3 Weapons of Marxists (by a former communist) 

>former marxist >rambles at a libertarian think-tank Sure, buddy!

Why is collective ownership of the means of production considered a form of altruism, while volunteering the value generated by waged work to your employer isn't? We live in communities in which goods and services are exchanged, regardless of how one chooses to do so. If I voluntarily cede some benefit for myself so that someone else can have it, I have been altruistic. Employers have leverage over workers which can compel them to accept unfair compensation for what they produce. Why, then, is the upkeep of _that_ system imperative, while one in which work is compensated for 'differently', isn't, even if such a society were predicated on immense welfare payments to collective benefit? 'Because one has a higher death toll than the other' insinuates a false premise. There exist no arguments that socialist reform is *guaranteed* to lead to mass death. Neoliberal irresponsibility is a mechanism for its stability, because it can always disown its structural effects, choosing instead to blame individuals which compose it. On the other hand, socialist failures are immediately read as an indictment of the system itself. In both situations, a worker is expected to be altruistic towards someone. I would much rather be altruistic to the benefit of someone unfortunate than someone fortunate. Even granting the preposterous claim that altruism is insidious, clearly _wasted_ altruism is more so.

As an anti-marxist communist I have to say this: 1. Marxism is not appealing because of some moral imperative. The moralisation of what Marx considered a scientific theory is a sociological phenomenon stemming from the rational conclusion of his world building and the decline of religious and spiritual maps of meaning. The unity of so many insightful (but still partially wrong ideas) in a single philosopher affects the way every bit is contextualised. If the ideas of Marx were written by several different philosophers one or two of them would be justifiably famous while the rest would remain obscure alongside his worst ideas. 2. What is scientific about Marxism is not the critique of capitalism (although it is correct to a significant degree). It's the implementation of dialectics in a materialistic framework. This allows us to make predictions and measure results but every attempt is constrained both by which aspect of reality we chose to incorporate in the predictive algorithm of our choice and by our inability to take into account the cascading consequence further in time from each seemingly insignificant inaccuracy. It's imperfect and constantly requires adjustments like any other scientific tool we have. 3. The artistic boom following the popularisation of Marxism is to be expected both as a result of such an inspiring grand narrative and stemming from the fact a large portion of leftist artists were actually able to survive while doing what they love precisely because of the economic security socialist states give them. If you guarantee a decent minimal standard of living in capitalist societies and let people pursue their creative uniqueness without worrying about food you will see more pro capitalist poems. Nothing strange or evil here. 4. No you don't have to attack this morality. All you have to do is reframe it. As I said it's not really Marxist in the traditional sense. In my opinion objectivism is the most internally coherent moral philosophy but it clashes with our genetic predispositions for developing collectivist instincts. We are a social species and it makes no sense to encourage individuality when it is at the expense of the collective just like it makes no sense to suppress it without a social benefit (something all governments inevitably do to a certain extent). I think Nietzschean philosophy can be a good way to build a bridge from the excellent conceptualisation of purely negative moral responsibilities provided by Rand to the highest ideals of communism

And how many indigenous peoples and native cultures have been annihilated by capitalist, colonial nations?

I read one economics book before I read the Kapital and you could see the economic fallacies from page one. Many smart people engage in philosophy and science but don't engage in economics. So they are completely blind in this area. In other words, they see a cake and say everyone should have an equally large piece, while not understanding that with this method you get a very small cake overall instead of a huge cake “unequally” divided.

@20:00 "Rand has given us a heroic vision..." No not really. It's a lot of satire, SATIRE OF HEROISM! Sad IMHO

What an intellectually dishonest and and inane speech. As a supposed former Marxist himself such things like the change from a modernist to an anti-modernist stance in mainline Marxism should be apparent to him given that he LITERALLY lists the names of the theorists which initiated this break in the video itself. Furthermore, he overlooks how Marxism turned Russia into the 2nd most powerful state in the world in the 80s from the feudal backwater of Europe that it had been since the 16th century. Additionally, he overlooks the decisive role the Soviet Union played in the 2nd world war which very likely would have ended not so favorably for the Allies had they not intervened. Not to mention how infamously Greece, his own country, has been handled by the bankers of international capitalism since the 2000s. Of course communism in name, which it was most certainly not in practice, has done bad things over the years but let’s just overlook centuries of capitalist horrors because Stalin said a few bad things and was a fallible man. If you count the death toll of capitalism I can guarantee you it is in the billions.

Да здравствует свобода! 🐍

Translation: “I WAS AN IDEALIST.”

Name a single place where communism has been implemented? Stalinism was a dictatorship, China is an autocracy. Words matter

As an active practitioner of youth culture since I was young, I remember a friend of mine asking, _why is everyone who approaches us, from established institutions, such as galleries, theaters, leaders of youth centers, researchers, etc., communists?_ Today, I know why. I remember being hired as an instructor at a summer camp once, organized by a youth centre, and in a spare moment I visited the rap workshop, the instructor there gave a lecture about how companies exploit their workers. This was long before I became politically interested, but I remember thinking it was strange. Shouldn't these youngsters learn to rap?

Every comrade can share his opinion, so long as it's the right opinion. Viva la revolucion cabrones! Very well put Nikos, I feel you...

Great and very informative!

I never considered it like this, as in attacking it from its morality. It really is built off of a facetious view of altruism that is crude and naïve. Great speaker. Geia sas apo tin Kypro.

Θυμάμαι τους καθηγητές μου στο γυμνάσιο που στην πλειονότητα τους ήταν κομουνιστές ή έστω άκρο-αριστεροί.

Stalin an Mao arent communist

Δημήτρης Μητροπάνος! (Ωραία μουσική, κακές ιδέες)!

❤❤❤

Dear commenters who wish to speak about your "precious indigenous peoples" , READ THIS: The "indigenous" (nobody is actually indigenous anywhere) people were AT LEAST as racist and bloodthirsty as us. Their cultures were NOT good cultures! They were ... ok cultures AT BEST. THOSE "POOR OPPRESSED INNOCENT NATIVES" WOULD'VE DONE THE SAME TO US IF THEY COULD. But we were first, and we were better. We (Europeans) won this round by being first and by being better. Things might change...