Lenin in Five Minutes: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the State

Подписаться 67 тыс.

Просмотров 62 тыс.

50% 1

The second installment of the Lenin in Five Minutes series looks at the Marxist theory of the state and the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Stay tuned for the next episode, where we'll talk about Lenin's political tactics and the vanguard party!
Help the project grow by becoming a Patron: / themarxistproject

Опубликовано:

6 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 371

@arizonatea8801 5 лет назад

This video is good as hell, but I do genuinely think everyone here should read state and revolution if you haven't already. It talks about this and much more and goes into great length that is hard to do in 5 minutes. Video is still great and I like it a lot though!

@themarxistproject 5 лет назад

I completely agree and I strongly encourage everyone to read all the primary sources for all the videos on the channel!

@reasonerenlightened2456 3 года назад

@@themarxistproject You , Marx, Lenin are outdated. My way is the ONLY correct way. Learn from me. Social transformations are easy, the problems are when they are badly thought out. (For example, Nationalising Wealth means Wealth remains extremely concentrated but nobody owns it. The management of so much wealth then falls into the hands of a small group of individuals who climb up through the channels of Power in order to control the Concentrated Wealth). Ownership of wealth must be sufficiently distributed in perpetuity among the citizens, Marx and the Marxists want it concentrated in public hands, the Capitalists want it concentrated in private hands. Marxists and Capitalists both make the stupid mistake to allow the existence of EXTRMELY concentrated Wealth....and, often, they allow the same for Power too, eventually.) Marx is so outdated. By nationalising Wealth he left it intact, extremely concentrated and ready for someone to grab control of it through political channels. 'The Capital' analyses capitalism like a philosopher would therefore the solutions which he derived suck. "Happiness" under Capitalism or Socialism is an engineering problem of distribution of Wealth and distribution of Power among citizens.

@reasonerenlightened2456 3 года назад

@@themarxistproject We must establish the real dictatorship of the proletariat. !!! The correct approach to ensure a prosperous and just society is a free market economy with corrective mechanisms working on the side in parallel and independently to compensate for the market's inherent problems (which are the simultaneous creation of Extreme concentration of Wealth and Poverty i.e Empty houses and homeless people). Those mechanisms are 1) The Real UBI (for perpetual re-distribution of Wealth), 2) The Perpetual Limited Speed Purge Allowance (PLSPA), 3) A voting system called 'Most Liked, Least Hated' gets elected. (It eliminates highly polarising candidates) which, together, implement the true, real meaning of 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. !!!

@nonamesleft3765 Год назад

@@reasonerenlightened2456 Can you expand on the second and third points? Seems fascinating but I'm still a bit confused

@soggmeisterlasagnagarfield Год назад

Wow, literally read the first paragraph on MLK day. Wow. Wtf Lenin

@dragindeeznuts2525 4 года назад

I have been waiting for you .

@outlander1924 3 года назад

Please come back to us Lenin we need you

@darthjarjarbinkstherealsit6832 3 года назад

Please come back.

@DershPardonNow 5 лет назад

Inb4 someone says red fascism

@grimtheghastly8878 5 лет назад

Same

@Mysko 4 года назад

The denial is strong

@ThePeanutButterCup13 4 года назад

@@Mysko your lack of understanding is even stronger

@FWAKWAKKA 3 года назад

@@Mysko would you mind explaining what about leninism is fascistic in any sense?

@Mysko 3 года назад

@@FWAKWAKKA take a look how BLM operates with intimidation tactics. They are self proclaimed leninist and marxists.

@rabbitcreative 4 месяца назад

Former admirer of Austrian Economics. I can no longer deny the reality i see before me. Hyper-individualism, and competition, are inherently destructive.

@mahrunn 3 года назад

Your channel is wonderful and rare gem in depth of RU-vid. I have long searched for something, which popularizes socialist-communist ideologies. Thank you!

@TimBoykinGuitar 3 года назад

Excellent video. It strikes me that even though the bourgeoisie might be subordinated in a socialist society, without the collective struggle of an international proletariat, it would be difficult to stop the rise of a bureaucratic class, as happened in the USSR. Even though capitalism is overthrown within a single country, the national proletariat stands against a global capitalist opponent. Capitalism holds global power in the absence of an international proletarian power of equal or greater might and magnitude.

@scaper8 2 года назад

Which is obviously why Trotsky's ideas around continually fostering proletarian revolutions and aiding them in the rest of the world really needed (and will be needed again) to be more fully listened to. Whatever problems he might or might not have had (which itself is a contentious issue), his ideas about permanent revolution seem increasingly correct.

@projectpitchfork860 Год назад

@@scaper8 Trotsky was a revisionist. Amd it were revisionists such as him, most and foremost Gorbachev and Yeltsin, that dissolved the soviet union. Not a buerocratic class.

@付晨辉-v1u Год назад

bureaucratic is not a class. it's a status, a part of bourgeoisie

@TimBoykinGuitar Год назад

@@付晨辉-v1u So what you’re saying is that in a nominally communist country like China, bureaucrats are not a class, but instead are part of the capitalist class, accruing wealth from the labor of the workers and oppressed? This is a very interesting position that you take. Now, what about police? I tend to regard police as an armed force who directly serve the capitalist class. But do you posit that the police are part of the bourgeoisie itself? Are the police and bureaucrats capitalists? This is a remarkable suggestion.

@付晨辉-v1u Год назад

@@TimBoykinGuitar In Chinese theory, machinery, market share, technology patents, supply chains, relationships and qualifications are all capital. Those who master these things belong to the bourgeoisie. However, it should be noted that this does not mean that we should oppose the bureaucracy, but we should give play to the positive role of the bureaucracy and avoid the negative role of the bureaucracy. It's hard for me to say about China. Because I only know a little about Marxist-Leninist Maoism, but have not practiced it deeply. As for the police, I feel that there are not only representatives of the bourgeoisie, but also of the proletariat. Because the police is only a job, they are also the proletariat selling labor, their class position is complex, should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

@prabuddhapal 2 года назад

Workers of the world Unite.

@TheSerfTimes 4 года назад

I really like this channel, fantastic breakdowns

@Abrar1950 4 года назад

What does it mean that the state is the product of irreconcilability of class antagonisms I'm not getting it Can u explain please ??

@MidwestBen101 Год назад

@@Abrar1950hink of the supreme court trying but failing to sit outside of politics and settle the differences between classes. Same with the police, they serve capital in a capitalist state. Same with the military you need a enforcer to enforce your society or else the oppressed will rise up and overthrow them. if there were no contradictions then their would be no state ie communism. Make sense?

