Economic Update: What Is Communism? 

Yeah but a capitalistic economic system fulfilling my greeds and power better.. hmmmm.. because I am an ultra male and always hunger for more... 😊

@tabularasa7775 😑....hmmmm.. it was a sarcasm .

@@tabularasa7775 so let make it clear.. are you going to be my subject for the experiment..? 😁

Just to put the whole thing into a better perspective. Why USA (the most capitalist country) hates China this much? If you think that's just because we are more capitalism & anti-democracy, then you don't see the real problem. The real problem is USA sees that deep down we are a socialist country and share totally different opinions on democracy & what economy growth means for people, which is, in the long run, anti-capitalism!!. USA would like to overthrow CPC and make us its buddy capitalist country where people fight to express whatever gender they what to be in a jungle society.

@@chongleebnw Thank you for your very enlightening comments ☮️❤️🌻✊✊✊

Thanks for your insight from a Chinese perspective. Most US socialists and communists want to critique existing socialist struggles rather than building and struggling with our own contradictions. Even without having to deal with US threats and economic warfare it would be a difficult project to both develop productive forces and fight counter revolutionary tendencies encouraged by western powers. I admire China’s struggle and rapid development, I think we worry sometimes wether the people are still taught and struggle for socialism.

So what about the extreme centralization of power in China under one ruler - what steps are outlined to do something about that, seems off from your description of progress to desire outcome?

@@maxwellj7049 wrong criticism I see what ur tryna say tho, China is nowhere near socialist as wolf said recently they haven’t gotten past Lenin’s steps with dtop

Oh, goody...now you can explain what you think was explained?

Right

My words exactly!

Well he is a professor

Richard Wolff grandfather Marx's best friend,marx dedicated capital to wolff

I had to listen 3 times‼️

@@Jraymiami Yeah man, I going to listen again.

Good reference and a good book.

I think one company that could serve as a model very easily and works better as a monopoly is google. Unlike most of America's megacorps I think google should remain intact, though with it's subsidiaries cut off but it should maintain a monopoly on search engines. However it should be democratized. I think we need to throw out rigid ideas of what socialism must be exactly and define it not by a specific set of rules but by a general ideal. I think a big mistakes the communists made was being very strict in it's definition and also being very anti-religious as well. This alienated a lot of communities rather than involve them. Almost all religions of the world are completely compatible with communism. On top of that we also need to keep in mind different cultures and histories so we should allow different regions to come to different conclusions rather than forcing the specific system onto them.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is an organ-harvesting, virus-spreading, terrorist regime that promotes genocide, torture, and global terrorism. Like the slaughterhouse Khmer Rouge regime, CCP is set out to erase all human rights and freedom, kill off innocent lives to bring the entire world under its totalitarian control.

Are you kidding? He's lying to you!

It's confusing because he omitted the horrific massacres of communists and the atrocities against them, all with the help of the USA capitalists.

One thing i believe he left out was that socialism in the leninist sense is a transitionl stage from capitalism. The party takes over industry. The party is voted on and elected by workers and they appoint managers to the enterprises. Its different and nothing like capitalism. And one thing i wish professor wolff would touch more on is why these countries have organized them that way. There is still an international market, goods still need to come into the country. Nationalization and economic planning allows for countries to go into a direction forthe people.

@@sungod1384 he did characterize the USSR as a "transition," more than once - the crux of his exposition comes about at the end when he talks over the "critique" on what fundamentally hampered the transition: that it was, after all, really just another form of capitalism.

@@perisemiotics3204 Socialism is multiple things. Materially, it is both a stage of development of productive forces and of society generally, and a mode of production. But also, it refers generally, to an ideal about the economy being organized for accommodating human need. Philosophically, it is a critique of Capitalism. I think that when Lenin used the terms "state capitalism" or "low socialism," he was referring to a set of material circumstances unique to Russia at that place and time. At the time that the Russian Revolution had occurred, Capitalism didn't really exist in Russia for that long, having just recently come out of an era of Feudalism. Serfdom, specifically, had rather recently ended. Russia at the time of the revolution was most agrarian, and the first World War had pretty much devastated what little Capitalist development that had been achieved. Because Socialism generally arises out of Capitalism, what Russia post-revolution initially did was develop state capitalism. It was a temporary revision. The plan was to develop productive forces long enough to create the basic groundwork for which socialism could be built. I think it is reasonable to state that a socialist revolution in the United States would likely not require the development of state capitalism because we already have a mature development of capitalism. Hell, we don't have just capitalism but imperialism, the highest stage of development of capitalism. Depending on who you ask, we are in a new material stage called communicative capitalism.

