That's the problem with designed systems, human civilization is too complex to properly design without there being a bunch of unintended consequences. The problem with most attempts at reform through revolution is that the chaos of a revolution absolutely does promote greed and sociopathy and is a prime way for some sociopath to take over a country to his own benefit. The intention might be just and noble, but you can't cleanly build a society on ideals. Modern capitalism is the product of a slow evolution of culture stemming from western Europe, spread by imperialism, and moderated by increasing democratic reform. Capitalism doesn't have a Marx who fortold how it would all go down, it has a bunch of people looking at it's past and coming up with different theories about how it got here and where it should go next. I don't know what the future of society holds, but I trust the continued gradual evolution of our system far more than I trust the product of bunch of young, desperate men with weapons looking to reshape society.
@@TombaFanatic I trust revolutionaries more than I trust the billionaires insisting through their private media talking heads that "oh no it'd be far too scary to push for real, substantial change. Look what happened with these other guys" and glossing over the imperial meddling that often took place in these socialist projects. Not so much an indictment of socialism as of capitalism when a capitalist country comes in to assassinate a socialist leader or foment a coup.
@@dvg1918ro it's curious that you can't think of any improvement around you. It is like you have accepted a downward spiral as the natural way of doing things.
@@TombaFanatic So what you’re saying Africans have no choice but to keep being exploited under capitalism because capitalism is the only solution and any alternative is worse? The truth is you are afraid of change. You want to keep the status quo so anyone that is affected by the status quo should be forced to accept it. Why? Why should people accept the status quo that negatively affect their daily lives? You’re telling me that a system that helps homeless people is worse than a capitalist system that makes sure homeless people stay homeless?
I think what people mean by “human nature” is the behaviors we exhibit as a result of our evolutionary background. So when people say that it’s human nature for people to be greedy, selfish, and cruel, I always counter with the fact that cooperation, selflessness, and kindness are also a part of human nature. Therefore, we should build a society that promotes the best elements of our nature, instead of the worst ones.
The whole argument falls flat in the first place. We are sentient beings. For example, by nature we are supposed to always seek self preservation, but suicide exists. We can do a lot of things that wouldn't be "natural". We aren't anymore dictated by just evolution and nature. We can control what we are.
A consideration if I may. I am not sure if human nature is a fixed idea. I think that is one point of the video. Therefore as sentient beings, could we not turn to democratic socialism or a variant to purposely evolve a kind of cultural evolution to such virtues as cooperation and kindness within a contemporized attempt at mutual interest? Thank you.
Selflessness, kindness are spiritual values, not rational-animalistic, if you want to have system promoting spiritual stuff, theocracy is there, not godless marxism that exploits people for short term until it kills itself over and over
@@peenoice5176 Russia overthrew socialism and became a state owned capitalist system of government enterprise and privatization that's why it's the way it is
Humans were communal and cooperative for tens of thousands of years before the development of slave society, we are social beings, decades of research in sociology, psychology and neuroscience have proved this definitively Self-preservation is a natural instinct that is present in every living being in one way or another, humans have a unique ability to adapt to changing conditions, and really in my mind, selfishness and greed is really just a survival mechanism that we become habituated to, as we adapt to an environment that not only facilitates a narrow, inward way of thinking and acting, but rewards it
@@sefisyara5961if you want a better argument for socialism you have to read. This argument itself points out that it is in fact a part of human nature to cooperate. It doesnt attempt to destroy capitalism. Of course you lack the reading comprehension for it but I am not surprised.
@@BUSeixas11selfishness can be contained by us humans. A system like capitalism which rewards greed and slavery sure doesnt help us combat selfishness at all. Of course you havent watched the video as your comment was adressed in this very video.
even if it was, appealing to nature doesnt work for me. its natural for hurricanes to blow our houses down and kill us, but we build stronger houses dont we?
@@LifeInJambles Nobody said "natural = good". Its just something you need to take into consideration when it comes to human behavior. Ooooor you just deny everything. Your choice.
@@LeonardGMN but "natural" is so nebulous a concept it holds basically no meaning, and while it might be useful for vibes, it conveys no information in advertising other than "we're targeting people who value this concept".
@@LifeInJambles In this sense, "natural" refers to behavior that is still ingrained in us from a time we were still hunters and gatherers (or in our "natural" state). Sure, there might not be a clear line between "natural" and "unnatural" and there is still a lot to learn, but we still have this very real concept and scientific fields like evolutionary psychology to research on this. And yes, they agree that certain behavior can be explained by being "natural". And again: That doesn't mean it's good or even an excuse, it's nothing to "appeal to", it's just something to keep in mind.
"John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?" ~ Emma Goldman
Wait, why did you say that money existed for a miniscule part of human history? I just went to a museum that had on display coins from the time of Mesopotamia
The period from the beginnings of the Mesopotamian civilisation up to modern day is still miniscule compared to the tens of thousands of years of human history that preceded it.
Written history and currency spans back to 5000 years with Mesopotamia being among the first to make commodity money. The rise of agriculture 12000 years. Early Homo sapiens 300000 years ago. Pre-History spans back 3 million years when stone tools were first used. on top of that they'd start out with commodity money long before actual coins were made and it wasn't widespread outside of the mediterranean and a handful of regions in Asia. so you could say it's both miniscule compared to many other markers of human history and also miniscule compared to how widespread non-currency using humans were compared to the currency users until the medieval age and the creation of the first paper money.
