist movements can you point to which aren’t tiny and inconsequential?
@@peoplerepellent299China is an authoritarian shithole
@@Columner Naxalites and NPA. They're are way more active Marxist insurgencies than "libertarians socialist" whatever that means. Like Rojava and Zapatistas are even comparable. Ask Rojava how aligning with the amerikkkans worked out for them.
Just look at what Bernie Sanders preaches,thats pretty close to socialism.
Am I crazy or did this video associate social democrats with Marxists??? Surely you meant democratic socialists?
social democracy has its origins in Marxism. Before the 20th century, "Social Democracy" was just another name for socialism. With time, it became more reformist, abandoned the idea of the revolution and, eventually, became what we know today.
but how does council communism differ from the soviets? a soviet is already a workers council
And no council communist is denying that.
@@Pufferfish2586 the workers councils (soviet democracy) implemented in the soviet union was distinct from any form of council communism because it fundamentally was not a democracy and the councils themselves held no power. the bolsheviks held a monopoly on all political power under a totalitarian, centralised single-party dictatorship. it had been a vanguardist, authoritarian state since the kronstadt rebellion
@@Columner Yes, I meant it in a literal sence, a soviet is a worker councils.
From what I understand, council democracy ("soviets"), can still have parties in the council (and usually send delegates to a higher legislature or "Congress"). Council communism on the other hand is more "anarchistic" (in that it argues for communism rather than socialism - the difference being that communism is a _"classless, moneyless and a _*_stateless_*_ society"_ - therefore, it is inherently anarchist), decentralised (so there is no higher Congress), and has no parties but rather people participate in direct democratic/consensus-based organisation of the local community of the council (hence, no parties = no parties).
Bruh Stalin was at least realistic, this is utopianism squared
it's unrealistic but at least it isn't evil. It's better for socialism to not happen at all than for it to be actively evil.
Say that to Zapatistas or Rojava
@@foreverdirt1615 Proclaiming that something is evil is very different from taking it on. This is very much assuming that "Evil" is something that can be clearly codified.
Slavery never would have ended in the United States if people refused to vote for the best abolitionist and/or emancipationists they could get **despite** bitter antebellum supporters often violently retaliating because they saw it as actively being evil.
It's not called "Progressivism" because it's inevitable that history will proceed in that way, but because people are actively trying to push the cart. What lessons are there to be learned from refusing to learn **how** evil corrupts such movements by sitting it all out? It really sounds like the easiest group of political dissidents to deal with ever. They put THEMSELVES in the corner!
"Realistic" lol ok neolib
They did nothing
lenin sounded smarter than all these other folks
an incredible measure of intellectual value
Italian Left Communists support Lenin lmao
Sounds good, but just like anarchism doesn't have anything to show for itself, unlike ML countries, when it does, maybe it can be viewed seriously, untill then, it will continue to be an infantile disorder ig.
Libertarian socialist absolutely has stuff to show for itself, unless you believe Makhnovia, CNT-FAI Catalonia, Allende's Chile, the Zapatistas and Rojava aren't worth anything.
Never even mentioned the Italian Left Communist movement
Armchair Commies lol.
yeah
"Armchair commies" who carried out the revolution in Russia.
mfers like would call Marx and Engels armchairs
So you say directly taking the means of production is "armchair", but becoming a state burocrat is what?
@Dinofaustivoro Well, if you refuse to form a political party, refuse to align with trade unions and refuse to take a significant action, your revolution will never succeed (-;
never got anywhere ever since ww1
How is the USSR? How is the Easten Bloc? How is China?
All of these ideas come from Carl Marx. He was a bum,who never worked,lived off first his father's money. Then he married money,and when that stopped,he swindled some guy named Engles,who supported him until he died. Then when he ran out of benefactor,he died in poverty. I wouldn't follow his ideas to far, myself. It all looks good on paper,but I don't think it works. Even if it does,I'll take what we have any day
Karl.
I don't understand what you mean.
He was not a bum and did not live off his parents money. Where did you get this information from?
@@davewagner5408 I mean you didn’t even take the time to learn his name, why should we listen to what you have to say about him or his ideas?
Also, I kinda mean to call you dumb, because it’s the internet, and the algorithm overlords compel me to react to an outrageous statement with another outrageous statement.
I saw a biography about him on the biographical channel on UA-cam. That man presents facts,and gives no opinion on the people he covers. He said that Marx was sent to college,by his wealthy father,and all he did was party,until Daddy threatened to take the money away. Then he finally studied and graduated. He married a woman, whose family had money,and basically lived off her family,until he convinced Engles,to give him money. I'm not saying he never had a single job,but I don't consider writing the Communist Manifesto,to be a way to support and feed your family. He certainly never worked any more than he absolutely had to. His dream was to be a philosopher. How do they earn a living? I know I won't pay them for their thoughts. After Engles died,his wife's family had also cut his money off,so he died poor. The biographical channel didn't call him a bum,I did. If he wanted to live his life that way,it was his business,but I'm certainly not interested in any political theories from a man who used others wealth to live,and then says I shouldn't own private property. Just rely on the government. No thanks. There's no way his theory can work, because there will always be lazy people,who do less,but want just as much as everyone else. And governments can't be trusted.