Haha! Yes, didn't take the collapse of USSR to come to that conclusion!

It's also fundamentally wrong. I guess the irony is that even someone who excels at understanding the "bigger picture" of socialism / communism still doesn't comprehend the central tenet of why said nations failed. It isn't because of the so-called "transitional phase" as Wolff puts it. It's because those attempts occurred in places completely alien to the concept of democracy. Social contract theory, which is the seminal philosophy of contemporary democracy, is pre-Marxist communism since its author, Rousseau, believed private ownership was the root of all evil. Thus, social contract and Marxism are inseparable, and yet Stalin, Mao, etc. somehow believed the two could be divorced. Keynes, who called himself a socialist, correctly fused social contract with Marxism in his General Theory which became the New Deal of 1933. Marx never discussed how governments should be organized. So, it's always been up to interpretation. Some failed. In the US and Scandanavian nations it fared better.

@@tuberific454 You mix things up. unfortunately. Upply simple logic, then dialectical logic -- this is the way make sense of your insights.

@@margaritaorlova6697 Maybe you can provide an example of where things got mixed up.

@@tuberific454as long as a colonial empire exists, socialism/communism will feel the imperial boot on the back of its neck. Autocratic auhoritarianism is antisocial_ist therefore, antithetical to well being of Society. You are welcome.

You nailed it NO MOTIVE to produce, improve your education, start you own business etc. That's why communism and socialism fail 100%

That just is not possible. History proves it.

@@Ethan-ox4ck You could have said the same thing about nuclear fission in 1000 AD. Also, if you look at many hunter gatherer societies or communal agricultural societies, it proves that we humans are capable of acting with the greater good in mind. One more thing: capitalism is only a few hundred years old. To think we've arrived at the end of history is a mistake.

@@Ethan-ox4ck wrong for most history that is how we live

@@lot110 ☑️

Malo ti je gramatika razmasena, ali poenta nije. Bravo, druze!

Damn!

Being a curmudgeon has it's rewards.

There is no such thing as libertarian "communism." The very idea of communism gives power and concentrates wealth to the state and only the state. It allows the state to finesse you as they see fit. You don't have any private ownership of anything. You will be made a permanent serf for the rest of your life and be made to do manual labor upon assignment by the government, such is what my ancestors had to deal with in the Cultural Revolution. All your politicians are rich and fat, while everyone else is equally poor and destitute. Kind of like North Korea today if you think about it. You should visit sometime.

Libertarianism means less government control over anything, it is quite the opposite of communism. And I disagree, people do not like to work. If you make it so that work is unnecessary people will simply lose productivity until AI/automation does their job for them, in which case everyone would lose their jobs and thus lose their homes and be homeless because without a job how would you pay for the ever increasing property taxes (what did you actually think the government would let you live rent free? property taxes are the rent lmfao). Unfortunately there is no true capitalism like there is no true communism. America is a corporatist government where corporations can lobby for YOUR TAXPAYER $. In a true free market, you wouldn't have government dictating who to fund often in favor of political benefits and who to let sink. Meanwhile you can't have true communism because humans are fucking selfish and if you think letting the government control you works out better, think again. Who makes up that government? Humans. What happens if you give humans too much power? Corruption. What you really want is for less centralized government and more individual governance because I doubt you want to see your taxpayer $ go straight to funding hamster fight clubs and a 1 million dollar single toilet.

You think communism isn't a "forced system"? Don't you know anything about history? It's literally the single most authoritarian system ever devised.

You think it isn't a "forced system"? Don't you know anything about history? It's literally the single most authoritarian system ever devised.

You like authoritarainism.

were sure that you were provided with a job, a salary, a free apartment and free land. You were sure that your children would get a free education, a job, a career, an apartment and a lot of good things. That's why Gorbachev is hated in Russia. He destroyed everything.

Fucking disgusting.