@@BalkanOdyssey_ This is a horrible argument. Are you saying that civilization prior to the development of an agricultural society is somehow better? This is just kind of a flawed anthropological analysis given bartering to some degree has almost certainly existed for things such as trinkets and idols and tools among humans. Transaction on a large scale was impossible due to the logistics of a pre-agricultural humanity. To say that because they physically could not do these things that the human brain, when introduced to these new technologies, will not trend towards these smaller habits of bartering but on a larger scale is simply ridiculous.
@@keemstarkreamstar7069 Can we agree on that bartering was around to some degree but almost always limited to being between strangers while fellow villagers that knew each other used gift or debt based exchanges instead?
@@johannhawk8471 I mean, to some degree. Again this also further proves my point. Humanity was SOMEWHAT collectivistic ONLY in small groupings. There was always an “other”. Unless you propose that the perfect socialist system is just a collection of feuding micro-states, this analogy falls apart completely when applied whatsoever to the modern day.
You are lying, this video is a stupid person talking in a smart way, he never proved how humans haven't been horrible to each other, and he never even addressed the main problem, he just addressed greed
@@BalkanOdyssey_ thnx a lot for the videos. i learned a lot about the balkan. i did not even know about tito. i had to read about him after you mentioned him in your videos. Tito was a great leader and far ahead of his time. the thing i dont understand still is why his politics ended when he died.
1 Timothy 6:10 (King James Version) 10 For *the love of money is the root of all evil:* which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
the 'human nature' rhetorical argument is so reductive in how it portrays the human condition. It displays such an obvious disdain for any intellectual exercise.
If it’s human nature to be greedy and selfish then there would be no need to teach kids that “life isn’t fair”. Children innately recognize the importance of fairness, so it clearly isn’t true that we’re innately selfish. Instead, kids have to be taught by both their parents and our capitalistic society to be selfish.
@@ashtangaxashtangapranayama8526 They are, just as much as they are selfless. The idea that human nature must be summed up as one or the other is ridiculous. Good and evil are opposites of the same coin, the coin is humanity.
@@choboibigly6565 Which is true. Humanity is capable of both. But the thing is, I don't see capitalism deny that. Socialists do. Some humans are just naturally greedy no matter what, and all it takes is one bad apple to completely disprove socialist's concepts.
@professorcheckmate Capitalists denying selflessness as human nature is literally one their most common arguments. Also if you think it takes 'one bad apple' to render Socialist concepts useless then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what working as a group entails.
@@choboibigly6565 Do say what I am misunderstanding, because last time I checked, the worst part of dealing with any group project is the weakest link still getting the same credit. And yes it would. Do tell me, what are you going to do if you meet even a few people that don't want to participate in socialism and instead seek to gain more than what socialism gives?
The innovation is great but I think innovation would happen more and be more common with socialism, if everyone was working together instead of competing against eachother we would have a greater society today
@@internetmonkey8326 Exactly, i was thinking about that too, the ultimate teoritical goal is global communism where people whould help each other even in science and industry and therefore the lack of inovation would be minimal while everyone would have enough to live a decent life.
The whole argument that human nature is greed is just bonkers on the face of it. You think in hunter gatherer societies it was "fuck you imma get mine"? That kinda shit would get you kicked out of the tribe, and back in those days a human without a tribe dies. The essential nature of a human, if anything, is social. We're so designed around social interdependence that solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment. Human beings aren't capable of living in solitude without harm, even when all other needs are met. Given this, you might be able to argue that selflessness isn't inherent human nature but an outcome of ideology, but you very much cannot argue that hyper-individualism and selfishness is the core aspect of humanity. Seeing what kinds of rewards drive us and what punishments harm us, that just doesn't begin to check out.
Not trying to step on a landmine All systems of government end up where we are now. The people who want power will always find a way to get there regardless of what the government calls itself. I'm sick of cap/com fight. No matter what happens any federal/consolidated power will not work for the masses.
@@tugalord thanks man, i just wish i could get my friends to see it, both sides of the aisle. And yes Hugo, that would work great for a small community with a single goal in mind that the community as a whole is working towards. Our strength is our greatest weakness as Americans, our diversity and the avenues our forefathers forged to right the wrongs of our past created the greatest country on earth, but that same diversity is now being used to tear us to shreds while the 1% wine and dine while ourcountry turns to post Cesar Rome Edit: the fix to our problems starts local, the corruption of the USA is complete and thorough, screw the 1%, without their tiny minions running the works they would crumple like a house of cards. The blueprint for a healthily, successful, and prosperous nation has long been laid out, but the corruption needs to go
Primitive society was just that primitive. Either they grew out of it, destroyed and enslaved or just stayed isolated. It's gonna be a really big ask to return to that economic system and still keep modern civilization.