@MidwestBen101 Год назад

@@Abrar1950the antagonism is socialized labor but with private ownership, we want socialized labor with socialized ownership

@damienhart8912 5 лет назад

Great explanation. But I have a nagging doubt at the back of my mind which says that once a revolutionary party takes control of the state system on behalf of the proletariat, there is no guarantee that the party officials would not themselves form a new minority(in essence) bureaucratic ruling class. Didn't a similar thing happen in the Soviet Union? For this reason alone, I do not doubt the effectiveness of the vanguard party in making a revolution actually happen, but I have genuine doubts as to whether the vanguard party model is correct for the post revolutionary period.I believe we must learn from empirical evidence and think of a better model than the vanguard party for the post revolutionary transition period; otherwise we might end up seeing another successful socialist revolution degenerate into "State Capitalism of the Party"

@themarxistproject 5 лет назад

I kind of made a similar reply to another comment on this video. I think it mostly answers your concerns. I'll just copy and paste it for you here: "1. Lenin, and later Stalin, recognized that what they had erected in post-imperial Russia (and the surrounding territories) was a socialism in its nascent stages. Consistent with Marx's theory, they acknowledged that the Soviet Union was born out of capitalism and thus would need time to take apart old mechanisms and build new ones. 2. It is often not talked about, but early in the Soviet era, there was a strong culture of political participation. The Party made it a point to expand its ranks out to as many working people as possible, especially the young. By the 30s and 40s, there was also a big increase of women in local and regional politics. Why am I mentioning this? Because one of the key arguments against the Soviet Union as a socialist state is that the Party was removed from the people and their interests. Not only did it not represent the people's will, it's makeup was inherently different from the makeup of the general population. Based on the data and the sources I have looked at, this was not the case up until the end of Stalin's era. Party members, from the ground all the way to the Politburo, were almost entirely workers, many of whom started on the factory floor and were elected up the political ladder. This is why I believe there was a dictatorship of the proletariat, at least in the early period of the USSR. The party makeup did change drastically by the 60s. Many dedicated communists died between the 20s and 40s, thus thinning the party of committed visionaries. The most serious communists found themselves on the fronts of many military conflicts, the biggest of which was of course World War 2. I don't think it's possible to measure the loss the party took in terms of young, card-carrying Bolsheviks who volunteered to serve on the front. It's not fair or accurate to say that everyone who survived was an opportunist or not a committed Bolshevik, but certainly the balance between "real" communists and politically ambitious pragmatists shifted greatly after the war. I think most people who defend the USSR would be hard-pressed to deny that by the end of its existence, the CPSU lost touch with the people and represented socialist values only in name. That being said, I know many ex-Soviet people today would still prefer the "socialism" of the late Soviet era to the conditions they live in today. 3. Serious threats to the socialist project emerged most notably with Khrushchev's reforms. Whereas Stalin's administration placed great emphasis on collectivization (perhaps in some extents to a fault) and the construction of a socialist economy, Khrushchev and the wave of reformism he unleashed was an explicit re-introduction of market elements to the Soviet economy. Moreover, Khrushchev and co. openly admitted they were in the business of producing commodities to compete with the West and inspire consumerism at home. I need not mention that by the mid to late 80s, an alarming number of officials were entertaining the return of the market outright. Some Russian Marxists today claim that certain groups within the leadership helped create/exacerbate "artificial goods shortages" to then justify market reforms. I would have to do more research on that to evaluate its validity. I am willing to believe though, that by that point in time, the majority of the country's leadership had deviated entirely from any vision of socialism, even in name. 4. The pre-Stalin period was definitely not socialist in my opinion. The earliest organization of the national economy was called "War Communism" and was basically a stratified rationing system. The government did nationalize many industries, but distribution of goods operated under conditions of war (which the Soviet Union was dealing with until 1922). The period after war communism, the NEP (New Economic Plan), was also definitely not socialism. The NEP reopened the market and allowed for private enterprises to run temporarily until the economy could be stabilized. This period also saw the rise in inequality and a return of lavish bourgeois lifestyles in certain affluent social circles. There were three major perspectives on the NEP, but even the pro-NEP camp (they were called the right-wing) did not consider the economy to be socialist. Anyways, I should cut myself off before this gets too long. I think anti-socialist elements penetrated the party by the end of the 40s and the beginning of the 50s, and then maintained a solid foothold until they were able to act on their interests."

@jadedoptimist6364 5 лет назад

Check out on RU-vid: Europa, The Last Battle part 1. Eye-opening documentary.

@wiiuwiiu2020 4 года назад

@@themarxistproject Thank you so much for the lucid explanation!

@SkulduggeryGaunt 4 года назад

@Marcus Thorsen This may just be one small example, but I was greatly impressed by the 1936 constitution - also called Stalin Constitution - of the USSR and the way it was written. There were thousands of meetings in the towns and villages to discuss its laws and get a solid public opinion. Obviously not every objection and addition could be realised in the finished document, but the effort was undoubtedly there and fruitful at that. As a German we basically got our constitution handed to us from above, so I am very impressed by this process. The constitution is worth a read too, it is quite modern for its time. A shame it never got fully realised.

@SkulduggeryGaunt 4 года назад

@Marcus Thorsen Stalin's role has to be viewed critically, and I fear we won't be abled to satisfy this discussion in a RU-vid comment. This means a full critique of his role in the downfall of the Soviet Union, but also implies taking into account the possibility of some of his actions and decisions being of very positive nature in a bigger scope. However, these sources recommended by Reddit user "flesh_eating_turtle" may be helpful for an overview or at least the realisation of the diversity of opinions on Stalin and his politics: www.jstor.org/stable/2499177?seq=1 Robert W. Thurston, professor emeritus at Miami University (Ohio), thoroughly debunks the claims of Robert Conquest (and other reactionary historians) on the Stalin-period of the USSR, stating "Stalin, the press, and the Stakhanovite movement all regularly encouraged ordinary people to criticize those in authority." He points out that many arrests in the 1930's were actually late punishments for genuine offenses, such as serving in the White Army during the Civil War. Thuston also puts forth the question "If the citizenry was supposed to be terrorized and stop thinking, why encourage criticism and input from below on a large scale?" He also states that "my evidence suggests that widespread fear did not exist in the case at hand [the Soviet "Great Terror" period]". www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bw0h Investigates the extent of coercion and force in Stalin's USSR, concluding that "Stalin did not intend to terrorize the country and did not need to rule by fear. Memoirs and interviews with Soviet people indicate that many more believed in Stalin's quest to eliminate internal enemies than were frightened by it." The book also shows that "between 1934 and 1936 police and court practice relaxed significantly. Then a series of events, together with the tense international situation and memories of real enemy activity during the savage Russian Civil War, combined to push leaders and people into a hysterical hunt for perceived 'wreckers.' After late 1938, however, the police and courts became dramatically milder." EDIT: Corrected the reddit username.

@kafka9627 5 лет назад

absolutely fantastic work!

@themarxistproject 5 лет назад

Glad you're liking it!

@jadedoptimist6364 5 лет назад

Check out on RU-vid: Europa, the Last Battle part 1. It's the most informative documentary on RU-vid.

@reasonerenlightened2456 3 года назад

@@themarxistproject lunacy. you might just believe in a spaghetti monster swimming on Jupiter. Do you want me to teach you the correct true dictatorship of the proletariat?