@@arthurgimov lol enjoy your sanctions you commie and Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦

✊

@@arthurgimov Of course he destroyed, but not all. For example, I see the advantages of the capitalist system. In my store there are 100 varieties of sausage for every desire. I don't need to save 5 years to buy an old Moskvich or Lada 7th model. Even Soviet medicine, which many communists praise, simply does not remember what hospitals in the USSR looked like. In my city, at least all the hospitals have been repaired and these hospitals have new equipment, I didn’t pay either when I got to the hospital with a stomach disease, or after a stab wound, or after a broken arm (when the gopniks beat me near the bar), we don’t paid neither for my wife's pregnancy, nor for my wife's operation, and so on. In fact, in Russia now too - free medicine, only a little better than in the USSR. Of course, there are a lot of disadvantages, for example, the degradation of education, the destruction of industry, and so on ... But I unfortunately remember the disadvantages of life in the USSR. Well, some communists in Russia still have not changed, they believe that the murder of a disabled child because he is a royal son, this is ok.... I don’t know what to say about such communists.

Helen, I agree that USAmericans look for a leader to solve everything, a Messiah in fact. Each US president is hailed as the One who will save us from the mess the last Savior got us in. I don't think the rest of the world necessarily thinks this way. Certainly not here in France. Fortunately!

You know of degrowth economics? Look up Jason Hickel if not.. we have surplus problem in developed worlds now, not lack. Degrowth would reduce working week and give us more time for community/friends/family. We are against the wall with climate issues, IPCC said we must slam on the brakes, not only must we embrace green industry but we must reduce growth of whatever we can to save civilization, to save our environment/ecosystems from the death spiral of the greenhouse effect we have amplified.

@@nightoftheworld degrowth while it may be accurate in a macro sense is a horrible term to use to propagate an idea of a future people want to live into. We can actually build a more thriving human future if we do it right. So let’s find better terms that more accurately represent what we want for people. Because if we are telling fellow working class people of this country that feel like they are being robbed of a future that they just need to consume less we are going to lose. Better public infrastructure, urban planning, guaranteed employment, housing, healthy food and healthcare can drastically improve living standards while still having macro degrowth. So let’s be wise and understand how the average person hears degrowth and find better words. Something like building strong healthy vibrant communities.

@@MarvinRoman don’t be scared of the word, look up Jason Hickel and listen to his ideas on it. Degrowth is necessitated by IPCC reports whether we like it or not, as most developed western countries consume the equivalent of about 4 planets worth of resources.. leaving the global south behind to suffer what it may. The degrowth idea is that we reduce wasteful/harmful production while simultaneously embracing green tech and automation to reduce working hours and free people to have more time for communities/family life. It would be a plus for workers of the world, for all people quite honestly considering what we face otherwise. Also in the idea is the discernment that the biggest polluters/consumers are those at the very tip of society (top 1/.01%) and that they should be held most accountable since their contribution is hugely disproportionate to the average individual/family. Additionally, degrowth confronts neocolonialism, at the level of toxic externalities and dirty trade policy. If we want to be truly ethical, to those alive now and those to come in the future, I seriously believe degrowth in this nature is integral, especially in light of the fact that even if we went net zero tomorrow the planet will still heat for the rest of the century. We are in an existential moment of history, literally in the midst of a new and silent great extinction of animals/insects, an acidification and potential death of the oceans. These times are surreal, truly apocalyptic (in the sense of revelatory for our civilization)-so alarming that it is essentially unbelievable the mess we are in.. and that makes us doubly apt to tune out and disavow the global damage we are currently creating. The biggest problem I feel is relying too naively on tech to magically pull us out of this, to reclaim unbelievably vast amounts of green house gas from our atmosphere. Most sequestration technologies are not developed, they are still speculative tech fantasy, yet those dreams are actually used to model our futures and inform policy. If those sci-fi predictions don’t pan out, then the future of civilization goes up in flames quite literally. So it seems most prudent to cut back/slow down while we still have a chance to limit warming to 1.5C. I am a pessimist though given the geopolitical climate/pandemics/mass migration/populism/cynicism/war/worker burnout/mass depression/looming recession.. we are great at indulging when they feel bad, eating more ice cream, procrastinating. And you know, the sky is blue and that is all most people need to disregard the climate threat that hundreds of thousands of scientist across the world are confirming through interdisciplinary research. I hope we can turn it around, but we will need to give some things up most realistically. Nature doesn’t care that we prefer to have our cake and eat it too.