An interesting view, and well explained. I would have to raise a counter point regarding human nature, as the point you raise neglects causality. Which is that humans are innately self-centered, all of what people say and do thought all of history is seen through ones own eyes. No different then other creatures in nature, and is a particular means of survival within our evolutionary model, ergo its our purpose. Selfishness is a naturally occuring product of this. In example of the more primitive tribes, even they function in a with a more collectivist bias in their society, they still remain a group of individuals who are together for survival. In the more primitive model, there still existed trade by means of social contract. It is easier to survive together in a group then it is to survive alone, and the costs of remaining in that group is adhearace to its norms (which grew out of necessity, and eventually became a way of life). In feudal times, its no different. Farmers grew food to survive, and traded it with kings for protection. It was a way of life, a purpose, that grew from necessity for survival. If one removes the need for survival, the purpose, like how it is now in the modern day, then something else takes its place to give purpose. This is found in the modern idea of comfort and pleasure. Which is at the heart of materialism and consumerism. Capitalism is naturally occuring as a consequence in the sense that the principles that comprise it are rooted within the simple human desire to survive, to have security, to have things, to be comfortable, or to feel pleasure, or to have power. All things that ultimatly conclude with selfishness. Those things dont go away and are quite universal across all of humanity. Captialism, as a system, is mearly the responce to desire. If someone will pay for a thing, then someone will sell a thing. If no one wants to pay for a thing, then nothing will sell. In the marxist model, in order to make it work, there would need to means to provide for some of those traits to a degree that satisfies all thoae involved, and the ones it couldnt provide for, it would have to eliminate entirely. Everyone would have to stop thinking though self-centered means, denying that part of their nature, so that one bad apple doesnt ruin the bunch.
@@LeonardGMN Yes exactly, indeed those books are lies after lies, in addition to not having any type of evidence, they are just random ideas to support some type of belief and system.
"Those books don't contain the opinions I already hold so they must be wrong". I think for most people reading does more damage than good. It's usually well-educated and well-read people who fall for communism. You can read your way into a fictional world and insist that the real world is wrong and not the books.@@LeonardGMN
Socialism is not against human nature, but the human nature is against socialism. Not only is human nature against socialism. Human nature, in fact, is against any sort of control. I really enjoy your videos and I would like to give you big props on your work.
You have not converted me yet, but I still very much enjoy watching these videos even if I don’t agree with everything. I have some questions and I would love if people who would refer to themselves as socialists or communist could give some input. First off I agree that our ability to work together as a collective has brought the human race to where it is. However if a part of the group does not contribute I would say it is to be expected that you would feel cheated. Why should you work just so that others can benefit without contributing? I would assume that even modern day socialists would not be happy if healthy people did not work, as Lenin said “He who does not work shall not eat”. Now this principle was easy to enforce in a totalitarian dictatorship like the Soviet Union for example, but how would you incentivise people to work if they can live comfortably regardless in a modern, and true communist society? My second major complaint about communism is that it has never truly been implemented. Why? Well the people in power in a socialist state have never given up their power and position to create a stateless society. Rather they themselves enjoy all the benefits of being top ranking members of government. There is simply no incentive for these most powerful members of the communist party to leave it all behind. Of course you could find a man so pure in his intentions that he would be willing to take that step, but he would without a doubt be replaced quickly, when the many others who enjoy luxury as a reward for their position, and who do not share this leaders levels of enlightenment and honesty find out about his plans. Is it not too much trust to put in the leaders of government? Thirdly, and I know this is a classic. Why would people invent? Take long educations and become doctors, lawyers, scientists or engineers, only to be payed as much as the humble bricklayer or kindergarden teacher? I really hope that a few of you who share different thoughts than I do on this subject, have first and foremost taken the time to read my “essay”, and secondly want to respond with your thoughts and views on these points.
Hi :). First two points could be condensed as facets of economic planning, but that mess is convoluted to discuss briefly. The last one is easier to explain. Neither humans nor human creations act on a purely abstract analysis of the environment, or act that way. Emotions affect greatly our actions and thoughts, and most of innovation comes from places where it is stable enough for most of the people to learn and think
First point: At our current year i think it's feasible to actually strive towards working less overall. There was a time where 100% employment rate was desirable but in my opinion that time has passed which makes trying to incentivize work make no sense. Besides, one can't be idle forever as seen with retired people still doing some form of work(such as in a library or setting sail to get fish) just because they couldn't stand doing nothing so i am confident that even if there's some work left to be done somebody would still want to genuinely do it unless its too hazardous but in that case we can get stronger work safety regulations in or let automation handle it. Second point: There's 2 issues to get over with this, i know i am oversimplifying it to just 2 but i think these are important. 1. You have examples like most of latin america and burkina faso that couldn't withstand coups that went against their democratically elected president/leader. They went with the "non-repressive" route. They never even got a chance to take steps towards statelessness. 2. Most other examples end up with political purges of expelling people from their parties but what you'd usually get out of that is just the people that are better at navigating politics and/or are better asskissers. They went with a "repressive" route and ended up distancing themselves from the workers. I think a defensive posture but without mass purges would be the better balance but i don't think that's going to be a good enough answer in practice besides Cuba. For that third point: I don't see why working towards an education shouldn't be paid. It's one of the things i like about Denmark's approach to education.
Where those ideologies run into problems is when you’re dealing with large numbers of people. Anarchism could never work simply because large groups of people will always need some way of organizing. We need to make sure that medicine is produced and delivered to we’re it needs to go. We need to insure that community A doesn’t starve because community B is hoarding all the food ext. We will always need a government to enforce laws and organize things. Therefore, the only realistic end goal is real democracy (democratic socialism). The will of the majority kept in check by constitutional human rights is the best system we can realistically hope for.
@@thegethconsensus393 yeah anarchy is not against organizing. anarchy is just a different way to communism than socialism. no anarchist is against organizing in general.
“Human nature: A concept we all take for granted, as we have a feeling that we naturally know what it entails: Selfishness, greed, a dose of corruption and malevolence when it comes down to taking care of your own ass. Those are the qualities that have allegedly shaped our societies throughout history and continue to be the main traits of each and every human being, according to liberals and conservatives.” I can't say that I personally have ever thought human nature is selfishness, greed, and a dose of corruption and malevolence when it comes down to taking care of one's own ass. I've long been struck that every Marxist I've encountered, across the half century of my adult life, has thought that.
if greedy is the only human nature. Don't blame me for stealing your mom, because I am that greedy and you must consider my action to be normal in your Capitalist greed. *dab*
And as a socialist, maybe a communist. This is what's so ironic that capitalism is destroying itself so that socialism and then potentially commuism is going to replace it.