@reasonerenlightened2456 3 года назад

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

1) “We must hate-hatred is the basis of communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.” - Vladimir Lenin 2) “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” - Vladimir Lenin 3) “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” - Vladimir Lenin 4) "The way to crush the bourgeoisie [middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” - Vladimir Lenin 5) “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.” -Vladimir Lenin 6) “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” - Vladimir Lenin 7) “It is necessary-secretly and urgently-to prepare the terror.” -Vladimir Lenin 8) “The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.” - Vladimir Lenin 9) “Surely you do not imagine that we shall be victorious without applying the cruelest revolutionary terror?” - Vladimir Lenin

@apestogetherstrong341 3 года назад

Absolutely fantastic video, great explanation!

$@radicalfraction8570$

@radicalfraction8570 4 года назад

A good explanation, but one mistake in this video is that it conflates the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with a Socialist state. Both Marx and Lenin differintiated between the two, which is why in Marx's writings on the Paris Commune, he refers to it as the first instance of a DOTP, not of a Socialist state.

@bitupanbhuyan5183 3 года назад

Thanks for this. I wanted to speak the same.

@mcboat3467 3 года назад

well paris commune didnt established socialism but it was DOTP similar case in USSR in 1917 but after construction of socialism it was a socialist society in 1937... till well u know krushchev markets

@kerycktotebag8164 5 лет назад

Love this for BreadTube

@themarxistproject 5 лет назад

At the risk of sounding stupid, what is BreadTube?

@communizer3090 5 лет назад

The Marxist Project Not the original commenter but breadtube is the leftist community on RU-vid. It includes those channels such as philosophy tube and contra points. Btw love this and your other videos. Keep up the awesome work!

@kerycktotebag8164 5 лет назад

@@themarxistproject BreadTube started out as a subreddit on reddit.com (reddit.com/r/breadtube)

@themarxistproject 5 лет назад

Wow, I can't believe I had no knowledge of this. That's awesome! And thank you!

@themarxistproject 5 лет назад

I'll have to check out the subreddit. Crazy how I missed all that

@comrademartinofrappuccino 4 года назад

A comment just to help you with the youtube algorithm

@LibertarianLeninistRants 5 лет назад

Good explanation!

@themarxistproject 5 лет назад

@Libertarian Leninist Rants thank you! @Karl Marx while I too would like to know the story behind that username, I think we'd all be better off giving all of our comrades the benefit of the doubt. Unless I'm missing some context, there's probably an interesting reason why they chose that username, unconventional as it may be!

@LibertarianLeninistRants 5 лет назад

@Karl Marx @The Marxist Project I am a communist, isn't that enough to know? And I don't know how long you've been around, but the username is old and is a reference to Muke who called himself a Libertarian Leninist as a joke a few years ago...and its also a reference to Libertarian Socialist Rants, obviously...its just a big joke that I regret because everyone asks me about and I am already annoyed lol

@themarxistproject 5 лет назад

@@LibertarianLeninistRants It is most certainly enough! Frankly, communist is a far better label than going overboard with a long string of hyphenated and overly specific sub-ideologies. Never heard of Muke. I've been a Marxist for quite a while now but am relatively new to Leftism on the internet (i.e. I'm not familiar with many names, groups, circles...) I figured there was a story/explanation for the name.

@Abrar1950 4 года назад

@@LibertarianLeninistRants What does it mean that the state is the product of irreconcilability of class antagonisms I'm not getting it Can u explain please ??

@RevolutionaryLumpenRadio 5 лет назад

Excellent

@Hulloder 4 года назад

Great explanation, thank you

@iamjoeysteel 3 года назад

I really think this is a crossroad point many anarchist minded people come to eventually and either reject it utterly or embrace it.

@jaxciohc253 3 года назад

You’re doing great work by posting theories of marxism and leninism. Much needed in leftism nowadays.

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

@Musterprolet Год назад

@@joshhoodrat451 The bourgeoisie are the capitalists and I don’t see the problem of these quotes, since the white terror began and the red terror was not even close to the white one

@ayala0023 3 года назад

thanks!!

@HansMcc1984 3 года назад

Amazing video.

@Mrs.Sardonicus 3 года назад

Awesome quick break down.

@guyoflife 4 года назад

Good video.

@15098D 2 года назад

Honestly this really helped everything click for me. A real “aha” moment

@thabokgwele5268 Год назад

Short form content like this is so fucking important

@a70770 Год назад

Fr, I see 30 min videos and just think : skip

@HemanthG. 2 года назад

At 3.13 the dialogue "oh yeah? You and what army?" Is that a reference to one piece?

@yanushkogan1671 3 года назад

Please fight for all countries to become communist.

@amazoncloud3229 2 года назад

Leon trotsky

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

@reversefulfillment9189 Год назад

Right on man, great vid.

@terencenxumalo1159 Год назад

good work

@garhartt 4 месяца назад

I identify as a Marxist, but I don’t think the state will ever organically wither away or become unnecessary and that’s ok. Class antagonisms are not the only reasons for the existence of a state, we live in a globalized world where cooperation between communities is required on an unprecedented scale in order for societies to function as well as to maintain public goods like power grids and the like. Collective action problems will always exist, and as a result some sort of state will always be necessary. Decentralization and elements of syndicalism are great to implement when possible, but there still needs to be a state

@markuspfeifer8473 Год назад

socialization of the means of production should be the primary task of the dictatorship of the proletariat. any delay in doing that is just welcoming the counter-revolution.

@ebermtheburn 3 года назад

Under this view, the 1953 strikes in the DDR and the Reform movement in the Czech communist party for more civil liberties under socialism where repressed by anti-lenninist authoritarian brutality.

@ih8google 2 года назад

Algo bump for the comrades.

@TakotaCoen 2 года назад

Lenin In 5 Words: "The ends justify the means"

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

@skiz8848 Год назад

@@joshhoodrat451 Wow, I had no idea he was that cool.

@gofar5185 4 года назад

thank you the marxist project...

@dancingbear2367 2 года назад

Could you do a video on his view on the book of state and revolution

@mariopinot9187 3 года назад

Nice

@Abrar1950 4 года назад

What does it mean that the state is the product of irreconcilability of class antagonisms I'm not getting it Can u explain please ??

@АйдамирДонентай 4 года назад

The state is therefore by no means a power imposed on society from without; just as little is it “the reality of the moral idea,” “the image and the reality of reason,” as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a particular stage of development; it is the admission that this society has involved itself in insoluble self-contradiction and is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to exorcise. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, shall not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, a power, apparently standing above society, has become necessary to moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of “order”; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

@samumg1687 3 года назад

State is an instrument constructed by rich to control poor. Simple enough

@mongezimaepa 16 дней назад

Problem: How do we ensure that the managerial state workers do not become buguousie oppressors or tyrants once they taste absolute power? Solution: A new constitution that establishes a decentralized democracy where all workers vote weekly or monthly for or against all proposed government policy via petitions and referendums.