@@nightoftheworld we agree on degrowth. But my frustration is we think logic and rationality will carry the day and we have no responsibility to communicate our ideas in ways that will engage people instead of put them off.

@@MarvinRoman ya I understand what you mean, like how “defund the police” was a more harmful slogan to the cause than helpful. However I think degrowth is most candid/honest since the zealous “logic” of growth is what brought us to the edge of this cliff. Not to say growth is all bad, not at all, but that the level that we have taken the logic of growth to is clearly out of control-thus the solution being a giving up of some excess. What/when/where/how are the questions which should follow the fright. Degrowth is startling for sure (especially given our economic history) but it makes deep sense as most everyone in the developed world secretly knows that they have it made-proving it negatively with remarks like, “at least you don’t live in [insert underdeveloped country]!” Hopefully the initial scare turns into a new pragmatic hope more than it turns into hate/fear, but ya who knows how things will go. Glad we agree on the direction. Do you think there is a better notion/word that could maybe better encapsulate the contents of the logic of degrowth?

were sure that you were provided with a job, a salary, a free apartment and free land. You were sure that your children would get a free education, a job, a career, an apartment and a lot of good things. That's why Gorbachev is hated in Russia. He destroyed everything.

As if Stalinist Russia is anything bad and these people know much truth on it to begin with

I challenge anyone to find me examples where Social Democracy is "accumulating", as they assert is the way forward, instead of being eroded.

@@aaronblain6377 what do you understand for accumulating?? Just to start the proposed conversation.

@@aaronblain6377 another understanding as a premise is the fact that no social democracy if we accept there is one erodes by itself. There are political forces at play that do what is possible to assert their idea of social organization in the economic activity. The concept of class warfare must be taken into account when studying and trying to understand The evolution of capitalism and how it matures giving place to its contradictions showing its product and failures . transformation is inevitable. And innovative propositions to improve social organization demands change. That is the nature of society as any living organism. It changes. There are resistance of the established system but change is inevitable.

that can happen in capitalism

✊ internationale

fuck yeah !!

Your analogy is correct and could practically helpful.

@@sayunts That's the only reason I made a comment. Nice guitar in your profile pic, by the way.

Sure, but symbiosis in nature is voluntary and communism among human beings is enforced at gunpoint...

What the hell did you just say lol

@@juniorgod321 Or so say American junior high school textbooks.

Joking aside, what socialism is, actually, is a political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals. Socialism is a fundamentally democratic ideology as well. The word democracy comes from the Greek "demos" (people) and "kratia" (power): Literally, "rule by the people". Capitalism, whilst a progressive step away from feudalism, is inherently undemocratic. The economy, which determines all manner of things ranging from the quality and availability of healthcare and education to if we sleep with a roof over our heads or out on the street, is not controlled by the people. Capitalism puts the rich in charge of running the economy, and thus in charge of our lives. Socialism on the other hand puts the people in charge of the economy, by making the economy democratically controlled. The manner in which this is done varies from tendency to tendency, but the principle is the same: The economy is too important to place in the hands of only a small fraction of the population.

And what is communism? Friedrich Engels, the co-author of The Communist Manifesto, wrote that "Communism is the doctrine of the prerequisites for the emancipation of the proletariat" - a theoretical toolbox that clearly maps out how to achieve complete liberation for all working people. And this isn't just by securing free healthcare or increasing the minimum wage. In 1845, Karl Marx wrote that "We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things". The aim is a fundamental transformation of society, which once and for all ends "the exploitation of man by man". And we call the people involved in this project "communists". But what's our end-goal? To take away everyone's toothbrush? No. You keep your personal property. Please. There is also significant difference between personal and private property. Private property refers to the means of production (factories, machinery, etc.), whereas personal property refers to the things you the common person own. Your house, your car, and other personal possessions are all personal property, these are things you have earned, so belong to you. Anyway, the goal of communism as a movement, simply put, is to create a stateless, classless, moneyless society - that is to say, a communist society. Now, how we get there is a matter of debate among various different sections of the political left: some, such as anarchists, believe we can have a revolution and establish this kind of society immediately thereafter. Others, including Marxists like myself, believe that we'll need a transitional stage between capitalism and communism - a transitional stage called socialism. But hang on a minute - what about Communist States? Don’t these communist states like the USSR and China contradict what's been said so far? Well, "Communist State" is a term used pretty much exclusively by those in the Western world. These countries never called themselves communist states. They called themselves "socialist states" - it's in the name: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The term "Communist State" is also an oxymoron, given that communism is, as mentioned earlier, a stateless, classless, moneyless society. And this doesn't happen overnight, it could potentially take many years, generations even, before transitioning from socialism to full communism.