@@andrewreynolds912 Unless it reforms itself which is possible. Capitalism just needs another reform and correction. It already happened once, it can happen again.
@@professorcheckmate true then again no economic model is perfect, heres one thing I don't fully agree I think communism to ban and not have anyone have the ability to do religion as a normal thing is something I don't fully agree now I understand marxist and why he told about why he didn't like and want religion for many reasons such as calling out to a God that doesn't answer them or them relying on God. He did give a few positives one of them was it protests against the horrible things going on in society. Heres a few things I think religion can get better and maybe i think communism and religion possibly could be able to coexist peacefully and allow people to do religion if they want to and that they should have something as an option to comfort them about the fear of death and having faith in things like science, thanking the people who contribute to society, understanding the problems in your society, and more. Religion should be a private matter for people to do if they want to as long as everyone is equal, no strict what you should wear, and more that also includings animals but that depends on what your using them for, but that depends on what is in that religion and what it allows i think if their is to be some rules for what religion can and cannot do if its not equal or doesn't aline peoples views. Japanese religion is something I do admire and possibly one of the things that could mayyybe....maybe be accepted in a socialist or communist society though i doubt it but one of the reasons is theirs no god of course. Whether or not people in communism and socialist countries like china ever fully allow religion for people to do privately remains to be seen now the only country I know that doesnt allow religion within its party members is china. Cuba I know it allows religion but that's because it's still a socialist country if I remember correctly. Then again religion has caused a lot of suffering throughout human history but does it need to be completely done away from communism within a communist society well I don't think so I mean I heard Chinese communist party members did and went to some religion ceremonies and such of course i think if i remember i believe china is actually a socialist or a state capitalist country. I would like to be corrected if I got anything wrong here please. But I like to know if religion is still possible in a pure communist society?
A perspective first in the world... If you like, make a video on this Book: "Digitalism vs. Capitalism: The New Ecumenical World Order: The Dimensions of State in Digitalism" by Veysel Batmaz, which is available on Internet.
Great comedy and fairy-tale channel, first Jugoslavian utopia, then Kosovo is Serbian, then communism is great. What's next, Santa Claus trajectory during the Christmas Eve?
6:49, No, to look at people at any point in history, and say they are egoistical, selfish and greedy would be correct. 8:25, What? No one argues that seeking money is in human nature, but seeking things that money provides is.
Humans have always acted in accordance to cooperation and collective movements. Every event in history has occurred due to conflicts and contradictions in society, especially due to the material desires of the few and the material production of the many. Greedy humans are more common in history books for the simple fact that they are the ones who cause said conflicts, and these conflicts are the chief driving force of history. It is only natural to say that eventually the conflicts of our modern worlds under capitalism will resolve themselves, ending the conflict between the bourgeois and proletariat, just as the conflicts of feudalism resolved themselves, resulting in capitalism. Humans are selfish, but they are also selfless. Greed is an uncommon quality found by those who do not have the basic selfless trait most are born with.
That's the issue with most of the video. It's based on distorted claims that nobody ever made. It's easy to win an argument against an overblown argument and claim victory after.
As much as i oppose communist beliefs, i personally believe some socialism would not be bad for our modern sociaties, such as government forcing any food producer that has left-over stuff and would go to the trash, would be donated to food banks and then directly going to homeless, or poor families, and thats only one idea i was thinking to try and make our society a bit more happy
How about we eradicate poverty and homelessness by socialism? How about we create a sociaty that doesn't propose short term solutions as charity,but put systems in place in order to, not only people get their food ration ,but allow them to live with dignity. Btw this was all achieved by socialist experiments.
so you believe socialism will work not "some socialism" also socialism is the starting point communism has never actually been fully achieved so you've never seen what it is. you've seen what capitism forces it to be. what you described is what all socialist want its a step in the redistribution of resources and wealth. communsm is when that is complete. it is the end goal.
@@MrDoomedtofail mainly the ones that oppose faith and tradition, in favour of progress. And even though I'm an atheist myself, (I prefer looking at those things realistically), i would never do such thing as to abandon those two things, that make mynation uniqueand distinct of others, for anything. Religion has become a part of tradition of my people now, so I womt be abandoning it either. That's mostly it
@@NickariusSN There are many Christian socialists/anarchists/communists (Lev Tolstoy, Ivan Ilitch, to name but a few). Capitalism on the other hand is very much against the teaching of Christ (and other Abrahamic religions). Also, nationalism is a poison. Get off this drug, now!
At their core I believe that people just want to live in relative comfort, security and freedom (that does not come at the detriment of anothers). If an extremely capitalist system can not provide that effectively anymore, then I welcome a socialist system to try. However I as one of the "middle-class" masses will not be the one to make the attempt. This is also where a large problem lies. The status quo still serves many to bring this comfort and security. Taking the step to change is an active decision, a decision that many won't take untill they are pushed to do so. This is not to say that any attempt at implementing something new is futile, but that it is a rocky road to walk on. At least that's what I think. I'm just some bloke on the internet with an opinion. There are many smarter men than me to consider.
4:04 How can you say is scientific if the very cosept of human nature is not existent for this idiology? How can you study nature if you say there is no nature to humans?