@dr.iceberg6293 Год назад

How will the proletarian state practically enforce collective ownership over the means of production when the "collective" does not exist as a tangible entity and can only ever be represented therefore making collective ownership impossible?

@codyhunt5477 4 года назад

Good work comrade, here is a comment

@casey98 3 года назад

So which Marxist country do you live in ?

@nikasamwkusvili9345 2 года назад

@@casey98 amarica under dark brandon

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

@TheBoglodite 3 года назад

It's been very cool to learn about Marxism since I've always considered myself an Anarchist. I find that a lot of what I'm hearing still lines up with many of my views and beliefs, but i have a hard time believing that the state would simply wither away on its own. Like, look what happened with China. Rather than the state withering away, it simply was retaken over by the Capitalist class. It really seems like there are relations of hierarchical authority (i.e exploitative, repressive, non-mutual relations) outside the "bourgueois - proletarian" dynamic, and the abolition of economic classes does not spell the immediate abolition of hierarchical authority.

@viggostanczak4701 2 года назад

Every company in China has to have a member of the communist party to monitor it, it is most definitely not reclaimed by the capitalist class. As Lenin argued, this whithering away can't occur with a constant barrage of attacks from imperialist powers. Lenin argued that the state in a socialist society exists to protect the interests of the working class, it cannot go away with a hegemony of imperialist powers.

@TheBoglodite 2 года назад

@@viggostanczak4701 I completely agree. I've learned a lot in the months since I posted that comment. China is one of the best examples of the DOTP we currently have imo.

@tanujSE Год назад

Lenin donot discusses the way to end class relation in soviet state and I am confused why

@gloriahoulihan8717 9 месяцев назад

Trouble is people are like cats in a sack.

@GoldenG9 4 месяца назад

But in soviet union, china and other socialists countries only few people had the control of the state(Communists party) not the majority of people. In fact the majority had no say at all.

@ElvinJones1981 Год назад

This video is a great Marxist perspectives primer. But S&R happened bc of the April return of Lenin, Trotsky’s Red Army, and the events of October (or the Gregorian November). The Workers and the peasants all fought against fighting the tsar’s war. Revolutionary defeatism is the only end to our wars of contrition

@ElvinJones1981 Год назад

And the Bolshevik revolution was fundamentally tied up in the opposition to the mutiny of the peasants against further offensives of the tsar’s armies. The 🚩 became a symbol of this mutual acceptance of defeat. Thus the great war ended and a lion’s cut of the imperialist military forces were deployed to wage war on the new republic of workers’ councils. Thus began the Russian Civil War and the policies of “War Communism.”

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

@chrisgaming9567 Год назад

Source?

@blackfreud9048 Год назад

Thought provoking.......

@tex8788 3 года назад

This music slaps what is it

@benjaminblanco8160 6 месяцев назад

How does anyone think this is a good idea - not pro America here but genuinely asking how does anyone think this will work

@marioschristidis5623 4 года назад

Name of song?

@themarxistproject 4 года назад

Russian Dance It's from the RU-vid Audio Library

@historywithadrywaller4670 3 года назад

Hey! I am creating a new podcast, and I covered Lenin in some detail! If that sounds interesting, please come by and check it out! - The Drywaller

@everything1023 3 года назад

Question- why should there be a ‘dictatorship’ of the proletariat if there is no bourgeoisie left to repress?

@Owlbearwolf2 3 года назад

It's a transitional stage, until the drive to exploit each other is phased out of the culture.

@arkology_city 3 года назад

@@Owlbearwolf2 The USSR had an 80 year long transitional stage, and then collapsed. In China it was 25 years, then collapsed.

@Owlbearwolf2 3 года назад

@@arkology_city Not collapsed. Dissolved, by unaccountable leadership, basically a new bourgeoisie. Regardless, life was better under that stage than before. Any new Socialist experiment will require constant bottom-up revolution; and it would certainly be easier if the United States, the most oppressive imperial power the world has ever known, was out of the way this time.

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

@everything1023 Год назад

@@joshhoodrat451 yeah I’m not falling for fed propaganda

@comradeboris167 3 года назад

but how does the bourgeoisie exist in Socialism ?

@comradeboris167 2 года назад

@Ablaze Eclipse the bourgeoisie need to own the means of production to be the bourgeoisie. they can not exist after the abolishment of the private property. i think it comes down to "at which point can an economic system be called socialism"

@amazoncloud3229 2 года назад

@@comradeboris167 the thing is video is kinda innacurate. The Dictatorship of the ploreteriat is where socialism starts (which obeys the marxist value system such as LTV) before that theres no ploreteriat authority its just a revolutionary state. This state is accuired through multiple revolutions till a real socialist government is established. . Secondly what marx meant as bourgousie after revolution is the leaders who becomes corrupt. thats what i meant by multiple revolutions. This could go so long thats why socialism never worked.

@amazoncloud3229 2 года назад

@Ablaze Eclipse your defenitly missintrepreting. If the property isnt taken that means the bourgousie is still powerful than the ploreterians thats not socialist transition state. There are two transition states from capitalism to socialism through revolution and socialism to communism through production. Everyone seem to neglect the revolutionary state and think thats socialist, the revolutionary state is similar to anarchy its never socialist.

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

@captainflops474 4 года назад

Time to get BreadPilled

@kiettruong6036 4 года назад

Viet Nam

@cadizwilmo9687 3 года назад

The Bald and Bankrupt guy brought me here

@nikasamwkusvili9345 2 года назад

im sory

@talongodin2253 2 года назад

I offer a comment for the algorithm.

@anarcho-communist11 11 месяцев назад

Have you tried pulling yourself up by your bootstraps? 🙄 Made me laugh.

@criaturaimaginaria5230 2 года назад

yeah... give us all the power and then we´ll destroy it... very logical...

@nikasamwkusvili9345 2 года назад

of corse

@charlesferdinand422 Год назад

Capitalism continues to be the best and only option while Socialism continues to be the worst, the most failed and most lethal after having caused at least 120 million deaths in less than 90 years which would translate in more than 1 million deaths per year. BTW, how come reds keep bitching about American "imperialism" but never mention Chinese imperialism in Vietnam or North Korea? Or Soviet imperialism in Afghanistan, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, East Germany or Yugoslavia? Or Cuban imperialism in Angola, Mozambique, Grenada, Nicaragua or Venezuela? Or Yugoslav imperialism in Albania? And let's finish with the Socialist prayer: If it's a Socialist atrocity, it never happened If it happened, it wasn't that bad If it was that bad, they deserved it If they didn't deserve it, mistakes might have been made If mistakes were made, that wasn't real socialism.

@blueciffer1653 Год назад

🤣🤣🤣🤣 lmao

@ulfljung4630 2 года назад

For me Russia has the perfect mix between state owned and privately owned (45%/55%) but capitalism has to go!

@ulfljung4630 2 года назад

55% of the economy is state controlled! The 45% should only be collectives/co-ops and one person without employees businesses and no capitalism.