@@seanpol9863 great reply I enjoyed reading it…even if the original comment was sarcasm.

You’re feeling it right now! Try and light as many of your loved ones up as possible too and them to theirs etc, we can fix stuff

That is the big question. How do we attain this evolution of human consciousness that takes us from being wired, conditioned, to be selfish and greedy to a state where we are wired to be generous and compassionate? It will take a massive spiritual awakening that draws upon the best resources of religious traditions, artistic traditions, philosophical and scientific knowledge. This kind of awakening is not inevitable. We may never attain it, which means we would probably go extinct, taking the rest of the biosphere with us, no doubt. But, I believe it is possible, and humanity has the resources within itself to achieve it. I also believe in a Divine Reality that is luring humanity, gently and patiently, toward such an evolution of consciousness that could finally bring us into a condition in which our default way of being would be compassion, generosity, and caring...

@@lidstrom-yd5pb We are selfish and greedy because it is a relic of our animal instincts. All people are afraid of the future. In fact, why do you need millions or a five-story building with 10 toilets and 20 bedrooms. People are afraid to die of hunger, they are afraid that they will be thrown out of their own home, they are afraid that their children will need something, that is why people are greedy, well, either people want power, although in reality those who want power are few . For example, if you have very cheap and convenient public transport, then you don't need a car, because a car is a pain in the ass. If you have a stable and secure life and you are sure that this will always be the case, you will not worry about losing a couple of cents.. It's not easy to change, but it's possible.

@@lidstrom-yd5pb Men, for example, often want to become rich in order to buy women's love and attention. And women just want to be sure that this male can provide for both her and her children. Women are simply closer to nature and instincts.

@@lidstrom-yd5pb profound I agree

The answer is to eliminate capital. Capital is that which gives people power over others in this economy. It is the barrier to our social evolution.

@@kennyegor7503 thank you, I can see that would diminish individual power. In addition it would still require a strong community to regulate charismatic, stronger personalities-which would be manageable without capital. Basically, a cooperative, yes?

Because they are owned by . . . yep, of course. That's why we have to look to Richard Wolff, Amy Goodman, Paul Jay and others who refuse corporate sponsorship.

Class ideological warfare is real. In marxist understanding of capitalism is a fundamental component to explain the nature of capitalism and of any class society. The dominant class once established in position of power made the social contract accepting the new arrangement a constitutional codified written form of domination. The class in possession of the reins of the state then made law it's power and secured its perpetuation. The superstructure of Capitalism is formed by many reinforcing ways to do such continuation; legalities, a security force, education, ideological instruments like media, etc. Ideological warfare is the demonization of all those that threaten the power of the dominant class and will continue with others forms of class warfare including the decision to impose fascism and deny a democratic game of deceit since democracy is a threat to their control of the state.

They are still stuck with the mentality of 1950s Cold War era fear-mongering, because they cannot accept a future where the US is no longer the number one superpower in the world.

"some sort of modern day slavery like in old USSR" is also product of capitalism ruled, mainstream, brainwash media.

@@winns87x yes. Lies are part of ideological class warfare. Those repeating or better say parroting those lies when they don't have an accurate understanding of the Soviet experience with the imperialist assault on those people is precisely the problem. And since there are few people to challenge the lies , is taken for granted that socialism and communists are the guys in the movie Red Dawn. Stupid and ignorant.

There are a relative few who have the wealth and power to shape world events and thereby determine the conditions under which we live; the conditions that end up shaping our basic behavior. My observation is that those few tend to be greedy, narcissistic sociopaths who, by definition, couldn't care less about the well being of the "unwashed masses". So the negatives that you list are, in my mind, primarily the doing of a relatively small slice of humanity, not the collective actions of all humanity. Granted, we the people passively allowed the lunatics to take control. Then we passively allowed ourselves to fall prey to propaganda designed to keep the rich and powerful in control. We may be an invasive species in the sense that all living things procreate and compete for limited resources, but I don't think we're collectively hell-bent on destroy ourselves. In my opinion, the blind greed of those who rule are primarily responsible for that.