8:38 And are those practices more questionable than lets say massive escentially slave labor camps and mass killings and mass starvations? You know like communist did in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and other placess.
@@wapple4240 if you believe that then you aren't a communist or Socialist. A Socialist government regulates the peoples funds, nothing but a filthy regime is what it is
Socialism is not when you give your money to other people. Money is not something with spiritual set value, it’s something that changes with how humans value it. You won’t lose your ability to live or spend in socialism, you will gain your (collective) right in ownership of all property. It’s ironic you say this actually. Capitalism runs on the mere concept that people above you should be able to take the money you work to make. They own the property you use to make them rich, and they take your money you made for them. Then, they give you a very small portion of what you made. Now, which system is taking the money you work to make?
@@zanel4195 higher taxes, more government control, higher inflation, censorship, and authoritarianism is what follows socialism, you western idiots never seem to think how the people actually surfer under socialism, get more sources that aren't biased before you @ me.
12:40 If that is the case how is it that our closest relative in the animal kingdom the Chimpansies are also is completely male dominated? Seems like it has something to do with biology. This is not a defence patriarcal rule can and has often be horrible and tyraninical and we have made improvements thanks to the use of reason and will but just pretending patriarchy magically apear one day for no reason other than an economic sistem is dumb.
Communism is not possible. Every time communism is established in a country, totalitarianism would immediately occur. I don't have to remind you of the USSR, China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and other communist countries where communists were richer than capitalists while people were starving and dying. Millions of people died of starvation or killing by communists.So stop talking the same thing about failed ideology.
Communism based on Marx has objectively been a failure every single time. Even the adjustments to Marxist-Leninism have to themselves be adjusted to where when it is actually working, it no longer really resembles the ideological doctrine of Marxist communism in any meaningful way.
The discrepancy comes from problems with practical implementation of socialist/communist ideas. It can only work in theory but not in practice. You attribute many problems to capitalism but when people say "human nature" what they ought to claim is "something more fundamental than ideology". In the case of communism the problem is with killing natural exchange. The power dynamics this imposes inevitably lead to escalating suppression. If all belongs to the state and all is distributed by the state the first thing people will do is trade with each other outside of the state. This necessitates suppression by the state lest the states ideology is undermined and inequality will develop from "black market" trade. The second problem is power as such, with all power in the hands of the state it is obvious where the power hungry will be gravitate towards, you still have positions of power only now within the state, all those with no connections in such positions are not equal. This is how I would phrase the "human nature" argument. The main point being there are behavioral dynamics more fundamental than ideology. With socialism, people work for their own benefit unless in distress or out of necessity, if they see no greater reward for greater effort the default will become the path of least effort. People are motivated by reward, uneven or unjust reward is something that animals are also very aware of despite not possessing any ideology. There are numerous experiments in multiple species that demonstrate this. Here too we are back at something more fundamental than ideology.
I wouldnt say that capitalisim is the natural order of things but it does rely on natural urges to self regulate where governent fails to. Communism on a small scale like you stated about ancient tribes does work but it is incapable of working on a large scale because there is a physiological limit on the amount of people we can form relationships with look up Dunbars number, he asserts that the limit on average is around 150 people some people propose the average is higher but no one puts it more than 1000 people and studies and historical data support this with the most effeciant communities and organizations and military units being around this size, this limit if due to our brain size, this number specifically represents the amount of people you can comprehend as human beings with needs and desires that you can understand and relate with. It therefor goes against human nature for me to provide for and support people who i dont know and cant comprehend their needs and desires above my groups.
It would, and it does. Its the "leftiest" possible form of capitalism. While it is criticised from both left and right wing it does manage to do the things it wants: providing social securities like health ensurance, free education...while still being mostly capitalistic with its free market and so on. From communists perspective socialdemocracy is a fake sistem that just lures leftists making them weak and accepting of capitalism while robbing them of the idea of persueing communism. In this neoliberal capitalistic world i believe that we actually should vote for socialdemocratic county (since we are both Serbian) tho it might not be the ideal scenario. If we wanted to start a communistic revolution and somehow manage to overthrow the government America and other world capitalist countrys would just decide our fate.
I'm not sure when you say that we compete to provide basic sustanence for our families. I think that the majority of people compete for mates and to do this they need status symbols to feel superior relative to others. I'm not sure that greed is in human nature, but I've seen enough of it and read enough to believe that it wasn't ever in human nature and simply came from modern capitalism. Being greedy is effecive for gaining power and getting to the top of a hierarchy. People with power don't like to give it up. A benefit of modern capitalism is that you can aquire capital (even if at some point the system will collapse as all systems ultimately do). Rather than having all the capital being controlled by one person. The best thing you can do in any system is to provide your own charity, support, and kindness to others - particulary those most in need in a certain situation where a little will go a long way. Also support more regulation, transparency, democracy, unions, and the organisations which support human rights. That is each of our responsibilites if you want to live in a fairer world.
I agree. People are greedy and this IS NOT a modern thing. It has always been that way. If we are talking about the preistoric period, humans were more close to each other simply because they could not survive otherwise. Socialism will never work, not obly because people are greedy, but people are also lazy and most are not willing to work not even for themselves, not to mention somebody else. I talk people that during socialism expected others to work for them.
@@detectiveharris8772 I haven’t said “all people”. I said: “people”. And this is true, so many people tried to avoid working during socialism, because they knew that it didn’t matter, because in the end, they worked for the community, not for themselves.