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

@ulfljung4630 Год назад

@@joshhoodrat451 Yes I knew that already. The same retoric has been used in the USA but then against anything red.!

@dancingbear2367 2 года назад

Oh also what is troskyism could do that too 😊

@Orc_Remover 2 года назад

I feel torn, I love Lenins ideas, but I can't idolize him because of the horrors he did during the revolution

@indecipherable22 2 года назад

I often have to remind myself that history is more nuanced than “good” or “bad”

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

@TheArtist808 3 года назад

Yass bish

@miker2157 3 года назад

That was pretty sweet how the State withered away during the DSOTP under Lenin and the USSR went on to become a classless, stateless commonwealth that didn't collapse after 70 years.

@elephantboy3409 3 года назад

LMFAO

@magicmildred9119 3 года назад

Well the main reson the ste didn't wither away is because stalin perpetuated class society and commodity production thus the Soviets never achieved socalism

@arkology_city 3 года назад

It is almost as if the entire ideology revolves around maximizing State power and control. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IPTxcDpErVQ.html

@mytiamos 2 года назад

bruh the ussr dissolved bcs of the we$t putting gorbachov in power. as for the withering of the state, it's not like the global bourgeoisie ceased to exist

@jackrutledgegoembel5896 2 года назад

@@magicmildred9119 no it's because the rest of the world didn't follow suit and the forces of capitalism were stronger

@LeonardoSparta 3 года назад

Who wants equalize is inequalized.

@TheAndrew1987 5 лет назад

How much time though? Like when exactly is the state withered away?

@themarxistproject 5 лет назад

I dont think there's a set time nor do I think it's worth attempting to create any kind of marker for it. That being said, here are some likely prerequisites which *might* inform the length of the transitionary period: 1. The absence of classes. 2. The absence of external (and internal) threats to the post-revolutionary society. 3. An ideological-epistemic shift. 4. A high level of economic development. It's not an exhaustive list, but it already suggests a fairly prolonged existence of the state in at least some capacity.

@andrewtallman1867 5 лет назад

It withers away as the state loses its function

@xenahx685 4 года назад

Leftyband international

@helmsylvanian 4 года назад

it really depends on the material and social conditions. It can take decades for an international to be established due to international Capitalist powers that will try to hinder the proletarian movement

@arkology_city 3 года назад

The USSR failed to do so after 80 years. China failed to do so after 25 years. They did execute and repress plenty of their comrades during that period, however!

@hindigente 3 года назад

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the role of the State is not _just_ class control even in Capitalism. So even though in an ideal socialist society (without belligerent external pressure) the _role_ of the State would considerably change, the presented argument does not seem to be enough to justify that it would also scale down. I don't see how its role as an administrative organization wouldn't persist (and increase) even in advanced idealized socialist scenarios.

@95uzi Год назад

Communist regimes have become increasingly bureaucratic every time they have been established. Your statement hits at the core of why many consider communists to be hypocrites. It is argued that this bureaucratisation and expansion of the State comes about due to external pressure. Still, for some reason, this excuse does not extend to capitalist states which are threatened with destruction in a more explicit way from say Communist States whose main reason d'etat is the destruction of capitalist states.

@athenag4142 3 года назад

red fash

@prophet_master 3 года назад

How can you watch this video and still think we're "red fash"

@arkology_city 3 года назад

@@prophet_master Policy #1 in the manifesto, is that the state steals your house, and then charges you rent to exist ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IPTxcDpErVQ.html

@arkology_city 3 года назад

Fash is red too. "National Socialist Workers Party"

@prophet_master 3 года назад

so how do you call nazis fascist and communist at the same time wtf are you talking about

@arkology_city 3 года назад

@@prophet_master en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

@korbyn49 4 года назад

Communists: Dictatorships only support the Bourgeoisie. Also Communists: We need a dictatorship.

@xavier4503 4 года назад

literally what

@randomserb761 4 года назад

I advise putting a little effort into somewhat comprehending what you're trying to critique before actually doing so

@hotvomit 4 года назад

of the proletariat

@somerandomguy292 4 года назад

Keep in mind that the word dicatorship simply ment rule when Marx was alive

@xenahx685 4 года назад

No communist says this lol

@s3xyn0sfera2 2 года назад

In my opinion, the state is counterproductive to the goal of fulfiling true communist society. I disagree with the notion that a centralized DOTP can accurately act in the interests of the proletariat, and I also think that the state further reinforces the class system.

@s3xyn0sfera2 2 года назад

@Keaton I meant like, if someone's the head of a centralized state doesn't that create class seperation between the proletariat and whoever's in charge? Therefore it's no longer a dictatorship of the proletariot but rather a dictatorship that claims to be acting in their best interests, which is what most governments claim anyway?

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

@febriannas3440 3 года назад

"hey guys the transition to the stateless n classless society need time, and the time is foreva" 😝 haha and the whole society got owned by the new so called rulling class

@arkology_city 3 года назад

The ultimate "HA! GOTCHA!" moment

@alpaxdis9805 3 года назад

Marx is 1 of the best fantasy writer

@nikasamwkusvili9345 2 года назад

nah bible is a beter book

@colonel__klink7548 Год назад

The problem with marxism isn't the discussion about power, it's... that it only conceptualizes the world within the framework of production and cannot grasp the world in any other way. One person I heard said "identity is class" and it got me thinking. Why doesn't anarchy work? Really hen you boil it down? Because we are all different and therefore we need some sort of rules to coexist. If we were all the same there would be no need for rules. So you have rules, you can have a vote for those but you have to have an enforcer. That enforcer is going to be ultimately the state. I know we are going to have Marxist noble savage myths about "primitive communism" but yes, even nomads had governments that everyone in the society was bound to. An authority that would rule over disputes and rule breaking and mete out punishments. That's a state even if you don't want to admit it. But instead of considering that... everyone is different... Marxism says "if we just equalize access to the means of production everyone will be the same and the state will no longer be needed!" Its.... very anti human. It doesn't treat people as people with individual desires wants and needs but rather simple robots all reacting the same way to stimuli.

@chrisgaming9567 Год назад

"Why doesn't anarchy work? Really hen you boil it down?" Because it can't militarily defend itself against capitalist forces, and because it tends to pick fights with other forms of Leftism. "So you have rules, you can have a vote for those but you have to have an enforcer. That enforcer is going to be ultimately the state. I know we are going to have Marxist noble savage myths about "primitive communism" but yes, even nomads had governments" Please research what the actual definition of the state is. It's not synonymous with government. "everyone will be the same" Show me where Marx says this. I'll wait.

@colonel__klink7548 Год назад

@@chrisgaming9567 if you conceptualize behavior patterns based on class and specifically that class is based upon its relation to resources ("the means of production") then it follows that you believe that making everyone the same class will end all practical differences. Let's examine how this logic pervades the structure of marxism. Marxism believes that the bourgeoisie oppress the proletariat correct? However, marxism does not argue that the bourgeoisie hold meetings about how they are going to screw the proletariat. No, marxism argues that the class defined by their control of resources is going to all behave the same way. No formal class conspiracy need exist as all members of the class will behave the same as material circumstances compell the same thought patterns. This is the sameness that marxism sees. Not everyone likes the color green. But everyone just naturally due to material circumstances will naturally form a rule set that all of them find acceptable without there needing to be a formal discussion.