There have been experiments done and it has shown that 70-90% of people return wallets. The more money it has, the more likely they are to return it.

@@StopCopCity1312 And that proves? What does this prove? Why is it so many people obey when they feel coerced? Social psychologist Stanley Milgram researched the effect of authority on obedience. He concluded people obey either out of fear or out of a desire to appear cooperative--even when acting against their own better judgment and desires. Milgram�s classic yet controversial experiment illustrates people's reluctance to confront those who abuse power. It is my opinion that Milgram's book should be required reading (see References below) for anyone in supervisory or management positions. Milgram recruited subjects for his experiments from various walks in life. Respondents were told the experiment would study the effects of punishment on learning ability. They were offered a token cash award for participating. Although respondents thought they had an equal chance of playing the role of a student or of a teacher, the process was rigged so all respondents ended up playing the teacher. The learner was an actor working as a cohort of the experimenter. "Teachers" were asked to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the "learner" when questions were answered incorrectly. In reality, the only electric shocks delivered in the experiment were single 45-volt shock samples given to each teacher. This was done to give teachers a feeling for the jolts they thought they would be discharging. Shock levels were labeled from 15 to 450 volts. Besides the numerical scale, verbal anchors added to the frightful appearance of the instrument. Beginning from the lower end, jolt levels were labeled: "slight shock," "moderate shock," "strong shock," "very strong shock," "intense shock," and "extreme intensity shock." The next two anchors were "Danger: Severe Shock," and, past that, a simple but ghastly "XXX." In response to the supposed jolts, the "learner" (actor) would begin to grunt at 75 volts; complain at 120 volts; ask to be released at 150 volts; plead with increasing vigor, next; and let out agonized screams at 285 volts. Eventually, in desperation, the learner was to yell loudly and complain of heart pain. At some point the actor would refuse to answer any more questions. Finally, at 330 volts the actor would be totally silent-that is, if any of the teacher participants got so far without rebelling first. Teachers were instructed to treat silence as an incorrect answer and apply the next shock level to the student. If at any point the innocent teacher hesitated to inflict the shocks, the experimenter would pressure him to proceed. Such demands would take the form of increasingly severe statements, such as "The experiment requires that you continue." What do you think was the average voltage given by teachers before they refused to administer further shocks? What percentage of teachers, if any, do you think went up to the maximum voltage of 450? Results from the experiment. Some teachers refused to continue with the shocks early on, despite urging from the experimenter. This is the type of response Milgram expected as the norm. But Milgram was shocked to find those who questioned authority were in the minority. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the teachers were willing to progress to the maximum voltage level. Participants demonstrated a range of negative emotions about continuing. Some pleaded with the learner, asking the actor to answer questions carefully. Others started to laugh nervously and act strangely in diverse ways. Some subjects appeared cold, hopeless, somber, or arrogant. Some thought they had killed the learner. Nevertheless, participants continued to obey, discharging the full shock to learners. One man who wanted to abandon the experiment was told the experiment must continue. Instead of challenging the decision of the experimenter, he proceeded, repeating to himself, "It�s got to go on, it�s got to go on." Milgram�s experiment included a number of variations. In one, the learner was not only visible but teachers were asked to force the learner�s hand to the shock plate so they could deliver the punishment. Less obedience was extracted from subjects in this case. In another variation, teachers were instructed to apply whatever voltage they desired to incorrect answers. Teachers averaged 83 volts, and only 2.5 percent of participants used the full 450 volts available. This shows most participants were good, average people, not evil individuals. They obeyed only under coercion. In general, more submission was elicited from "teachers" when (1) the authority figure was in close proximity; (2) teachers felt they could pass on responsibility to others; and (3) experiments took place under the auspices of a respected organization. Participants were debriefed after the experiment and showed much relief at finding they had not harmed the student. One cried from emotion when he saw the student alive, and explained that he thought he had killed him. But what was different about those who obeyed and those who rebelled? Milgram divided participants into three categories: Obeyed but justified themselves. Some obedient participants gave up responsibility for their actions, blaming the experimenter. If anything had happened to the learner, they reasoned, it would have been the experimenter�s fault. Others had transferred the blame to the learner: "He was so stupid and stubborn he deserved to be shocked." Obeyed but blamed themselves. Others felt badly about what they had done and were quite harsh on themselves. Members of this group would, perhaps, be more likely to challenge authority if confronted with a similar situation in the future. Rebelled. Finally, rebellious subjects questioned the authority of the experimenter and argued there was a greater ethical imperative calling for the protection of the learner over the needs of the experimenter. Some of these individuals felt they were accountable to a higher authority. Why were those who challenged authority in the minority? So entrenched is obedience it may void personal codes of conduct. References Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row. An excellent presentation of Milgram�s work is also found in Brown, R. (1986). Social Forces in Obedience and Rebellion. Social Psychology: The Second Edition. New York: The Free Press. © 2014 by The Regents of the University of California. Printing this electronic Web page is permitted for personal, non-commercial use as long as the author and the University of California are credited.