@@EM-wr9yy Its funny how that falls apart as the economies and productions of all former soviet states went down the drain once capitalism happened, and in most they still havent recovered. Capitalism's problem is that it rewards the worst aspects of human nature. Greedy? Good, the greedier you are the more succesful you will be. Want to work less? Be greedy enough and get high passive income. Own a few apartments and homes and theres no need to ever work again.
this video was terrible, but you are asking the wrong questions anyway. its not about "what to do about human nature." the real issue is what to do about human stupidity. you may think there is no issue with socialism. but i'm sure everyone is confronted with the questions of hitler, stalin, mao, pol pot, and every other failed socialist or communist leader, most of whom end up killing millions and starving millions more. confronted with the fact that if socialists and communists really are good people, who want to create a good society, why have they so often brought out the worst in people? if you want to pretend those leaders and their movements weren't real socialism, you still have to ask yourself how those people got into power. how did they create so many dead humans we can never bring back? were they smart? was everyone around them stupid? no matter how you answer these questions, there is an uncomfortable reality that must be faced - whoever is stupid, WE HAVE TO HAVE A METHOD TO IDENTIFY THESE PEOPLE ACCURATELY. and to prevent them from making decisions that will hurt so many others. how many people have to die before we will admit this? some of us have already come to the realization. but until most people acknowledge that stupid people will only hurt us. will hurt humanity. will hurt humanity's chances for survival. that they aren't that much different from actually evil people in terms of the results / outcomes they deliver. until people begin to admit this, nothing will change, and we will go through countless more pointless revolutions that lead to nothing but further death and pain, and nobody will be able to predict who the victims are going to be. because you cannot pretend that your 100% pure movement of goodness, truth, and righteousness, will never be hijacked by a stupid person. because you wouldn't know the first thing about preventing that from happening.
You're not wrong about the uniting power of large groups that make it easier to create willingness for cooperation and sharing. What you're completely forgetting, though, is the existence of subcategories that come into existence the bigger the first category gets. The bigger the overall group gets, the more subgroups will exist and start diverging. That happened with languages, that happens with companies, that will happen with communist systems. The mere existence of modified communist ideologies like Maoism, Titoism, Juche and Leninism proves that we never cease to split up, simply because we don't all want the same or at least don't deem the same approaches for such goals fitting. One may find political terrorism abhorrent, another might might jump to this measure before everything else. One wants to beat their enemies, another wants to make their enemies their friends. This divide (regarding any topic) will reflect in your society once it grows big enough, rest assured. Another thig is your rejection of greed and aggression being innate human features out of principle. We created religions based on who has a right to what and what to do with those who seek to take stuff away from us or who deviate from our doctrines for over 4k years. The Vikings spent their individual lifetimes fighting for scarce resources until they finally died in battle and could ascend to the halls of Valhalla where they would meet their lost and loved ones again to fight in all eternity. Abrahamic religions promote the same violence but they apply it to more selected groups rather than just any other man found in the desert. 5k years of empires rising and falling show just how easy the coexistence of humans with their own can become a thorn in the eye of exactly those humans. We've fought our ways out of the woods and split up in Abyssinia to get away from each other as far as possible because we can't stand growing groups, especially in the face of our ability to make nature more or less our temporary slave and gain from exploiting it while what we seek to exploit becomes increasingly rare. I have been told to share and not claim everything in sight for myself since I can remember and yet, when I got a little sibling, I immediately feared for my position in the family and my possessions. I became spiteful against someone with the same blood as mine. This so praised feeling of community and a we wasn't there. I had to be punished until I would accept having to share some of my stuff. You want communism, you need a small community - ideally one other person like an SO who you wouldn't even think of competing against in the first place and the established necessity to cooperate in order to survive in a small area with little resources like a lonely island. Another system besides communism would be the death of both people on said island but the bigger the space and the larger the group, the less likely and sustainable a communist mantra imposed on everyone involved. I find your presentation of the common view on capitalism to be ingenuine at worst or a projection at best. No sane person would speak of modern capitalist society (which not even one country actually is to the full extent) as the pinnacle of human history and the end of all which nothing significant ever succeeds from now on. There have been voices that joke about it being the worst system ever after all other systems but that's not the same conclusion - the least bad ≠ the best in every measure. In conclusion; you're either mounting an error (to use a German phrase) about your opposition's position or you're straight up misrepresenting what people opposing communism think and say by intent and you grant no thought to the fact that we've been dividing for millennia for a reason.
I will try and present my view of some of the things you mentioned. Greed and aggression, sure they are part of being human but I think that we should not cultivate them. They must be controlled, because they are corrupting. This I think is self-evident, and any system that allows them or in the very least does not take them into account is not a good system. As for the splitting up, I would look at it as diversifying. We all do not have the same dreams or desires, goals. And as you said, even when we do, we might not agree on the way to achieve them. In such situations most productive thing to do is to carve a new path, find people who agree with the new idea and make it happen. As you've certainly experienced, it's far easier to find a person with similar views then to change the view of somebody else. The way we view the world can be clearly logical to us, however untrue it might be. Nonetheless , for us, all the pieces might fall perfectly in their place. There is a magnificent set of documentaries about Game Theory and capitalism done by Adam Curtis, (Pandora's Box and The Mayfair Set) which have somewhat or mostly informed and changed my view of things. He has done many great documentaries, however they are pretty hard to watch. Depending on your inclination and state in life, you might not even watch them but information we do not agree with is detrimental to building an objective point of view. (Of course, a competent presentation is of utmost importance).