@chrisgaming9567 Год назад

@@colonel__klink7548 "making everyone the same class" That means abolishing class, it isn't a class if there's just one. "Marxism believes that the bourgeoisie oppress the proletariat correct?" If you're about to deny that, then we're done here. "No, marxism argues that the class defined by their control of resources is going to all behave the same way. No formal class conspiracy need exist as all members of the class will behave the same as material circumstances compell the same thought patterns." And this has literally been proven over and over again throughout modern history, in fact it's even plainly obvious in the world right now. "Not everyone likes the color green." And why would they? What material circumstances exist to encourage everyone to like the color green?

@colonel__klink7548 Год назад

@@chrisgaming9567 One could say I'm abolishing names by declaring that everyone shall be named Steve, but there still would be a lot of named people running around... It's a silly pedantic point anyway as you don't disagree with my actual intended meaning. They believe that one's relation to the resources of society as a whole determines all meaningful behavior. And no, I don't agree that's correct. The USA held the capitalist class down from 1945 to 1980 and assisted the workers in taking the majority share of the proceeds from productivity growth. This history exists. This had a few problems however. There were no spare resources to go around in society because anything going to the workers is a consumer product, it is consumed (which btw, is why the USSR was so adamant that they wouldn't give their people anything beyond what was needed for survival. Fighting them tooth and nail not to even give them telephones...) So when an international oil crisis hit in the middle of a war where the US government was spending the last of the free resources on a war? Well productivity growth just flat out stopped. Yet the government had intentionally set up a market where labor had all of the power. So labor still demanded more which the great corporations were forced to pay. Because there was no productivity growth and the workers already got the vast majority of the pot... there was nothing left over to pay their increased demands with, so the companies raised prices aka inflation happened. Each year this same thing happened, the workers demanded more, there wasn't anything to give them so they got "'paid"" in inflation. The capital that investors put into projects just got devoured by this inflation and all further investment just stopped. So there was no growth and each year there were the workers again demanding a pay raise that the entire system had to shell out because the government had rigged the game in their favor. This is really an example of liberalism, what marxism incorrectly calls "capitalism." Liberal societies are full of "contradiction." Marx is right, the system can't go on forever, what he didn't realize is liberal society mutates. The 1945 to 1980 period was not the 1900 to 1940 period and so on. In this vein, society died in the 1970s and was reborn in the 1980s, new cultural outlooks coming forth and the government restructured the market to absolutely destroy labor's capacity to negotiate in order to end the inflation. The problem had to be solved, of course the consequences of the solution meant 2008 was inevitable, and we are in the process of a new rebirth now (finally) shifting back towards the workers. But marxism basically collectivizes people and white washes history. It outright denies any of these real events happened. It just some fantastic conspiracy theory of some dingbat crackpot who was pulling Hegelian dialectics countering the gold standard invidual society in which Marx existed with the anti thesis of a collective society. Of course with hindsight we see that liberalism is neither individualist nor collectivist and instead it mutates as the current situation needs it to be.

@chrisgaming9567 Год назад

@@colonel__klink7548 With all due respect, what the actual hell are you going on about?

@cyber-commie4447 5 лет назад

A logical human being would thus conclude that Soviet Union failed to be even nominally socialist ever since Stalin came to power. What do you think? @The Marxist Project

@willm200 5 лет назад

No. Stalin was necessary, because even if contradictions were solved within the country, foreign imperialist powers were constantly trying to bring down the country. Also, there was still small amounts of private property under Stalin, but as time went on a state was needed to continue collectivization. The dying bourgeoisie was constantly trying to find its way into the government, and eventually did in the 50’s with the Khrushchevite coup. Remember that class contradictions remain under socialism.

@willm200 5 лет назад

“Until the bourgeoisie is completely vanquished, until its wealth has been confiscated, the proletariat must without fail possess a military force, it must without fail have its "proletarian guard," with the aid of which it will repel the counter-revolutionary attacks of the dying bourgeoisie” -Stalin

@arizonatea8801 5 лет назад

What this video doesn't talk about is outside Imperialist forces. A leader like Stalin was necessary so that Imperialist forces could be destroyed. Without Stalin it is unlikely that the military would have been built up enough to the point where it was able to destroy 3/4ths of the Nazi forces. Without Stalin the allies may have lost, and Europe likely would have been under Nazi control.

@themarxistproject 5 лет назад

Regardless of one's opinions on Stalin, he was a dedicated student of Marx and a committed disciple of Lenin. @Karl Marx, This should probably be a video at some point because there's a lot to talk about but here's what I think about this question: 1. Lenin, and later Stalin, recognized that what they had erected in post-imperial Russia (and the surrounding territories) was a socialism in its nascent stages. Consistent with Marx's theory, they acknowledged that the Soviet Union was born out of capitalism and thus would need time to take apart old mechanisms and build new ones. 2. It is often not talked about, but early in the Soviet era, there was a strong culture of political participation. The Party made it a point to expand its ranks out to as many working people as possible, especially the young. By the 30s and 40s, there was also a big increase of women in local and regional politics. Why am I mentioning this? Because one of the key arguments against the Soviet Union as a socialist state is that the Party was removed from the people and their interests. Not only did it not represent the people's will, it's makeup was inherently different from the makeup of the general population. Based on the data and the sources I have looked at, this was not the case up until the end of Stalin's era. Party members, from the ground all the way to the Politburo, were almost entirely workers, many of whom started on the factory floor and were elected up the political ladder. This is why I believe there was a dictatorship of the proletariat, at least in the early period of the USSR. The party makeup *did* change drastically by the 60s. Many dedicated communists died between the 20s and 40s, thus thinning the party of committed visionaries. The most serious communists found themselves on the fronts of many military conflicts, the biggest of which was of course World War 2. I don't think it's possible to measure the loss the party took in terms of young, card-carrying Bolsheviks who volunteered to serve on the front. It's not fair or accurate to say that everyone who survived was an opportunist or not a committed Bolshevik, but certainly the balance between "real" communists and politically ambitious pragmatists shifted greatly after the war. I think most people who defend the USSR would be hard-pressed to deny that by the end of its existence, the CPSU lost touch with the people and represented socialist values only in name. That being said, I know many ex-Soviet people today would still prefer the "socialism" of the late Soviet era to the conditions they live in today. 3. Serious threats to the socialist project emerged most notably with Khrushchev's reforms. Whereas Stalin's administration placed great emphasis on collectivization (perhaps in some extents to a fault) and the construction of a socialist economy, Khrushchev and the wave of reformism he unleashed was an explicit re-introduction of market elements to the Soviet economy. Moreover, Khrushchev and co. openly admitted they were in the business of producing commodities to compete with the West and inspire consumerism at home. I need not mention that by the mid to late 80s, an alarming number of officials were entertaining the return of the market outright. Some Russian Marxists today claim that certain groups within the leadership helped create/exacerbate "artificial goods shortages" to then justify market reforms. I would have to do more research on that to evaluate its validity. I am willing to believe though, that by that point in time, the majority of the country's leadership had deviated entirely from any vision of socialism, even in name. 4. The pre-Stalin period was definitely not socialist in my opinion. The earliest organization of the national economy was called "War Communism" and was basically a stratified rationing system. The government did nationalize many industries, but distribution of goods operated under conditions of war (which the Soviet Union was dealing with until 1922). The period after war communism, the NEP (New Economic Plan), was also definitely not socialism. The NEP reopened the market and allowed for private enterprises to run temporarily until the economy could be stabilized. This period also saw the rise in inequality and a return of lavish bourgeois lifestyles in certain affluent social circles. There were three major perspectives on the NEP, but even the pro-NEP camp (they were called the right-wing) did not consider the economy to be socialist. Anyways, I should cut myself off before this gets too long. I think anti-socialist elements penetrated the party by the end of the 40s and the beginning of the 50s, and then maintained a solid foothold until they were able to act on their interests. What are *your* thoughts on this? I'm curious to hear your perspective and why you think Stalin's policies were incompatible with socialism.