You overlook Wolf's main point: democratic control of the workplace is the crucial. This absolutely does not describe China, nor any othet country today fir that matter. Beside, China's embrace of capitalism included THE CREATION OF CAPITALISTS. It's now a country with billionaires. Their profits are NOT ploughed back into social goods (only in the most indirect way if at all). So no, I do not look to China as the way to liberation. Nor should any other real socialist.

China is not a good example, its economy is in a banking crisis as we speak and are occupying Tibet. Its an empire like Russia and the US, as an indigenous person all three have horrible histories, face it Communism and capitalism are both dead time for a new way of thinking.

uhum

@@edwardanderson1053 please do research on Tibet. You will find it was a horrendous Theocracy ruled by overlords with the power to do as they pleased with anyone who displeased them. They had virtually no infrastructure, were poorly educated with no health care. China did not occupy Tibet but brought it into the 20th century. Very soon most business transactions will be done in Yuan and Rouble

The fact is that modern China's chassis was layed during the 1960s and 70s.

Beau touched on this on a livestream, he started to say gay space lux... and then just said Star Trek.

I am seriously worried about these vertical farms, and I'm not just trying to dampen your optimism. Plants still need finite earth minerals such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Where are all those extra elements going to come from as the world is already on course to run out of them in the next 100 years. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

@@marianhunt8899 If these minerals are running low, it'd be a problem for every farm, vertical or otherwise. So, we should worry about all of them. At least vertical farms and hydroponics use up less water than conventional farms. Also, I'm guessing since they're so efficient and produce huge yields, they could afford less minerals. The ones you listed are part of the recipe for fertilizer and the world was growing crops before then, just at a lower amount.

Estimated four centuries for capitalism to beat feudalism and establish to whole globe. Then few decades to turn from its liberal competition and free market (if it eve existed) to imperialistic stage. Hundred year now since first imperialistic war. Another century full of wars and crisis. How many centuries do people need to understand that capitalism outlived his progressive role in history of humanity way long ago? I afraid we don’t have even a one century, regarding problems and challenges we are facing. They can’t be solved within capitalism. No way.

@@cheniche8118 indeed. Agreed completely.

Yes physics/nature don’t care about ideology or rhetoric-concerning climate change, the IPCC said we have our back against the wall objectively. Superstorms, mega-droughts, mass species extinction, all consequences of our industrial activity-if we don’t enact limits now, if we don’t decelerate/regulate the surplus economies (especially the wealthy private hoarders and corporate zealots in them) then we are doomed to overshoot scientific boundaries for green house gas levels and will doom future life (plants, animals, humans) to deeper dystopian struggle.

As a former Peterson fan, seek criticisms of his rhetoric there‘s a good reason he ran away from the debate. He probably learned his lesson in his debate with Slavoj Zizek in which he was humiliated terribly.

Peterson would flop around like a fish out of water, he’s a luddite and a fascist.

Alluding.

You are the Union!, if you have a problem with the leadership organise and change it.

@@reddirtuk Incorrect. I am a worker and the Union should have the worker's interest in mind NOT the Union's interest.

This is a perfect example of what frequently happens to unions and the reason the unions were divided among the trades in the very beginning. The owner class has always understood that they must stick together to survive, and they have always worked together to divide and sabotage any organization that brings working class people together. It's a variation on the old joke about a meeting between the owner and 2 workers.