The reason of communist countries tending to split into smaller is due to the fact that communism is all about the form, theres no essence to it, anything without truth founding it is bound to collapse, communism is in general very appealing cause it offers a form, red colors, stars, formation of united peoples, worker unions digging stuff together and chatting, uniforms and uniformed events to greet the leader and ideology, marches and youth commemorations. All of that is like a religion, offering order, unity and working for common good, except it's founded on materialism, not on spiritual/metaphysical values, hence why tendency to collapse and exploit humans hence for famines, expulsions of minorities, forced migrations, violent revolutions and violent police-stating, it's inhumane religion/ideology at a bare minimum.
@@VigilantGuardian6750 none of what you said is necessary for communism. Especially when world communism is achieved. The stuff you mention would turn pure communism away from itself. I argue that in a world communism the lack of essence you mention is actually the freedom and liberty and the potential to self realize. All which is more meaningful than any alternative ideology or religion you may feel it would be missing. All this individualism can thrive within a community where everyone has their needs met and people tend to help each other. So I don't really see what your point is. The only thing that's missing is the potential to become a billionaire and feelings of superiority. Most people would take the tradeoffs immediately I think.
@@averageamerican6727 Materialism is the problem, it's fundamentally materialistic ideology, theres no eschatology to it, you die like an animal, theres no afterlife, you live for satisfaction of your animalistic urges and desires and maybe to build something if you are creative type. Meanwhile monotheism has built whole of west and middle east and it's moral principles are arguably the strongest, yet that's exactly what Communism tried to replace, the theistic worldview, but replace the theos with the one human leader. My point is, communist worldview is selfish-materialistic and it's founded on untruths, one of which is that physical matter is all there it is and that collective group should thriumph over individual. Any society without appreciation and protection of the individual is soulless or bound to be soulless by default and anything without soul(truth) cannot last, which is exactly the case with communist systems in history, they eithr collapse and leave millions of corpses behind or struggle in isolationist type way where people are mindless sheep, like kids catering to their parent hoping he will provide the truth and guidance for them. NK is perfect example in modern times.
@@febobebo9634 The problem is, while you are wasting your energy fighting against human urges, someone else is exploiting those urges and building a stronger society that will take over yours with ease. As it already happened. Even if some tribe created the utopia communists dream of, some other tribe would just come in with weapons and steal their shit, take their women and kill the rest.
Well, if I have to choose between society ruled by the most innovative (capitalism) or society rule by those who are the most obedient (socialism), I would choose the first one. Greed of the leading class in both ideologies is trademark, but the first one are at least smart enough to invent something new. Until the end of the cold war West Germany developed Mercedes Benz to W124, and in the same period in East Germany Trabant stayed Trabant. Same nation, different political ideology. Capitalism is awful, but at least gives some hope for those who have any new idea. In socialism there would be no space for discussion like this one - one of the two sides would be treated as public enemy. Doubt is foundation of progress, not faith in the system. I don't believe in neither of these two ideologies and I am sure that someone smarter than me will sooner or later find solution for gaps of capitalism and socialism. PS: Besides the fact that I mostly don't agree with your opinion, I respect your work and I find you very convincing. I hope that you will continue with your work, it is great. It may prompt anyone to reconsider their beliefs.
I admire your passion and effort but you’ve been completely indoctrinated. The amount of mental gymnastics you’ve had to do in this video is phenomenal. As far as i can tell it was an almost complete denial of evolutionary psychology. Understand that to achieve your cults’ goals you’d need global authoritarianism along with segregation for 1000 years and the only way to speed it up is through eugenics. Even then, you won’t be able to completely rid these archaic traits in all humans. Wake up. Its not your job to force people to do something that benefits your ideology, you’ll become worse than the corporate psychopaths and religious extremists we all hate.
translation: “NOOOOOOOO I WANT TO EXPLOIT STARVING CHILDREN IN AFRICA FOR URANIUM 😭😭😭” you don’t even bring up an argument, you just went on a rant about what we went through in human history irl and then called it communism
Socialism isn’t entirely against human nature. We have a natural tribal impulse, there are social facets about our nature, but communism is another thing. Socialism needs to differentiate and distance itself from communism if it has any hope of succeeding. Communism is an academic pipe dream. Socialism has done better under the banner of progressivism. You can’t lose the individual.
Honestly, bad take. Socialism, no matter if it "has distanced itself from communism" or not, shouldn't be that different if it's applied considering dialectics. Communism is not understood as a goal, but rather a natural result from a stage of development superior to the current one and even more advanced than socialism. It doesn't really matter if the socialists believe or not that our future is communism as long as they made the correct material circumstances. Plus, socialists who do believe in communism doesn't waste time discussing communism, rather the construction of socialism
Depends on what you mean by Communism. It was originally thought to be a moneyless, stateless and classless society but Stalinism for example includes all of the above concepts (just like capitalism does).
Much of what you say is correct. You need to correct some of your terminology and concepts, however. It is certainly true that human beings frequently engage in cooperative activities when it is in our interests to do so but that is neither socialism (which is a societal construct) or tribalism (such peoples were not socialistic either - that myth having been long exploded). Socialism cannot differentiate itself from communism because, by definition, communism is a variant of socialism (as are corporatism, anarcho-syndicalism, fascism, etc.). While Marxism is an pipe dream, completely refuted in every particular more than a century. I would suggest you'd have a difficult time demonstrating how progressivism (typically piecemeal state economic activity) has ever "done better".