@MultiV90 4 года назад

Вы правы. В Советском Союзе не было социализма, т.к. оставалось товарное производство и деньги, а должен быть продуктообмен при социализме.. Сталин рано объявил социализм в 1936 г.

@somedude2433 4 года назад

Hmmmm and 50- 100 million bodies later So vast we can’t even come up with even close number should without a doubt tell you about how much faith you should put into a social scientist. Lol.

@rockstarskolas 3 года назад

Don’t believe everything the CIA tells you

@amazoncloud3229 2 года назад

@@rockstarskolas you can actually becoz 100 million bodies are assumption why would someone assume if there isnt that much. As once stalin said its a statistic.

@rockstarskolas 2 года назад

@@amazoncloud3229 he never actually said that.

@jonarbuckle980 2 года назад

@@rockstarskolas "its a statistic." - Stalin 1953 haha look at this dude

@GoatPengu Год назад

Boys! Look at Stalin's magic! Kill a 100 million and not decrease his population.

@davidmorris9668 4 года назад

Marx's dilemma is that the viewpoint of socialism is one of Utopia, heaven on earth, as things should have been executed (no pun intended) HIS way. Problem with that is that the average person has an issue with himself or herself, and it is called sin. Sin, not in the sense of just imperfection or falling short with God, but also imperfections, which does affect the person's relationship with everyone else. So, how does God and Karl collide and not coincide? It is in the mere fact that Karl never believed in what Jesus (a person of non-fiction in Karl Marx's eyes) did, why He did things the way He did things, and who Jesus claimed to be. How does does Karl and Jesus the Christ clash? Well, let us explore who Jesus is and then perhaps we could come to an understanding as to who WE are in light of Jesus breaking through space and time to live out His life of just a mere 33 years to accomplish what God the Father and He agreed to do as seen throughout the entire Old Testament. Karl could not accept the fact that Jesus was really God in the flesh (Immanuel). He lumped Jesus along with the rest of prophets, swamis, gurus, cult leaders, philosophers, saints, and religious founders, as an ordinary man that had no miraculous existence. If Karl did, he just flat out denied it in bitterness. But nonetheless, he had no stock in the goodness that Jesus meant to bring. Kinda like Mohammed. So, Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, albeit the largest religion in the world (for some reason~sarcasm) was more than a man. Man bleeds because of what he does. Imperfections cast down since the fall in the Garden of Eden existed since that devastating moment of rebellion. (Saul Alinsky, eat your heart out, you!) That rebellion was found at the intersection of trust/faith and lies/disbelief. BAM! SIN! And then separation. The fellowship between God and His creation was destroyed. And ever since then there has been more lies, fighting, disease and death than we could know! Creation moans as the Bible puts it. Even the world wide catastrophic flood didn't fix the issue at hand--sin. Sin, the imperfections and short-fall status, that mankind has bore all these years needed a bigger and better remedy. As the law reiterated by Moses and the Ten Commandments kept the nation of Israel at bay for the most part in keeping with time to usher the Messiah (a.k.a. the Christ), it gave the rest of the known world a glimpse of right living. And when things were done God's ways according to the laws He ordained (not the bureaucracy they heaped up for themselves), the nation flourished and the world knew it. However, as Israel fell into sins like sacrificing their babies to the Molech among the other sins false religions of the surrounding nations, they found themselves in dire straits with God. God never left them like He never leaves us. But they turned their faces away from Him, and once again, rebellion ensued. They turned away from God's word and believed the lies. God chastised them with exile, slavery, death and division. But not forever. God has his appointment in time. Jesus was born not of blood like you and me with a mother and father that had that sin-nature inescapable inheritance that their fathers and mothers passed onto but by the Spirit in such a way that even I cannot explain in great detail. He had to be born differently to not have a part in what we have but to be the way out of what we have. Jesus was perfect. He ended up doing things that no man or magician could ever do. He said things that bore truth and love and without prejudice. He lived out His life treating every man, woman and child as MANKIND, not the byproducts of natural selection. He put sin in its place, yet he elevated men and women back to a status of friendship as He intended it to be. Moreover, Jesus, the Man God, came to die for sins, all sins, that is all the sins we made for ourselves should we relinquish the responsibility to kill ourselves over the matters abhorrent to God. He wants us to live to his glory in freedom from sin where the law doesn't beat us down but live in harmony with the law. This is all possible. People have had their testimonies. People from totalitarian nations whether they be the Soviet bloc or the Islamic State, have had a time where they realized Who Jesus is, and decided to turn from their sin. As a result, these people, all not from the bourgeoisie, but from all stripes and levels of melanin, surrendered their lives to God in Jesus' name. True freedom came from new life. Sin to extravagant, unnecessary, immoral living became life with purpose for these that escaped communism or even were still subject to communism. And this is where the rub ends up all the time: the incompatibility of Christ's existence and purpose and the power needed to bring an artificial heaven with a material twist here on earth. Communists, like Lenin, end up shaking their fist at God in the greatest bitterness even after gaining total power because their denial of God is just to great to the point of killing millions by starvation, homicide and mass extermination of the weak, useless and threatening. The heart of communism/socialism is godlessness. You cannot have God stepping in especially when you would be the bully on the playground, the warlord in a 3rd world country, or the leader of a mass insurrection like George Soros to mislead the nation. You see, as we recognize that freedoms DO come from God, the competing people found in the State or wherever cannot allow for a "higher power". Humanism is the new religion in light of the crisis as we must come together for the "collective good"--whatever that is. The communist party bosses become your god because "God is dead". So, does capitalism (a bedrock system of commerce endorsed by Christianity) really dies in a communist society? NOPE. Communists have to have a form of business to keep the people at bay. It all cannot be like what the technocrats wish--robotic lives. Does the feeling of justice needed really get quenched with SUPER godlike capability to distribute power and money and standard of life equally? NOPE. Because the sin nature is not answered by the materialist's solutions to education, healthcare, and opportunity for all. Reason: Someone especially in power still cannot give up power, and by that, more lawlessness ensues. Finally, do the subjects of fairness and justice like the ones being inflated to create great distress go away? NOPE. The issues of prejudice succeeds in environments where materialism (rooted in Darwinian thought) is the playing card to trump God out of the public square. So, do things get better with Karl and without God?