@@rickb3650 Indeed, the owner class along with their goons (staff/management) have a very strong unity, unlike I have never seen before. Why can't the workers have this type of unity??

@@GnosticCushite I wish I knew the answer to that. It's almost enough to make you think the owners have a point. They all believe that the working class are too stupid to ever understand how they're being screwed and when I see us make the same mistakes over and over and over...

That word is virtually one of the largest dog whistles in the West I can't believe the animals that I live with in my country they have no intelligence they live on Greed and lust instinct nobody will ever trust anybody in this country ever there are no friendships there's no love under capitalism

Joker punda otha marx ah olunga padi poitu

What is this nonsense?

Under capitalism, the profit motive, competition, the capitalist class, decentralization, and ethnic identities are adversarial and get in the way of making interdependence more socially harmonious. Fighting for autonomy from our interdependence is an impossible goal. Interdependence is inevitable. Socialism is the solution not freedom.

@@PoliticalEconomy101 no marx was not "radically liberal" unless you mean young marx. He moved away from liberal philosophy like idealism to develop his dialectical materialism. Morality, identities, the idea of the "soul" come from the material social relations, not that they were transcendent unchanging categories that is suggested in liberalism. developing a class, material, philosophy is what departs him from liberalism.

Yeah man. This. 😊

Indoctrination. Education in Marxist doctrine was key.

12:30

@Seventh Anubis My suggestion is the elimination of Money as the tool that enables those who have large piles of money to purchase Governments. The ability to accomplish that without shooting and bloody power struggles seems to be a bloodless method of Revolution? The use of Capitalism over the Centuries, since the Sumerians invented coins seems to be difficult to overcome?

This video really got the bots coming out of the woodwork. I'm assuming because of the words in the title

@@SocialCreditScore Bots which never respond and never prove that they are not paid because otherwise they would just be masochistic because they get respons

There is materially no difference between socialists and social democrats in this current historical period. The split of the Second International cemented the positions of both camps on the critical question on what is to be done. Simply summarized, if you stood for revolutionary overthrowing the status quo - that is to say to oust the capitalists and the government officials they've paid for to build a new government where the working class is in control of the State - you're a communist revolutionary. For electoral reformation the status quo - that is to say to oust the capitalists and the government officials on their payrolls through replacing them with principled socialists who will transform the capitalist order they operate in to a socialist system - then you're a socialist reformer. The only reason why there was a difference between social democrats and socialists was that their end goals were different, with social democrats desiring to maintain capitalism but, somehow, more humanely while socialists have the end goal of a stateless-classless-moneyless society. As the past rough 150 years since the Communist manifesto was written has demonstrated, social democrats and socialists have failed to even create a more humane capitalism, failed to retain the many concessions they took over the decades, failed to strengthen much less even sustain the labor union movement, and so forth. As I wrote in thr beginning, at this point in history there is materially no difference between social democrats and socialists, the only functional difference is whether or not you want an edgy label to latch on to while continuing the sisyphaen task of trying to vote capitalism away.

I agree that some of what he said about socialism also applies to social democracy. But, AFAIK, according to Marx, communism is that society that reaches the 'utopian' level without classes and a worker run economy. Socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism. A transitional stage. As the Professor noted, that is why Russia and China call themselves socialist states, not communist states.

@@justanotheroldguy738 Yes that's right my friend. We Marxists believe in a transitional stage.

No you're wrong typical left-wing liberal Democratic socialism is equal to capitalism it is not socialism it is a fake name you use to pretty it up and put more lipstick on the pig

But like a typical American with red scare you completely ignore that the state is made up of the people one in nine citizens is a party member no representation at all like that whatsoever not even close in the USA my Representatives hang up on me when I'm starving and need Heating they want disabled people to die they have pretty much said so

美国 美国 美国 美国ကောင်းတယ် ➕𝟭6155524618 美国ကောင်းတယ်

So blissful seeing my broker being talked about on RU-vid, this was exactly how I got recommendations about him, though i was a bit skeptical but eventually gave him a trial with my little investment, so surprised when I got vast profits.

with lot of bills to pay and earnings little from my place of work. I was forced to venture into digital currency market some months ago today am driving my dream car and living a comfortable life.