Watching this, an idea came to my mind. Maybe we do need capitalism, but what we also need is a system that negates or greatly lessens it's vile and corrupting side. Much like the immune system is necessary for its survival of the organism, it too must be stopped from destroying the very body it's designed to protect.
And how would you prevent that regulating body from influence by capitalists? Take a look at regulating systems we already have. They sell out and are bribed by the wealthy all the time. Furthermore the state is the apparatus that would create this regulating force. And who controls the state? Capitalists. through lobbying and through ownership of mass media they either directly change it, lobbying, or they can tell their news channel to say what is beneficial for them. So no there isn't a form of regulating system that can purify capitalism. Only when we look beyond the limits of our current system can we begin to create a life that has safety and dignity for all
That's a contradiction. Capitalism is about maximising profit above all else. It's capitalism that errodes any checks and balances designed to prevent such things.
This has already been tried in the 20th century, it's called social democracy, some put it as "capitalism with a humane face" and most (if not all) of the policies were rolled back due to capitalism's need for endless growth.
Well we have all though about this before but the policies that promote ethical and fair capitalism and the ultimate goal of capitalism which is profit are powers that contradict each other. Similar to the problem of consumerism. On a smaller scale we can all chose as individuals to not consume more than what's necessary but that would ultimately damage capitalist growth therefore even that, is not achievable.
Pure capitalism has basically never existed. There was always some sort of interference and not a single (noteworthy) capitalist would ever advocate laissez-faire capitalism without any restriction (not Friedman, not Hayek, not Mises or others). So yes, your idea is already implemented in basically every capitalistic country and the question is only how much the state should intervene. And that's where it gets interesting. Do we need cartel offices? How many workers rights? Minimum wage? Restricted working times? How strong and big should the social net be? State healthcare? State owned schools, railroads, hospitals, streets etc? And how much money should we spend on it? There is no definitive answer to those and many more questions, but "lets get rid of capitalism and get communism" is not one of them.
I think the Marxist conception of history is rather flawed. Feudalism and capitalism were not universally adopted at the same time. While Europe as a feudal state, the Americas were still in the "primitive communism phase" while other civilizations had other means of economic organization. To my knowledge, China, India, and the Islamic World did not use feudalism.
Claiming the Aztecs at the height of their empire engaged in primitive communism is a hell of a take my brother in christ. Anyways, the marxist conception of history does not claim that those systems were adopted universally everwhere at the same time, and it is absolutely true that Marx was extremely eurocentric in his analysis. Rather, the marxist analysis describes how different societies go through those general phases over time. And the more general your approach, the more correct it becomes. The places you mentioned never adopted european feudalism, but they absolutely operated on a tenant economy in which land was rented our by a souvereign to their subordinates in exchange for service. The details, like Muslim rulers usually appointing non hereditary governours, or chinese courts usually centralizing that beaurocracy in the capital, may have varied widely, but the general Idea was the same everywhere.
As already mentioned, Marx's approach was eurocentric since he based his research on his own environment. The marxist conceptual apparatus is a modular, flexible system that ought to be applied on a case-to-case basis to different continents and regions, yielding dramatically different reaults. There is no dogmatic linear progression of history - what is taken as the "standard model" is the european one, as it's the most conventional to explain and applies to most of the western world. Marxists from India or Australia or Africa have a completely different set of circumstances on their hands and their analysis may yield drastically different conclusions.
@@BalkanOdyssey_ Interesting, and understanding how other civilization's systems came to be allows you to really take a good criticism of Marx's claims put forth in his video. Why we have states has nothing to do with private property or slaves or capital, it has to do with how the human race progressed. As human societies grew and adopted new lifestyles and ideas, we needed to form the state as a system of organization. As we got more complex, so did the state bureaucracies we formed get more complex. By becoming more complex I mean what us humans needed and what he had to deal with got more complex. For example, lets take a look at the environment. As global warming and pollution become more prominent concerns, states created bureaucratic arms to enforce new environmental regulations indirectly as a result of popular concern over the environment. If you look up the Weberian model of bureaucracy you will find something similar to what I said.
See Carl Sagan on human nature: slavery was with us for thousands of years, considered human nature, but we swpt it in less than 200 years. As if there were one human nature. As if change had never happend BEFORE. STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU TO STUDY SAGAN'S MESSAGE ;)
@@mk820 because its fully agianst human nature you cant change whats literally biologically hard wired into ones brain just to fit ones politics, we will always want more we will always be aggressive, taking away what one sees as a reward for working will cause everything to go downhill socialism or communism will never work since people will not work or take easy jobs thats why you lot starved to death when farmers gave up.
It never made sense to me because it feels like the most bizarre kind of post talk justification, like hearing someone consciously defend their subconscious action and then giving it some sort or morality. Its not "sorry (but)" its only the "human nature part"
A mindblwon realization to me what realizing how we don't have to learn to be "perfect human beings" to create socialism or whatever, like common sense dictates. In reality, we learn to be monsters so that capitalism can thrives. If you think about it, it is not natural to see people hungry homeless on the street and think it's normal. When kids are exposed to homeless people they express a reaction, curiosity, fear, whatever it is, but there is a reaction. However, capitalism makes us see homeless peopple every day, and believe it is natural, and apathetic towards it. Capitalism makes us think homeless people are part of normality. And we go about our ways every day, not even looking twice at the million problems around us. We LEARN to be that way so that the system can be stable. The stability of capitalism is paid for with our souls.
@@BalkanOdyssey_ So that you are lying about how good the partisans are and how they did not kill anyone while the Chetniks are like criminals. Stop consuming communist lies!