@helmsylvanian 4 года назад

@jackharold8379 3 года назад

Nice PhD thesis

@scarcelyjumpy7613 2 года назад

What the fuck are you talking about

@jackjack5716 4 года назад

Regardless of what political theories anybody chooses to champion, the fact that the USSR, China, Cambodia etcetera, murdered people in their tens of millions, is not a subject of debate, it is a fact. I can't believe some of the comments on here that seem to disregard this truth. The reluctant admittance of the existence of gulags and some other unfortunate things that had to happen to attain this imaginary workers paradise, seem almost dragged out of the authors. In the UK we all get a vote. I think the labour party were on the far left road and they got hammered in the election (worst result since 1935). I am a working class bloke, but I have noticed that none of my working class friends are remotely interested in socialism/Marxism/communism/Maoism et al. It seems that the people that peddle this stuff are the middle classes. So do they see themselves as our saviours, even though the labour party and/or parties further left of this have not made an impression on the voter. How many of the so called Marxist/socialist brigade will actually give up a percentage of their own wealth to go and help people they perceive as worse off than themselves. I mean directly, not through some politico charity. If you really believe in helping, get your cash and go to a council estate/project, go and find some young mother pushing a pram about and give them your own money. You will be a direct help to make someone's life better. I lived on council estates for years, yet I never ever saw the middle classes helping us directly in that way. I for one has always coveted everything the middle class had and worked hard to get my own place. I doubt any of the bourgeois socialists will give up any of their own social prestige to help those worse off. All this talk of a utopian state is simply la la land talk, that will never be achieved. If any power along these lines is attained, it will come at the price of murder and continue with murder, just like the Soviet Union, Cambodia and China. I think the bourgeois socialists' strength, (whist braying at the bar about 'come the glorious revolution, comrades), lies in the fact that it will never happen. I don't think the working classes are interested in socialism/Marxism. Oh and please don't make the excuse that the USSR, China, Cambodia wasn't 'true' communism or Marxism, because that's like a Nazi telling me Germany in 1939 wasn't 'true' national socialism. I just wish people would speak the truth, when you have 100 million bodies piled up to sate political theory. I am not left or right and I am not a member of any political party, nor have I ever been. Peace!

@patriciawarmoth661 4 года назад

Thank you. They murdered millions to achieve their so called utopian society...which eventually becomes a dictatorship

@patriciawarmoth661 4 года назад

Yes, the present riots we see here in the U.S. is being pushed by spoiled kids basically of Elitists parents. They have everything. Perhaps they think that they are doing good with their idealist brain, that have been molded by Communist professors.

@mahrunn 3 года назад

In the UK people die, and they don't have a label to that. It is cynically called "life". In the UK you were all happy to enjoy the what capitalism stole from the rest of the world.

@jackrutledgegoembel5896 2 года назад

i think one of the reasons marxism is more popular among the wealthier in developed countries is education. higher education exposes students to marx and when you're better off you have more time to be invested in fringe politics. i don't think it's testament to any kind of inherent distaste for socialism by the working class.

@joshhoodrat451 Год назад

@mianfeng4406 3 года назад

The fantasy here is incredible. "between the two classes and so the state is born it is born out of irreconcilable class antagonisms." This does not describe the first cities states, such as the Mesopotamians or the Nomadic peoples who preyed upon them. These societies had several classes. They were pre fuedal. "by contrast the dictatorship of the proletariat is a polity in which political power is exclusively in the hands of the proletariat since the state is used by the dominant class to repress the opposing class in socialism this would mean the proletariat using the state to repress the bourgeoisie". This is historical fantasy. Lenin's group of intellectuals running the Bolshevik state were not Proletariat. Lenin didn't even trust the proletariat. Many didn't obey him except at the barrel of a gun. Lenin didn't represent the majority of Russia. He won the revolution and crushed his opponents. How much more fantasy can there be? This video receives an "F" for historical nonsense and inaccuracy. Socialists want their story to be true so much that they don't fact check Lenin, the moster.

@geomatricfilms4015 2 года назад

We got a bourgeoisie bot in our midsts

@mianfeng4406 2 года назад

@@geomatricfilms4015 You tactfully avoided addressing every point I made. You didn't respond with evidence. You side stepped every point, comrade. This is what I expect from ideologues.

@emanuelneagu14 2 года назад

Any society had masters and subordinates, the way masters were structured might have been different but there was never really something in between. Ahh classic, red fascism *amirite* ? What you said has so little clue to anything than there's no argument needed to reject it, just simple denial. Like you're basically strawmanning revolution organization and its massive popularity, then denying it as horrifying. Russians shoulda stayed serfs, eh?

@emanuelneagu14 2 года назад

@@mianfeng4406 oh you're one of those -right wing- non ideologues. lmao

@jackrutledgegoembel5896 2 года назад

i would like to see a socialist respond to this. this is a good rebuttal

@gofar5185 4 года назад

to the youths of today peacetimes era... you may bring out your self-opinions and self-analyses as much as you like... but... KINDLY refrain from negatively commenting stalin and soviet republics that were faced with wars and millions death in wars and the famine caused by drought... then a nikita with own political agenda succeeded in a time of post war that losses exhaustions of the wars were then felt... the loss of many sons husbands etc. men was then felt... with a nikita hating stalin than rebuilding moscow of whatever stalin failed to do... each republic had to worry of sustenance... america interest to POKE MOSCOW is understandable... once moscow is crushed america britain can totally invade and subjugate east asia and eurasia lands... 2020... stability in eurasia and east asia... better debate on ukraine and poland and belarus so voices of youths be heard... on how they truly understand socialism america imperialism and world politics participation for a BALANCED WORLD... youths who dont truly understand marx-lenin who argue about socialism/communism would end up muddled... groping for a direction...

@smartyjonez5470 4 года назад

Bernie Sanders considers Lenin one of his heroes.

@jackrutledgegoembel5896 2 года назад

when did he say that

@nikasamwkusvili9345 2 года назад

and the other is dark brandon

@TheEMC99 3 года назад

The happy music does no justice to the brutality suffered under this murderous and psychotic regime.

@dinnerwithfranklin2451 3 года назад

"this"? I think you'll find there are hundreds of different kinds of socialism. Many have learned important lessons from the problems with Stalin's USSR. It is sad that capitalists haven't learned to move on as well. Or perhaps perpetuating outdated cartoonish prejudice has a purpose in scaring people away from learning something new.